Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 12 noon Wednesday, February 14; that on Wednesday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with each side controlling 30 minutes; that at the close of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 20, the continuing funding resolution; that all time during the adjournment and morning business count postcloture.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 80, submitted earlier today.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I now ask for its second reading and I object to my own request.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, as a new Member of this body, I must tell you that I am frustrated and disappointed. I am disappointed that the Republicans are blocking a vote on whether we support or oppose the President's plan to add additional troops to Iraq. I can tell you that is the issue of the day. That is what my constituents are asking of us, and I think they have a right to expect that the Members of this body are willing to go on record either for or against the President's plan to add additional troops to Iraq. I have listened to my colleagues. I have listened to my colleagues in committee, and I have listened to my colleagues on this floor, and I think the majority of us want to go on record opposing the surge. Both Democrats and Republicans oppose it. I think there is a bipartisan group that can provide the consensus in this body to go on record against the surge. Several months ago, the President said we were going to have a new plan in Iraq. Shortly after that, the Iraq Study Group came out with its report. To me, this has been the best analysis of the situation that we have before us. The study group is composed of distinguished members, and it was a creation of the Congress. Secretary Baker, who cochaired the group, served in three administrations and has broad experience in government. Mr. Hamilton, who served in the other body on the Foreign Relations Committee, the Committee on International Relations it is called over there, has served with great distinction both as chairman and ranking member. The other members of the committee--they said we cannot win in Iraq through our military efforts. That is not going to bring success in Iraq. The Iraqis must step forward and defend their own country and we must move forward with new diplomatic efforts. We need ``a new diplomatic offensive'' is what they called it, and they said: We need to start that before December 31, 2006. The ability of the United States to influence events within Iraq is diminishing. We still have not seen that new offensive diplomatic effort. GEN George Casey said, ``It has always been my view that heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term.'' We got the President's plan and the President's plan was more of the same, stay the course but with more U.S. military presence. We had 3 weeks of hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee. Military expert after military expert, foreign policy expert after foreign policy expert, told us that there is a deterioration in Iraq and our policies are not working and we need to move in a new direction. We need to come to grips with the fact that the Iraqis must stand up and defend their own country and we must engage the international community much more aggressively. I congratulate Senator Warner and Senator Levin for coming forward with a compromise resolution that allows us to go on record opposed to the increased American military presence in Iraq. I do not agree with everything that is in that resolution, but I do think it clearly puts the Senate on record against the increased surge of American troops in Iraq, and that is our responsibility. That is what we should be doing. We should not hide behind procedural roadblocks to avoid voting on that issue. That is the most important issue facing this Nation today, and we should be willing to vote on that issue. It is not about the President of the United States. It is about this body carrying out its responsibility. That is what each of us has a responsibility to do. Why am I so much against the increase in the U.S. military presence in Iraq? Let me first start with the numbers. The President said the surge would involve 21,500 additional American troops in Iraq. That is not the case. Michael Gilmore, the Assistant Director for National Security at the Congressional Budget Office, testified yesterday before our Budget Committee, and he said it is not going to be 21,500, it is going to be closer to 48,000 additional American troops because the 21,500 are the frontline combat troops. You need the support staff in order to support the 21,500. The budget the President submitted to us said that is going to cost about $5.6 billion, but CBO now says it is going to be closer to $20 to $27 billion of additional cost, just with the surge, in addition to what we are already spending. The President claims his budget is to balance in 5 years, but he has no cost for the Iraq war beyond 2008. The numbers speak for themselves. The President is asking us to go along with stay the course but at a higher cost, both in American military presence and the costs to American taxpayers in this country. The situation in Iraq is deteriorating. Every person who has come before us who is an expert in this area has acknowledged that. There is a civil war in Iraq, and Americans have paid a very heavy price for our commitment in Iraq--over 3,000 dead and many more with life-changing injuries. There have been hundreds of billions of dollars spent. That represents missed opportunities in America--money we need to strengthen our military and national defense. We have used our National Guard and reservists. We should be supporting them, improving the quality of life for our soldiers and for our veterans. Our soldiers have served with great distinction and valor. We owe it to them to get it right. We owe it to them to do everything we can for a successful outcome in Iraq. That is why it is our responsibility, on behalf of our soldiers, to take up this issue. We have lost our focus in the war against terror, we have weakened U.S. influence internationally, and, yes, we have lost other opportunities beyond defense because those hundreds of billions of dollars we spent could have been spent to balance our budget, could have been spent to increase our commitment to national priorities such as education and health care and the environment. But we have lost those issues. The first order of business for us should be to go on record against increasing the American military presence in Iraq. That should be our first order of business. But then we need to do more. I opposed the war from the beginning. I voted against it in the other body. I have been a critic of the President in the management of the war, in his failure to properly engage the international community both before and after going into Iraq, and the decision made by someone in the White House to take out the Iraqi security forces when we went in, that was a mistake. I have been pretty consistent against the President, but we need to do more than pass this resolution. I think we should take up this resolution first. This is the first order of business. But then we need to do more. The Iraqis have a responsibility to take care of their own security needs in the midst of a civil war. We need to engage the international community with a diplomatic and political initiative so the Government of Iraq has the confidence of the ethnic communities. This is sectarian violence. We need to change the way the Iraqis are doing business and help them through diplomatic efforts. We need to engage the international community. We need more assistance in training Iraqi security forces. You can't do it all by Americans; we need the international community. We need the international community to help us with the humanitarian crisis that is in Iraq. The number of refugees, displaced individuals, is in the millions. We need the help of the international community to deal with the humanitarian crisis. You are not going to have peace in Iraq until you deal with that. We need the help of the international community on the infrastructure improvements, the economy of Iraq. The American taxpayers cannot do it alone, and we have wasted a lot of our taxpayer dollars in Iraq. We need the international community to help us. In short, we need a new direction, a plan that includes bringing some of our combat troops home, to make it clear to the Iraqis we are not going to be there indefinitely, to make it clear to the international community we expect the Iraqis to take care of their own security needs. That is what we need. But first things first. Let's take a vote on the President's plan. Let's get that done. Let's stop using procedural roadblocks to prevent a vote in this body but to vote for or against the President's plan to bring more troops to Iraq. Then we should consider additional options to make it clear it is our responsibility to help bring about a new direction for American involvement in Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me take us back to 1993 because I had the opportunity, in 1993, to serve with Senator Bunning in the other body, and we were both on the Ways and Means Committee in which this legislation originally was considered. The tax on Social Security was increased for two reasons. It was done because we wanted to be fiscally responsible and have adequate revenues to pay our bills. But it was done for a second reason, and that is to shore up the Social Security and Medicare trust funds so there would be adequate money in the funds to pay for benefits. We wanted to be responsible. But there was another reason as well. There was another rationale as to why the tax was increased to that rate, and that is to make it more comparable to the tax treatment of private pensions, as to the amount of money the individual has already paid taxes on and that which the individual has not paid taxes on. So there was rationale for what was done in 1993. I wish to make sure that is clear in the record. But the reason I oppose my friend's amendment, Senator Bunning's amendment, is for three basic reasons. First, this amendment will add $200 billion more to our national debt if it were passed. It would increase our deficit by that amount of money, and all of us are interested in balancing the Federal budget and moving toward balancing it, not making the gap wider. We talk about fiscal responsibility, we talk about pay-go, we talk about other rules. Well, let's start with the amendments we are considering. The second reason is I think we have to be concerned about taking our general funds and putting them into the Medicare trust fund. I think that is an issue we should be very concerned about. For the sake of our Medicare system, Medicare Part A is financed through our payroll tax and through the tax on the extra 35 percent. That is dedicated funding sources our seniors can depend upon to be there for their Medicare system. The Bunning amendment takes some of that money out and says: We will use our general funds to pay for it. I say to my colleagues, seniors are going to be a lot safer by knowing we have a dedicated revenue source that goes into Medicare rather than relying on the transfer of funds into the Medicare system. So for the sake of our seniors and the Medicare system and for fiscal responsibility, we should defeat the Bunning amendment. All of us want to provide sensible tax policies for our constituents, but let's do it in an orderly way. This is interesting: I didn't think I would ever say this, but in the Constitution, tax bills are supposed to originate in the other body, and we are not following that order today by considering a tax issue on the minimum wage bill. We would have been better off to keep this bill limited to the minimum wage and consider tax issues when we legitimately have that issue before this body. I urge my colleagues to reject the Bunning amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. No more than 5 to 7 minutes.

Mr. CARDIN. If the Senator will yield, I am prepared to make a unanimous consent request that after I complete my comments, Senator Bingaman will be recognized for 10 minutes, and then the Senator will be recognized for up to 15 minutes, and then Senator Menendez for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I take this time in support of the increase of the minimum wage to $7.25. I compliment Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this issue. I agree with Senator Enzi that this needs to be done in a bipartisan manner, and I am pleased by the way we are proceeding in the consideration of the increase in the minimum wage. I would first make the point that increasing the minimum wage will have a positive impact on small business. I agree with the comments that have been made that small business is the economic engine of our Nation and we need to do everything we can to make it healthier for small businesses in this country, but increasing the minimum wage will have a positive effect. I say that because when you look at the total impact on payrolls in this country, by increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour, it represents about one-fifth of 1 percent of the entire payroll of our Nation. It is not going to have a dramatic impact on the cost of labor. What it does is try to help wage earners in this country who are suffering. I believe in a liveable wage. I believe we need to do much better than a minimum wage, but you need to increase the minimum wage if we are going to be able to get to a liveable wage in this country. We need to do something about the disparities among the incomes of wage earners of America. We had a hearing in the Budget Committee not long ago. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve System talked about the fact that this Nation among the industrial nations in the world has the largest disparity among wealth in wage earners. We need to do something about that. Increasing the minimum wage will have a positive impact on those issues. The fiscal policy group looked at the effect of minimum wage increases of States that have gone above the Federal minimum wage. I represent one of those States. Maryland has increased its minimum wage to $6.15 per hour. The growth rates in the States that have increased the minimum wage are actually higher than those that have the Federal minimum wage, a growth rate of 9.4 percent versus a growth rate of 6.6 percent. Every time Congress has increased the minimum wage in prior Congresses, it has had a positive impact on the overall growth of our economy. When you look at the minimum wage increases, if wage earners at the minimum wage had received the same increase in the minimum wage that the CEOs have received over the last 15 years, the minimum wage earners in fast food restaurants today would be making over $23 an hour. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. Who is affected by it? There are 6.6 million Americans who make the minimum wage. It disproportionately affects women. Although women represent 48 percent of the workforce of America, they represent 61 percent of those who are at the minimum wage. Over 70 percent of the people receiving minimum wage are over 20 years of age, and over one-third are parents--760,000 are single moms. I mention that because today, if you work 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week, and you are a family of 2, you live below the poverty rate. You are doing everything right, working 40 hours a week, don't take a day off for the entire year, yet you are still below the Federal poverty rate. That should not be in America. We can do better than that. Since the last time we increased the minimum wage, the per capita cost of health care has risen by 60 percent, college costs have increased by 51 percent for public schools, debts for students graduated from college have more than doubled, credit debt has increased by 46 percent, and we have the lowest effective minimum wage in 50 years. The last time we increased the minimum wage was 10 years ago. I was proud to have voted for that when I was in the other body. It is now time that we follow or pass what the other body has done and increase the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour over a three-stage process. It is the right thing to do. It is not only right for our economy, it is not only the right thing to do as far as how it affects the individual wage earner in trying to bring about some fairness, but it is the right thing to do in regard to what is correct for our country on civil rights. Let me quote a famous American who said: We know of no more critical civil rights issue facing Congress today than the need to increase the Federal minimum wage and extend its coverage. That was stated by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., March 18, 1966, when the minimum wage was comparable in purchasing power to what it is today when Congress finally increased the minimum wage. We should have increased the minimum wage before now. We have the opportunity to do this in this Congress. Now is the time for us to act. Now is the time for us to work in a bipartisan manner as we have on previous increases in the minimum wage. I hope my colleagues will work on this bill and get it done this week. It is the right thing to do. It will help our economy, and it is long overdue. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have been privileged to serve as a legislator--first in the Maryland House of Delegates, then in the U.S. House of Representatives, and now in the Senate. I appreciate the trust that the people of Maryland placed in me. And I appreciate how important it is that we adhere to the strictest ethical standards. The American people need to believe their Government is on the up and up. I served on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from 1991 to 1997. I served as the ranking member of the adjudicative subcommittee that investigated and ultimately recommended sanctions against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In 1997, the House leadership appointed me to serve as the cochairman of the House Ethics Reform Task Force, with my colleague Bob Livingston from Louisiana. Our bipartisan task force came up with a comprehensive set of reforms to overhaul the ethics process. We created a bipartisan package to change House and committee rules. This was the last bipartisan effort in the House to fix ethics procedures. Unfortunately, the ethics process in the House broke down after that. Here in the Senate, there has been more bipartisan cooperation when it comes to ethics reform. Last year, the Senate voted 90 to 8 to approve a reform bill. And we are getting off to a good start this year, with both the Democratic leader and the Republican leader co- sponsoring both S. 1 and the substitute amendment. Members on both sides of the aisle have been given ample opportunity to offer amendments and have them considered. As amended, S. 1 represents a significant change in the way elected officials, senior staff, and lobbyists would do business--change the American people are demanding. When it comes to how we treat ourselves, this legislation revokes the pensions of Members convicted of bribing public officials and witnesses, perjury, and other crimes. S. 1 bans gifts and meals from lobbyists. It slows down the revolving door by extending lobbying bans for former Members and staff. It eliminates floor privileges for former Members who become lobbyists. And it stops partisan attempts, such as the K Street Project to influence private-sector hiring. The bill makes ethics training mandatory for Members and staff. When it comes to making how Congress works more transparent, this legislation shines a spotlight on earmarks, targeted tax breaks, and tariff reduction bills, to make it clear who is offering them, and on whose behalf. S. 1 ensures that the minority will get to participate in conference committees, and that conference reports can't be changed after they're signed by a majority of the conferees. The bill requires that conference reports have to be posted on the Internet 48 hours prior to consideration so that Members of Congress, staff, and the public can find out what's in them. When it comes to how lobbyists are to act, this legislation puts an end to the lavish parties they throw in our honor at the national conventions. S. 1 quadruples the penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. It requires lobbyists to file quarterly reports instead of semi-annually. And it directs the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives to maintain on the Internet a publicly available database of lobbying disclosure information. I am pleased to report that the bill contains an amendment that Senator Coleman from Minnesota and I offered to require the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives to establish a website freely available to the public that will contain easy-to-understand information on all officially related congressional travel subject to disclosure under the gift rules. During the debate on S. 1, we have heard over and over again former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' famous dictum, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,'' because it is so true. That is the direction we are moving in by passing this bill. That is what the American people want us to do, and that is what we need to do to regain their trust.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on November 7, the voters in Maryland and all around the Nation voted for change. Ten new Senators were elected to this body, six defeating incumbents. After serving the people of Maryland for 20 years in the House of Representatives, I am honored that they have sent me here, to the other side of the Capitol, where I will continue to fight on their behalf. The voters in Maryland and across the Nation sent a clear message on November 7: It's time for a change. Our constituents want things done differently in Washington. They want their interests put before the special interests. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Senate's first order of business is ethics legislation that will bring greater transparency and fairness to the political process in Washington and help restore the American people's confidence in their Government. The American people also called for a reordering of our priorities. They want Congress to respond to the needs of families fighting for the American dream. They want their children to have a better chance at that dream, and they know that achieving it is impossible without stronger communities, access to quality health care, and better educational opportunities. They want to raise their families in an energy-independent Nation with cleaner air and water. They want a country that respects the rights of all, and that celebrates and embraces our diversity. But the loudest cry in November was the call for a change in our policies in Iraq. Americans overwhelmingly want to see our troops begin to come home and they don't want to see thousands of additional troops go to Iraq. Iraq is a country today torn by civil war. Victory in Iraq will not be achieved with our military might. It will come only from successfully aiding Iraq in establishing a government that protects the rights and enjoys the confidence of all its people. It must be a government that respects both human rights and democratic principles. The efforts of U.S. soldiers, no matter how heroic, cannot accomplish these objectives for the Iraqis. For 4 years, our soldiers have helped the Iraqis in ousting Saddam Hussein, providing security to the country and advising and training Iraqi security forces. Our soldiers have performed their responsibility with bravery and devotion to their country. We honor their service. More than 3,000 soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice and many more have suffered life-changing injuries. It is well past time for a change in strategy in Iraq. The circumstances on the ground are worsening. Last June, I laid out a plan for success in Iraq. It started with reducing our combat troop levels and having the Iraqis take greater responsibility for the defense of their own country. It stressed the need for diplomatic and political solutions--with the international community engaged in negotiating a cease fire with the warring militias. I called on greater support from our allies in helping us to train the Iraqi security forces. And last June, I spoke about the need for a negotiated government in Iraq that would represent all of its ethnic people--Sunnis, Shia and Kurds. Last month, the Iraq Study Group came forward with similar recommendations--highlighting the need for the President to start drawing down troops. Many military experts agree, including some of our generals on the ground. As GEN George Casey recently said: It's always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term. On November 7, the American people told us that they too agree that it's time for a change in Iraq. So when President Bush said several weeks ago that he was reevaluating the situation in Iraq and would announce a new policy shortly after the new year, there was great hope that the President, Congress and the American people could come together with an effective new policy to help the people in Iraq and advance U.S. interests. Unfortunately, that was not the case. President Bush has decided to ignore the advice of the Iraq Study Group, many of his own military officials and the American people in making his decision to send 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The President's announcement last night represents more of the same, more ``staying the course,'' just now with more American troops in harm's way. An escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq is counterproductive. Former Secretary of State Collin Powell recently said: I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war. We need a surge in U.S. troops coming home, not a surge in those going to war. We need a surge in diplomatic and political efforts to end the civil war. We need a surge in the urgency of the U.S. engagement of the international community to deal with its regional politics and problems in the Middle East. This Congress has a responsibility to our citizens to evaluate a clear record of the facts in Iraq. The hearings taking place in the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees are vital. But our responsibility goes well beyond the hearings. Individually and collectively, we must act with our voices and our votes, speaking out vigorously and taking action against the continued mismanagement of this war. The American people deserve an opportunity to hear from military experts and administration officials on the consequences of a surge in troops in Iraq. Congress has a responsibility to scrutinize this plan and offer its own recommendations. In October 2002, in the other body of Congress, I voted against giving the President the right to use force in Iraq. I am proud of that vote. As a Senator, I have the responsibility to acknowledge where we are today and take action that is, in my view, in the best interest of Maryland and the Nation. I want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq and in the Middle East. I want our soldiers to return home with the honor that they deserve. I want to work with my colleagues to strengthen our military and to make sure that promises made to our veterans are promises kept. We can achieve these objectives, but they would be more achievable if the President would act on the overwhelming evidence and work with this Congress to truly set a new direction in Iraq. We must begin by starting to bring our troops home, not by escalating troop levels. We need to engage and energize the international community, including our traditional allies as well as other countries in the Middle East. Our primary focus must be extensive political and diplomatic negotiations directed toward the twin goals of a cease-fire and a lasting and stable Iraqi Government. Let that be our mission. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of the time controlled by the majority. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jack Reed be recognized for 10 minutes at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Rangel not just for yielding me this time, but for your friendship. I have enjoyed my years on the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Thomas, I wish you only the best. It has been an incredible experience to serve on the Ways and Means Committee. It is interesting that the last bill that we will be considering, maybe not the last because we will have a trade bill later, but this bill causes me some trouble because of the manner in which provisions have been brought together. It seems to me that we should have had an opportunity to vote on many of these provisions separately. Several provisions that have been incorporated in this bill I have voted against, and I would like an opportunity to do that again. I am troubled because there are some very important provisions included in this legislation. As you know, we let expire many important tax provisions in the beginning of this year, and this bill will reinstate those provisions effective for 2006 and 2007. I am particularly pleased that the research and development credit is extended and improved for 2007. I worked with Mr. Weller from the other side of the aisle so we could make the research and development credit more available for businesses today. I am glad that is included. I am glad that we have extended the deduction for higher education expenses. We need to bring down the cost for higher education for families in this country. On the environmental front, I am very pleased we have extended the provisions for electricity-using renewable sources. That is certainly in our interest as a Nation on energy independence. I am also pleased that on the Medicare side we have found a way to provide relief for physicians update for this year. I hope that we will be able in the next Congress to do that on a permanent basis, and I am pleased also that we have been able to extend therapy cap provisions so that the harsh impact will not be felt by Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. Speaker, there are many provisions in this bill that are extremely important for us to enact before we adjourn sine die. I am pleased that the provisions that have come under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee are provisions that I think are important to be enacted, and I hope we will find a way to ensure that they are enacted before we adjourn sine die.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, if I might first start by saying, the past 2 years I have had the honor of being the ranking Democrat on the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee. I want to thank Mr. Shaw for his help and cooperation during these past 2 years. I think that we have acted responsibly on many initiatives, but, more importantly, we have had an opportunity to talk directly with trade representatives from many other countries in an effort to move forward trade with the United States. I want to thank Tim Reif, the staff director on the Democratic side, for his help during all this period of time. It was a new subcommittee for me, and I can tell you I could not have done it without the help of our staff, Mr. Reif and the others. On a personal note, this will be my last opportunity to speak on the floor of this body, and I want to thank my constituents in the Third Congressional District of Maryland for giving me the opportunity to serve in this body during the past 20 years; 18 of those years I have served on the Ways and Means Committee. The voters of Maryland have now given me the opportunity to move to the other body. I want to thank all of the Members that I have served with over these past 20 years. This is an incredible body of the people's House in which the Members truly are concerned about the traditions of this body and the work that we do. I have had a chance to serve with many Members on the Ways and Means Committee, and we don't always agree on issues. I know that Bill Thomas will be leaving and Clay Shaw will be leaving this body also. Both carried the tradition of the Ways and Means Committee in this body of doing what they thought was right, not only to advance a policy for this Nation, but to make sure that anything that came out of our committee lived up to the highest standards of the Ways and Means Committee and was drafted properly, and there was no misunderstanding of the intentions of what we were trying to do. Many times that was difficult to be done, and I just want to congratulate Mr. Thomas for carrying out that awesome responsibility as Chair of the Ways and Means Committee. I can tell you that I have enjoyed every moment in this body, even those difficult evenings. This is truly a unique opportunity, to be given the opportunity to serve in this great body. Once again, I want to thank the courtesies that I have received from each of the Members, and, again, thank the people from Maryland for giving me this opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give my friend the 20 seconds he wanted.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Maxine Waters.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. This legislation would extend permanent normal trade relations to Vietnam. That is necessary for the United States to be able to benefit from Vietnam's entering the World Trade Organization, and Vietnam is entering the World Trade Organization. It will give U.S. manufacturers and producers more access to the market in Vietnam, which is the fastest growing economy in Southeast Asia. It also provides stronger protection for American companies in regards to intellectual property rights. But I want to make it clear no one should interpret the passage of Permanent Normal Trade Relations for Vietnam as a clean bill of health on their human rights. Vietnam has a long way to go in dealing with human rights issues. Yes, we are pleased that the State Department has removed them from a country of particular concern as it relates to religious freedom. That is an important step forward. But when you look at the list of issues that still remain in Vietnam on human rights, it is a matter of concern for our country. Vietnam fails to provide its citizens with any meaningful vote, and the government censors domestic media sources, blocks foreign radio broadcasts and Web sites, and denies its people the right to form independent organizations, including independent unions representing working people. The government also routinely cracks down harshly on antigovernment protesters. We cannot let these shortcomings go unchallenged. PNTR should not be stopped. That is not the right tool for us to deal with those issues. Vietnam is entering the World Trade Organization. We need to be part of that. We need to engage Vietnam. We need to look for new ways in which we can have Vietnam deal with these human rights issues. It is a good step that Vietnam is entering the World Trade Organization. That is going to be helpful for us in dealing with the human rights issues. I think we need to take note that Vietnam has taken some important steps in the right direction and that we need to make sure that they continue with their entry into the WTO, that more is expected, and that they will adhere to the rule of law. And countries with open economies are more likely to have more open societies. I also support the provisions in this bill that deal with trade preferences for Haiti and Africa. Haiti is the poorest country in our hemisphere. We have a moral obligation to do all that we can to raise the standard of living of its people, our neighbors in the Caribbean, and to support the fragile democracy. The administration of Haiti offers a hope of an improved standard of living for the Haitian people, but only if the United States is prepared to engage with trade and investment and support Haiti with assistance. We have a chance with this legislation to do exactly that. The countries of Sub-Saharan Africa also merit and need stronger trade and investment relationship and our support. The AGOA program has had wide support in this Congress and has been highly successful since its inception more than 6 years ago. Since its passage in the spring of 2000, U.S. imports from eligible African countries have increased by more than 300 percent, AGOA has attracted over $340 million in new investment, and it has helped to create thousands of new jobs in Africa. Thirty-seven African countries now participate in AGOA. I hope that others, including Liberia, will soon be eligible. African exports to the United States under AGOA totaled $38 billion in 2005, an increase of more than 300 percent since 2002. The list goes on and on and on where we have been able to see economic progress through AGOA. The problem is that we can do more and should do more. This bill includes a 6-year extension of the third-country fabric provision, the longest extension for this provision in the history of the AGOA program. It also extends other benefits in the textile and apparel sector from 2008 to 2015, a major improvement. Mr. Speaker, these provisions will help the African workers and businesses compete against China and other competitors, including competitors who suppress their workers' rights and provide subsidies to their industries. That is in the interest of the United States and our manufacturers and producers to have that type of competition from Sub- Saharan Africa. It is for all these reasons that this is a well-balanced bill that will advance U.S. interests, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.