Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from South Carolina for yielding me this time. The budget speaks to priorities. The Republicans are not very subtle as to what their priority is all about. It is about a tax cut. We know that this budget, their budget, says that that is their top priority. We do not have the details as to how it would specifically be organized, but all we have to do is look to last year and know that it will be an irresponsible tax cut, reckless and benefit the most wealthy. And we know that it jeopardizes the Social Security and Medicare and our ability to reduce our national debt. We could take a look at what Senator McCain said when he said it is fiscally irresponsible to promise a huge tax cut that is based on a surplus that we may not have. To bank it all on the unending surpluses at the possible risk of the Social Security trust fund is our fundamental disagreement. We could not agree more with Senator McCain. Now, we have an alternative. The Democratic alternative makes it clear that our priority is to protect Social Security, Medicare, and reduce our national debt, to have targeted tax relief to those who really need it, to make sure that we can continue our investments in education and the priorities that are important for our economic progress to continue. Fortunately, the budget that the Republicans enacted last year did not become law. The irresponsible tax cut was vetoed by the President. It is interesting that that veto message was never brought up before this body for a veto override, because I think my Republican colleagues know how reckless that really was. Mr. Chairman, we are going to have a choice in a few moments to speak to what we think the priority should be for our Nation. Should we put tax cuts first or should we put the Social Security Medicare and continuing our economic prosperity first? I urge my colleagues to defeat the Republican resolution and to pass the substitute.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce our guest chaplain, Dr. Frank Richardson. Dr. Richardson currently holds positions as assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and staff psychologist, Outpatient Psychiatry Department at Baltimore's Kennedy Krieger Institute. In addition to his current responsibilities, he brings to us rich life experiences as a Methodist minister of 9 years in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, a board member of Baltimore's Hamden Family Center, work with the Catholic Charities Programs in San Diego, and as a chaplain intern for a number of schools and hospitals in Massachusetts. This blend of experiences offers us a unique perspective of faith reflecting a wide variety of pastoral views, regional differences, all focused on the special care we must bring to each other and especially our children. It is our honor to have Dr. Richardson and his family with us today.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Child Support for Children Act. This legislation will connect non-custodial fathers to their children and provide a crucial support to low-income, single parent families. When we passed welfare reform in 1996, we dramatically improved the way we enforce payment of child support. As a result of these changes, child support collections nearly doubled in 1999 to $15.5 billion, an increase of $8 billion since 1992. Yet at the same time, we undercut these improvements by requiring a set of arcane rules for how we distribute child support to former welfare families. Worst of all, we repealed the pass-through and disregard of the first $50 of child support paid to families on welfare, and allowed states to retain all child support for these low- income families. This is the wrong policy. Child support is meant to help the children of non-custodial parents, not the state. Passing through child support not only connects fathers to their children, it provides a crucial support to poor families. Considering that the income of the poorest single-mother families has dropped for the first time in eight years, we must ensure that child support payments are used to improve the lives of our poorest children. Federal child support collection and distribution rules are complicated and almost impossible to administer. Most importantly, they discourage payment of support by fathers to their families. With my bill, we have an opportunity to connect fathers to their children, boost the income of poor families, and fix a system in desperate need of change. The Child Support for Children Act would require states to pass through all current support to families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Furthermore, the bill provides a financial incentive to states to discount this income when considering a family's eligibility for cash welfare. For every dollar of child support disregarded by states for the purposes of TANF eligibility, the federal share of TANF collections is reduced proportionally. In addition, the Child Support for Children Act simplifies rules for the assignment and distribution of child support arrears. Although a family that has left welfare is currently entitled to receive most past-due support, several exceptions to this rule prevent former welfare families from receiving much-needed support payments. My legislation will eliminate these exceptions. Finally, my bill would eliminate unfair debts owed to states that discourage the payment of child support to families. For example, states can currently recover Medicaid birthing and other pregnancy- related costs from non-custodial parents. The Child Support for Children Act would prohibit this practice that often discourages non- custodial parents from coming into compliance with a child support order. It is not enough to simply enforce child support. The time is long overdue to reform the distribution and assignment system for child support. The Child Support for Children Act takes desperately-needed steps to promote and reward parental responsibility, and extend modest support to struggling, single-parent families.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, last year almost 800,000 seniors had their social security benefits reduced because of this earnings test. Next year, over 600,000 seniors will be forced to defer their benefits because they had earnings over $17,000. Today we are passing a commonsense change that allows seniors to be able to earn, be able to continue to work, and be able to collect their social security checks. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) pointed out, it will have no effect on the long-term solvency of social security. For the first time, we allow seniors to continue to earn a paycheck without taking it out of their social security check. Seniors who want to continue working should be able to stay in the labor force without losing their hard-earned social security benefits. At a time with a tight labor market and historically low personal savings, it does not make sense to discourage our most experienced workers from staying productive. Yet, the earnings penalty amounts to a 33 percent marginal tax rate on work. This change will particularly help women workers, who have historically had lower earnings and an uneven work history. Work for women becomes even more important, and they should not be penalized by the social security system. Mr. Speaker, let me point out, as my friend, the gentleman from Texas, pointed out during an earlier discussion, yes, many of us would like to see comprehensive reform of our social security system. We should be doing that. But we should not stop making changes that are commonsense, that we can get done, such as removing the earnings test. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the same logic should apply to Medicare. If we are unable to bring forward comprehensive Medicare reform, let us at least agree on prescription drugs. We know in a bipartisan way that we need to do that. The example that we have used on this earnings test, a bipartisan agreement between the Democrats and the Republicans to move this bill, let us do the same on other issues that are important to all of our constituents.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the marriage penalty is wrong, we all acknowledge that. Persons should not have to pay additional taxes because they get married. It is wrong for someone who lives in the Third Congressional District in Maryland, it is wrong whatever Congressional District someone lives in. But let us explore why we have a marriage penalty in the Tax Code. In the 1940s, Congress felt it important to reward marriage by having the joint tax return. That allowed couples who got married to get a marriage bonus; that is they paid less taxes when they were married than they would if they filed two single returns. It was a good policy in the 1940s. In the 1960s, we heard from single taxpayers who were outraged that they had to pay such higher taxes. So the Congress provided relief in the 1960s for the singles, creating a larger marriage penalty. That was wrong to create a marriage penalty. And of course with the economic circumstances, and more and more spouses working and having comparable income, we now have a marriage penalty. We should do something about it. But recognize at least that half the people that are married are receiving a bonus because they are married. So why do I oppose the Republican bill? I oppose it first because it spends $180 billion to provide $80 billion of relief. That does not make good sense. Why are we spending an extra $100 billion that goes to the people who are receiving already a bonus for being married? That is not right. That money we need for Medicare, we need for Social Security; and we need to reduce the national debt. As my Republican friends have told us, this is the first of a series of tax bills that will spend over a trillion dollars, which jeopardizes our ability to maintain our economic progress. My good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), who keeps on mentioning our statistics, I hope he will be at least honest in presenting this information and point out that his bill does not provide any additional relief until 2003. That is the first year that this bill helps the person who itemizes their tax returns. And this bill does not fully implement that until 2008. So there is going to be no difference between an approach that deals with an itemized deduction or one that deals with spreading the brackets until at least that year. Let us be honest with our citizens as to the difference here. What I would hope we would do is be committed to a budget. Yes, we are upset because there is no budget today. We do not know how this all fits together. Let me just give my colleagues one example, if I might. Let us take a Member of Congress, who happens to be married and where the spouse does not work, and one who is single. Today, the married Congressman pays $4,300 less in taxes because he is married. What the Republican bill would do when fully implemented in 2008 is provide an additional $1,400 of tax relief for that Member of Congress. I do not think that is right. Let us target the money to the people that are paying the penalty. That is what we should be working together to do. I urge my colleagues to work together to solve the problem.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. I want to thank the gentleman from New York for offering this substitute, because I think it clarifies the circumstance. We all favor dealing with the marriage penalty and helping those that have a marriage penalty. But let us concentrate on the differences between the Democratic motion, the alternative, and the Republican bill. The Democratic alternative provides $95 billion of relief. The Republican bill is twice as expensive. The Republican bill spends $100 billion on those who receive a marriage bonus, that is, they pay less taxes because they are married, not more. That is wrong. The Democratic alternative protects the 44 million people who receive Social Security and Medicare recipients by allowing us to move forward with reducing debt and protecting Medicare and Social Security. During general debate, I gave the example of a Member of Congress, one who is married, and his spouse has no income, versus a single Member of Congress who is not married. The single person pays $4,300 more in taxes. The married person has a $4,300 marriage bonus today because that person is married. They pay less taxes. The Republican bill, we give that individual $1,400 more in tax relief. That is not right. We should be dealing with the people who pay a penalty. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), the sponsor of the bill, points to a difference, he says, between our approach and the Republican approach, talking about those who itemize their tax returns. But what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has not said, that for tax year 2000, for tax year 2001, for tax year 2002, there is no difference for those who itemize their tax returns. I see he is on the floor, and perhaps he will clarify that point. Because the Republican bill does not start to take effect in 2003 as it relates to those who itemize their deductions and does not get fully implemented until the year 2008. Mr. Speaker, let us come together, Democrats and Republicans. We can do this. The Democrat alternative is one-half as costly. It is focused to those who are really paying the penalty. It gives us a chance to come together. The administration supports it. It is an opportunity for us to really help those who are paying the penalty, not those who are receiving the bonus. That is what we should be doing. We can come together on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the alternative.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it was last October when this House, this body acted on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Our colleagues ask why are we bringing this motion forward? We are bringing it forward because it is time for Congress to act. There is hardly a week that goes by that I don't receive letters and telephone calls from constituents that have been hurt by their HMOs, that have been denied access to emergency care and denied access to specialists, whose physicians spend more time on the telephone arguing with HMOs than treating their patients. It is time for this Congress to act, and that is why my friend from Arkansas is offering this motion. This bill has been in conference for too long. It is not a new issue. It has been with us now for several years. Let us schedule a meeting of the conference committee. Let us meet and act on the bill. We do not need to wait until April or May. This issue has been debated. People are being hurt. We know we need national legislation. It has been acknowledged in a bipartisan way by Democrats and Republicans alike. So let us put the politics aside, and let us get down to work and bring this legislation forward. That is the essence of the motion of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). I urge my colleagues to support the motion. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 2990. The American people have been waiting for years for Congress to enact meaningful, enforceable HMO reform. With more than 120 million Americans enrolled in managed care plans across the nation, we cannot afford to delay action any longer. Mr. Speaker, our citizens worry that to save money, insurers are skimping on quality and endangering the health and lives of their members. Our papers and our mailboxes are filled with accounts of patients who are denied care on the basis of cost. Medical decisions are being made by insurance company accountants rather than by doctors and their patients. Right now, our country has an illogical patchwork of state laws. This patchwork has prevented the enactment of national standards that guarantee all patients a set of basic rights. The right to be fully informed of treatment options, the right to emergency care based on a prudent layperson standard, the right to see a specialist, the right to be treated by the drugs that their doctor prescribes for their condition, the right to appeal health plan decisions to an independent review board, and the right of action when they are harmed by a health plan's decisions. Our conferees have two bills before them that must be reconciled. Only the House bill, H.R. 2990, contains these important basic rights. Overwhelmingly, this body has supported not only the Norwood-Dingell Bipartisan Managed Care Improvement Act, but also my distinguished colleague from Michigan's motion on November 3 to instruct the conferees to adopt this bill as the final legislation. Without further delay, it's time for this Congress to present a bill to the President that provides meaningful standards for all Americans in managed care plans. I urge adoption of this motion.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I ask the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to explain her request. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving my right to object, let me quickly point out how pleased I am that we were able to reach a bipartisan agreement and get this legislation moving, the Foster Care Independence Act. This represents a real victory for the 20,000 children who age out of foster care every year. I want to especially congratulate the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), chair of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, for the steadfast dedication to helping children and her incredible work with the other body so that we, in fact, could accomplish this legislation before we adjourn sine die. I would also like to express my appreciation to the Clinton administration for their help in drafting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, although we are acting on this bill, H.R. 3443, it started as H.R. 671 back in February of this year and became H.R. 1802 in the work of our subcommittee. I finally want to also acknowledge the fine work of our staff Ron Haskins and Nick Wynn in the Committee on Ways and Means, the work that they have done. I also want to join in recognizing Senator John Chafee for the work that he did in regards to this bill along with Senator Rockefeller. He and Senator Chafee were incredible in seeing this legislation pass. Senator Chafee's untimely death is a loss to all of us. Senator Chafee's unyielding commitment to improving the well being of all children and his willingness to reach beyond party and ideology will sorely be missed. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important. As I indicated earlier, it is commitment by this body and by the Congress to say to children aging out of foster care that they are not going to be lost at the age of 18.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. It contains some very important provisions. I want to applaud the Clinton administration for the initiative and bringing forward the Ticket to Work legislation. It removes impediments from disabled individuals being able to return to work. It will save us money. If we get people off of disability to work, as they want to work, this legislation is very important. Secondly, the tax extenders are very important. We all want to extend the tax provisions that would otherwise expire, whether it be for research and development or some of the other provisions that are in the bill. But, Mr. Speaker, I must express my concern about a provision that was added that deals with the fair allocation of organs that would block HHS's regulation in this area. I believe that that provision will jeopardize the health of critically ill patients, and it is also inconsistent with our last vote on the budget omnibus bill. The HHS regulation went through a process. It listened to the public; it listened to the Institute of Medicine and came forward with recommendations that tries to take geographical politics out of organ distribution and do it to people who are the most critically in need. I hope we can follow the compromise that was in the last bill because that was a fair compromise that was reached that requires HHS to go out and listen and explain the regulations to the public. It is inconsistent with the provisions that are in this bill. I hope that HHS will not have to follow the language because it is inconsistent with the last bill because, otherwise, I think we are going to jeopardize the health of the critically-ill individuals.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time, and I urge my colleagues to support his amendment. I hope everybody will put this in proper perspective. This bill deals with $150 million over the next 5 years. It incorporates by reference the charitable choice provisions that are in the 1997 Welfare Reform bill that has spent $16.5 billion per year. What the Edwards amendment does is make it clear that this money must be spent in a constitutionally acceptable way. We have by reference in this statute that it must be spent consistent with the establishment clause of the United States Constitution as it relates to religious freedom, separation of church and state. That is already in this bill by reference. Read the Edwards amendment. The Edwards amendment says that it goes to the establishment clause and incorporates the Supreme Court test, as it is in the Kendrick case. So the pervasively sectarian test is the test on whether we have violated the establishment clause. This is not whether faith-based organizations will participate or not. They do participate under the bill or under the Edwards amendment. The Edwards amendment makes sure that we spend the money in a constitutionally acceptable way. I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment so that we can get faith-based institutions and entities using these funds but using it an acceptable way so we can build upon the program and really help the people that this legislation is aimed at. It is a good amendment. It clarifies. It prevents it from causing problems that otherwise could occur. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I also support the amendment and compliment my friend from Ohio. It strengthens the bill, and we certainly would like to see it included.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple points, if I might, in response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee. This amendment carries out the commitment we made to our States when we enacted welfare reform, and that is to give flexibility to our States to be able to deal with the problems. The gentleman is suggesting that we should restrict our States somehow on how they feel it is best to deal with the problems by imposing this 30 percent restrictional use of funds for low-income custodial parents. The Committee on Ways and Means, in its version of the bill, included this amendment. It did not put the 30 percent restriction in. Mr. Chairman, what really concerns me is that it is not limited to 30 percent; it is limited much below that. In fact, it is unlikely that any resources will get to this targeted group unless this amendment is adopted, because it has to compete with two other groups of individuals; one, those that have been on TANF for 30 months or less and, number two, the commitment we made to help children aging out of foster care. They are both subject to the same 30 percent. There are not going to be any resources available for low-income custodial parents who are playing according to the rules. We would be telling them to go on welfare to get the help. That does not make any sense. We should be rewarding people who want to play by the rules, who want to be able to get a good job. The States should have this flexibility. I listened to the proponents of welfare reform and I voted for it. We talked about trusting our States to be able to have the flexibility to deal with the job. Let us not discriminate against low-income people because they have not been on welfare. And let us live up to our commitment we promised to children aging out of foster care so there would be resources available for that group. And let us also deal with the people who have been on welfare for less than 30 months. Support this amendment. It is a good amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out, I support the gentleman's amendment. But I took the time because I have had some conversations with the gentleman concerning this amendment. I support it, but a literal reading of it could be interpreted to link visitation with the payment of child support. Now, I know that the author of the amendment does not intend that to be the consequence. We are in a position where we cannot amend an amendment on the floor under the rule which we are operating under. So I heard the gentleman's explanation, and I fully agree with what he is intending to do that we want to make sure the noncustodial parent has a more active role in the child's life, which is the language used by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a more responsible relationship. I would just point out, my conversations with the gentleman is that we will work, as this bill works its way through the process, to make sure there is no unintended consequences of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the amendment, but I am not aware of anyone in opposition, and I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the Members would read the bill and read the Edwards amendment before they vote on it, because I understand there are deep philosophical differences among Members as to what we would like to see in regards to the use of faith-based institutions in carrying out programs sponsored by the Federal Government. But that is not what really is involved in the Edwards amendment. The Edwards amendment is very simple. It says that we use faith-based institutions but they must comply with the constitutional standard in regards to establishment of religion. Let me, if I might, just quote from CRS because I think that really summarizes it best. It says: If the organization's secular functions are separable, government can directly subsidize those functions. However, if the entity is so permeated by a religious purpose and character that its secular functions and religious functions are ``inextricably intertwined,'' that is, the entity is ``pervasively sectarian,'' the Court has construed the establishment clause generally to forbid direct public assistance. That is what the Edwards amendment is saying. It is not trying to take sides quite frankly on whether it is a good public policy or a bad public policy to get our faith-based institutions involved in the fatherhood initiative. What it is saying is, let us adhere to the establishment clause, let us give guidance to the grantees to make sure that they comply with the constitutional standards. That makes sense. I would hope that everyone would say that we should comply with the Constitution. It is not taking sides on the underlying issue. Mr. Chairman, in closing, this is one of the amendments, but let us not lose sight of the bill that is an extremely important bill. It is supported by the administration. By letter dated today, the administration urges a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3073. It is supported by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by the Center for Law and Social Policy, by the Children's Defense Fund. This is a very important bill. I would hope my colleagues will support it when we have a chance to vote on it a little bit later.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) is misreading the Kendrick decision. The Kendrick decision dealt with the program management, not the sponsoring entity, in that they can be a sectarian institution that carries out a program that is not pervasively sectarian in the way that it is managed. In fact, we have found that in the management of TANF funds that religious institutions have been able to comply with this standard. And the reason why we think it is important to include it in statute is to make it clear that we want to make sure that the Constitution is in fact adhered to, the establishment clause. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Edwards amendment does not repeal charitable choice. It recognizes the need for faith-based institutions to help us carry out the fatherhood initiative. We recognize that also in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 that we want faith-based institutions to help us in getting people off of welfare to work and we want faith-based institutions to help us in our Fatherhood Counts Act. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) pointed out, and correctly so, that what we have done in this bill is referenced the 1996 Act. We referenced the Welfare Reform Act; and she states quite correctly that, under that Act, no funds provided directly to institutions or organizations to provide services and administrative programs shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization. That is in the 1997 law and, by reference, is incorporated into the fatherhood initiative. But there is another section to that law of 1997 which is referenced, and it says that the programs must be implemented consistent with the establishment clause of the United States Constitution. That is in the 1997 Act and, by reference, is incorporated in Fathers Count. What the Edwards amendment does is make that section consistent with the Kendrick decision, which is a Supreme Court decision that interpreted that to mean that the entity cannot be pervasively sectarian. So the Edwards amendment is clarifying the 1997 statute to make it absolutely clear that we want faith-based institutions but it must be within the constitutional framework. I think it is a clarifying amendment. Quite frankly, I do not think it should be a controversial amendment. I think that it should be accepted as clarifying what we all agree, that we want faith-based institutions participating, but it must be in compliance with the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I take the time now to explain why I will be offering an amendment when we get to the amendment section. The amendment that I am offering was actually in the Ways and Means reported version of the Fathers Count legislation. It deals with changes in the welfare-to-work with custodial parents who are below the poverty level, not receiving TANF funds, being eligible for welfare-to- work funds. The difficulty is that the bill that is on the floor today would restrict that to no more than 30 percent of the funds available. The problem is that there are other programs that fit into that 30 percent, including children aging out of foster care that we want to make sure the States have maximum flexibility. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment to give the States maximum flexibility in how they manage the resources available to not only get people off of welfare but to keep people off of welfare and having good jobs and not being in poverty. So I would hope my colleagues would support this amendment when it is offered during the amendment stage of debate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who will be offering an amendment dealing with the charitable choice provisions.