Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is right for Congress to ask the President to implement a plan to start bringing our troops home from Iraq. That would be the right message to send to the Iraqis: they must assume the responsibility for security of their own country. Congress needs to have a real and meaningful debate on the future role of the U.S. military in Iraq as we approach the fourth anniversary of the congressional authorization to use force in Iraq. Congress should take seriously its obligation to oversee our military. The majority has given us one option with this resolution, which is to make a political statement in support of President Bush. The House leadership has refused to allow amendments to this resolution. It is interesting that we are committed to building democratic institutions in Iraq but we are not willing to let the Members of Congress vote on alternative policies in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform that are putting their lives on the line every day deserve the full attention of Congress. Mr. Speaker, we all agree with those parts of the resolution that: honor Americans who have taken part in the global war on terror, including our first responders, diplomats, military, and intelligence officers; honor the sacrifices of American, Iraqi, and Afghan military forces, and the families of those troops; congratulate the Iraqi people for holding free and fair elections, under a new democratic constitution; supports the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and declares that the United States will prevail in the global war on terror. We should be debating whether or not and how to withdrawal or redeploy United States Armed Forces from Iraq, and members should be permitted to offer amendments to this resolution. We should not simply be asked to ``stay the course.'' Congress must reclaim its oversight responsibility and ask serious questions about the Iraq war and reconstruction effort. I am convinced that we must change course. The repositioning of our troops would help us to regain the focus on the war on terror. The President came to Congress in October 2002 and asked Congress to authorize force against Iraq. I voted against giving the President this authority, and parted ways with most of my colleagues in Congress. This was not a popular vote at the time, but it was the right vote. I was proud of my vote then as I am now. I have remained an outspoken critic of President Bush's policies in Iraq. There was no connection between the events of 9/11 and the Saddam Hussein regime. The Bush Administration distorted and misused intelligence information about Saddam Hussein's actual WMD capacity. Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, and did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. During our debate in 2002, I stated on the House floor that I had ``grave concerns'' about a unilateral, pre-emptive military attack by the United States which could ``endanger our global coalition against terrorism.'' I also stated that ``we cannot overlook the massive cost and effort that the United States would have to undertake in a post- Saddam regime.'' Finally, I stated that ``the United States will need the help of its allies as it attempts to transition Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy.'' I regret to say that I was correct on all these counts. The President prematurely disbanded the Iraqi security forces. After overthrowing Saddam, the President protected the oil ministries, but not the weapons and ammunitions depots, which were looted by insurgents and are now being used to attack American forces. The President did not provide the heavy armor needed for our troops and equipment. The President did not plan for an insurgency. Finally, the President invaded Iraq and then attempted to reconstruct Iraq without seeking any significant assistance from the international community. We have paid a heavy price. More than 2,500 American soldiers are dead. More than 18,000 American soldiers have been injured. We have spent over $300 billion to date on the Iraq war and reconstruction. Mr. Speaker, in December 2004 I visited Iraq as part of a Congressional delegation. I wanted to see the situation on the ground in Iraq firsthand. It is an experience that I will not soon forget. I thanked our troops for their service, including troops from Maryland and from our Maryland Guard and Maryland Reserve. Our troops have performed with honor and distinction and have done everything that we have asked of them. Our troops deserve to come home to their families and a grateful nation. Yet the President still says that we must stay the course. We need to immediately change course in Iraq, which must include the drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq. We currently have approximately 130,000 troops in Iraq, roughly 20 percent of which are Guard and Reserve troops. Military experts have recommended a drawdown of at least 10,000 troops a month. It is not necessary for us to announce a specific timeline for the withdrawal of our troops. It is reasonable to expect, however, that one-half of our combat troops should come home by the end of 2006, and that all of our combat troops should come home by the end of 2007. We should make sure that our National Guard are the first to come home, as they were never intended to be used as the primary military force for overseas conflicts. Our Guard units should be made available for local needs. The drawdown of American troops from Iraq back home will allow us to achieve certain necessary objectives. First, we will bring our troops home to their families, and take them out of the middle of a civil war. Our soldiers should not be used as police officers. Second, we will send an important message to the Iraqi government to take responsibility. U.S. troops cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely. Third, we will remove a powerful propaganda and recruitment tool for Al Qaeda that the United States is an occupation force. Fourth, we would be able to stage our troops outside of Iraq to work with our allies and the international community to fight the war against international terrorism. The repositioning of our troops would help us to regain the focus we have lost on the war on terror. Finally, bringing our troops home would help us preserve the strength of our all-volunteer military by improving troop morale and boosting our efforts to improve recruitment of new soldiers. The United States should convene an international conference on Iraq which would include the government of Iraq. As the sole remaining superpower, the United States needs to mend diplomatic fences. Such a conference should achieve three primary goals. First, it should produce a verifiable cease-fire. Second, it would establish a mechanism for the completion of the training of Iraqi security forces. Finally, it would coordinate all international humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to the new Iraqi government. Finally, we must honor our commitment to our military and veterans' families, which will strengthen our recruitment efforts for new troops. Our volunteer military is in danger. The morale of our troops is suffering due to longer tours of duties and budgets that have not fully funded veterans' benefits, particularly in meeting their health care needs. Our recruitment efforts have fallen short in the military, as both the Army National Guard and Army Reserve have only met roughly 80% of their recruiting goals. The answer is the proper deployment of our troops, and the full funding of our veterans' benefits, particularly their health care needs. These benefits are particularly relevant considering we have 18,000 wounded veterans so far as a result of the Iraq war. We must also bear in mind that estimates indicate that 50,000 war veterans will experience battle fatigue and post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and will require extensive treatment and rehabilitation. Mr. Speaker, I call on the President to immediately change course in Iraq, including the implementation of a plan to start bringing our troops home from Iraq.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, the Bush Administration's policy on Iraq has been based on distortions and misjudgments. Prior to the invasion, I fought to prevent this war. I parted with most members of Congress and cast a vote against the resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. The President misled the American people into believing there was a link between Iraq and the terrorist attacks of September 11. I understand the frustration and heartbreak that have led many Americans to conclude that it is now time for us to remove ourselves from this misguided quagmire and bring our troops home. That is why I have called on the President to change course. America simply cannot continue indefinitely to pay the high costs in both lives and dollars to stay on the same failed course in Iraq. In December 2005, I voted for H.R. 1815, the FY 2006 Defense Authorization bill, which the President signed into law in January 2006. Section 1227 of that bill, United States Policy on Iraq, states that it is the sense of Congress that ``calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraq sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.'' It is time for the President to implement this policy. We should not have American troops in the middle of a civil war. President Bush is wrong to say that we should stay the course in Iraq. We need a new direction in Iraq. The President must present a strategy to Congress to draw down American troops from Iraq and return them home to their families. This strategy must ensure that our National Guard troops are the first to come home, as they were never intended as our primary force for overseas military missions. We need our National Guard troops to be home and available for our local needs. Military experts have recommended a drawdown of 10,000 troops per month. Although we should not announce a specific timeline for troop withdrawal, it is reasonable to expect that we should have half of our combat troops home by the end of 2006, and all of our combat troops home by the end of 2007. Even with such a drawdown of American troops in Iraq, this supplemental appropriations is necessary in order to insure the proper funding of our military operations during such a drawdown. Bringing our troops home allows us to achieve certain necessary objectives. First, we will bring our troops home safely to their families and remove them from being in the middle of a civil war. Second, we should send an important message to the Iraqi government to take responsibility for their government--after they ratified a new constitution, held elections, and installed a new government--because American troops cannot and should not remain in Iraq indefinitely. Third, we would remove a powerful propaganda and recruitment tool for Al Qaeda that the United States is an occupation force. Fourth, we would be able to stage our troops outside of Iraq to work with our allies and the international community to fight the war against international terrorism. The repositioning of our troops would help us to regain our focus on the war on terror. Finally, bringing our troops home would help us preserve the strength of our all-volunteer military by improving troop morale and boosting our efforts to improve recruitment of new soldiers. I have repeatedly called for a change in America's policies so that we can bring our troops home as soon as possible. In December 2004, I visited our troops in Iraq. I thanked them for their service and listened to their stories. It was a moving experience for me. I honor the sacrifices they and their families are making each day. The men and women of our armed forces are demonstrating tremendous dedication to our nation through their performance in Iraq. These brave soldiers have put their lives in harm's way for our country, and we are forever grateful for their service. This bill also contains crucial provisions, which I support, that would provide nearly $20 billion for Hurricane Katrina relief, including funds for housing, community planning and development, flood control, and small business loans. In addition, the House should take up H.R. 4197, a comprehensive Hurricane Katrina recovery bill introduced by the Congressional Black Caucus. I am encouraged that the bill provides nearly $500 million to address the ongoing genocide in southern Sudan and Darfur. These funds are critical to meeting the immediate needs of victims of the Darfur crisis, such as shelter, health care, and access to water and sanitation. Sudanese government-backed Arab militias have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of villagers, and they have burned entire villages. Up to two million refugees have fled this genocide to neighboring countries, but the small, poorly-equipped, and underfunded African Union (AU) force cannot offer them adequate protection. This bill provides needed funding to help transition the AU peacekeeping operation to a United Nations mission. It is also encouraging that in April the House passed H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which I co-sponsored, and which I urge the Senate to take up without delay. Mr. Speaker, this emergency supplemental is a necessary measure that will provide essential support for our troops in their arduous mission in Iraq, vital funding for the global war on terror, and desperately needed assistance for our own Gulf region and the many Americans who have been uprooted by Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to commemorate the 25th anniversary of From the Heart Church Ministries. Since its beginnings in 1981 with only 24 members, From the Heart Church Ministries has provided spiritual guidance to the Prince George's County community through worship services and television and radio broadcasts. Founder and Pastor Reverend John A. Cherry is a nationally acclaimed minister whose message of hope and committed spiritual teaching have changed the lives of many. Under his steady leadership, From the Heart Church Ministries has grown from its modest beginnings as a storefront church to one of the largest churches in Prince George's County, providing services to over 27,000 members. Reverend Cherry's spiritual message is also broadcast Sundays and during the week, providing religious guidance and teaching to thousands more. Reverend Cherry's 25 years of service have established a foundation of strong biblical teaching rooted in faith and love--a foundation that his son, John A. Cherry II, will build upon. Reverend John A. Cherry, II will officially be installed as pastor during the anniversary celebration. I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me today in recognizing From the Heart Church Ministries' 25th Anniversary and applauding the accomplishments of Reverend John A. Cherry. His legacy of spiritual leadership will allow his son to continue his work and influence the hearts and minds of a faithful community for years to come.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we need comprehensive appropriations earmark reform. In the last 10 years, the number and cost of federal earmarks have spiraled out of control, from 4,000 in 1994--totaling 24 billion dollars--to more than 15,000 items last year, valued at more than 47 billion dollars. Earmarks are out of control. We should reform the manner in which earmarks are approved by Appropriations and Authorizing Committees, with an eye toward increasing transparency and accountability. But what we are voting on today is a series of amendments, chosen by one member, in an ad hoc, piecemeal attempt to reform the appropriations process one earmark at a time. While this is a useful exercise to point out the problem, having one member pick and choose among existing earmarks is as arbitrary as the underlying process. I will fight for genuine, comprehensive appropriations reform, so that we can be truly open and accountable to our constituents.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues from Maryland: Roscoe Bartlett, Elijah Cummings, Wayne Gilchrest, Steny Hoyer, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Chris Van Hollen and Albert Wynn to pay special tribute to America's first Catholic Cathedral, the Basilica of the Assumption in Baltimore, which has undergone a two-year restoration in preparation for its bicentennial celebration on November 4, 2006. The Basilica was the first great metropolitan Cathedral in America and the first major religious building to be constructed following the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The construction of the Basilica reflected a fundamental shift in how government viewed religious freedom--a shift from worship in an established church to worship that was based on the individual's choice and conscience. It stands as a reminder of America's openness to people of all faiths. Designed by Benjamin Henry Latrobe, architect of the U.S. Capitol, the Basilica is considered an architectural masterpiece and one of the finest 19th Century buildings in the world. The Basilica in Baltimore, home to the country's first Catholic Archdiocese, is designated as a National Historic Landmark and National Shrine. We commend the Archdiocese for undertaking a major restoration of this extraordinary religious and civic landmark. After decades of slow deterioration, the Basilica is finally being restored to its original grandeur. In the future, Americans of all faiths will be able to visit this historic treasure and reflect on its history and its place in our Nation's struggle for religious freedom. We hope our colleagues in the House will join the Maryland Delegation in honoring the Basilica during its bicentennial year of celebration and in expressing our sense of pride that the Basilica is part of our Nation's history.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained and missed two rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 194 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 195.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to commemorate the 25th Anniversary of From the Heart Church Ministries. Since its beginnings in 1981 with only twenty four members, From the Heart Ministries has provided spiritual guidance Prince George's County community through worship services and radio broadcasts. Founder and Pastor Reverend John A. Cherry is a nationally acclaimed minister whose message of hope and committed spiritual teaching has changed the lives of many. Under his steady leadership, From the Heart Ministries has grown from its modest beginnings as a storefront church to becoming one of the largest churches in Prince George's County, providing services to over 26,000 members. Reverend Cherry's spiritual message is also broadcast Sundays and during the week, providing religious guidance and teaching to thousands more. Reverend Cherry's twenty five years of service have established a foundation of strong biblical teaching rooted in faith and love--a foundation that his son, John A. Cherry II, will build upon. Reverend John A. Cherry II will officially be installed as pastor during the anniversary celebration. I urge my colleagues in the U.S House of Representatives to join me today in recognizing From the Heart Ministries' 25th Anniversary and applauding the, accomplishments of Reverend John A. Cherry. His legacy of spiritual leadership will allow his son to continue to his work and influence the hearts and minds of a faithful community for years to come.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained and missed three rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 160; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 161; and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 162.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission, I note that tomorrow marks one of the major events in the struggle for human rights around the globe. Thirty years ago a courageous band of human rights defenders in the Soviet Union founded the ``Moscow Helsinki Group,'' dedicated to monitoring Soviet compliance with the Helsinki Final Act, an historic agreement containing important provisions on human rights. When General Secretary Brezhnev signed the Helsinki Final Act, or the Helsinki Accords, on August 1, 1975 on behalf of the USSR, Soviet officials believed that they had gained an important foreign policy victory. Indeed, there were some provisions that Soviet diplomats had sought assiduously during the negotiations among the thirty-five nations of Europe and the United States and Canada. However, the West, for its part, had insisted on certain provisions in the area of human rights and humanitarian affairs, including the right of citizens ``to know their rights and to act upon them.'' With this commitment in mind, Professor Yuri Orlov, a Soviet physicist who had been involved in the defense of human rights in the Soviet Union previously, called upon several of his similarly-minded colleagues to join together in an organization to press publicly for implementation of the Helsinki Accords in their country. Eleven brave individuals answered the call, and on May 12, 1976, at a press conference called by famed human rights campaigner and peace activist Dr. Andrei Sakharov, the creation of the ``Public Group to Assist in the Implementation of the Helsinki Final Act,'' or as it became later known, the ``Moscow Helsinki Group'' was announced. The Moscow Helsinki Group committed itself to collecting information about implementation of the Helsinki Accords in the Soviet Union and publishing reports on their findings. During the first six years of its activity, they produced almost two hundred specific reports, as well as other announcements and appeals. More activists joined with the passing months. Similar Helsinki monitoring groups were established elsewhere in the USSR, including in Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia and Armenia. Other groups focused on specific human rights issues such as psychiatric abuse or religious liberty joined the movement. The Moscow Group became an important source of information for individuals and groups seeking assistance in the area of human rights. Naturally, the Soviet leadership rejected such ``assistance'' and undertook to suppress the Moscow Helsinki Group. Members were fired from their jobs, ``persuaded'' to emigrate, castigated in the press, and subjected to KGB searches and interrogations. When such reprisals proved mostly ineffective, members were charged with political crimes and given lengthy sentences in labor camps of the Soviet Gulag, usually with an additional term of ``internal exile,'' forced resettlement, typically somewhere in Siberia or the Soviet Far East. Ten years after the founding of the Moscow Helsinki Group, 14 members had been sentenced to a total of 69 years in labor camp or prison, and 50 years internal exile. Anatoly Marchenko, a founding member and veteran dissident, died during a hunger strike at Chistopol Prison in December 1986. By 1982, the Moscow Helsinki Group had been forced to suspend its activities in the face of intense KGB repression. But while Moscow had rid itself of some troublesome dissidents, the spirit of Helsinki was not so easily quashed. Ludmilla Alekseyeva, an exiled member of the group, testified in the U.S. Congress in October 1985 that ``for victims of human rights abuses in the Eastern bloc, Helsinki remains the main source of hope . . . and a rallying point in their struggle for freedom and peace.'' Just a little over 4 years after she spoke those words, the Berlin Wall fell. The Moscow Helsinki Group was re-established in 1989. Reinvigorated through the work of new and veteran members, it is one of the most respected human rights organizations in the Russian Federation today. Alexeyeva, who returned to Russia in the early 1990s, following the demise of the Soviet Union, serves as chair of the group. Mr. Speaker, we would do well to heed the wise words of Andrei Sakharov when he noted, ``The whole point of the Helsinki Accords is mutual monitoring, not mutual evasion of difficult problems.'' A key to the ultimate success of the Helsinki Process has been the involvement of civil society--courageous human rights defenders like those who established the Moscow Group--willing to speak out on behalf of others. I remain deeply concerned over human rights trends in Russia, especially the adoption of regressive laws affecting fundamental human rights and freedoms. I join my colleagues on the Helsinki Commission in congratulating the Moscow Helsinki Group on the occasion of its 30th anniversary of dedicated service in the defense of fundamental freedoms and liberty.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that I agree and have been talking to my seniors that they need to, and I quote, ``review carefully all the options that are available to them and determine whether enrollment in a Medicare prescription drug plan best meets their needs.'' I have had over 30 town hall meetings since this bill has been enacted, and at these meetings I have had people from our Office on Aging to help seniors go through the different options to make a decision whether they need or they don't need to join a plan and which plan they should join. But, Mr. Speaker, the problem is, the information that was made available to them when this bill was passed was wrong. The information is extremely confusing. In my State we have 47 or 48 different plans with deductibles that range by great numbers, and it is very difficult for my constituents to understand this bill. I have gotten e-mails from people in Maryland who tell me the bill is very confusing, and they should at least be allowed more time to make a decision. I got e-mails saying that this one constituent is going to make a decision, but he is not sure whether it is right or wrong because he needed more time and he doesn't have that time. So, Mr. Speaker, yes, we want our constituents to make the right decision, and we urge them to focus in on making the right decision, but it is absolutely wrong that we are not extending the May 15 deadline. Our constituents need more time, and we certainly shouldn't be imposing a lifetime penalty because a senior perhaps makes the wrong decision in part because of our failure to get the right information to our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that we would be using the time now to correct this bill. This bill is structurally flawed. We need to make this a real benefit within Medicare. We need to take on the cost of prescription drugs. We need to deal with the coordination of the benefits with retiree benefits so that retirement plans don't terminate retirees' prescription drug coverage. We need to do all that. We need to cover drugs that aren't covered today. I could tell you of a person in my district, Barbara Waters, who had her drugs for epilepsy covered before this bill was passed, and now it is not covered because it is under a class of drugs not covered under Medicare. We need to correct that. There is a whole group of organizations that are urging us to correct the bill. So I appreciate the fact that we have a resolution on the floor urging seniors to focus on what is in their best interests under the law we passed, but what we should be doing is having a bill on the floor giving our seniors more time, eliminating this penalty and then correcting the mistakes that we made when we passed this bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me speak on behalf of our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Levin pointed out our national debt, the actual debt now is $8.3 trillion, $28,000 per person in this country. What we have is a birth tax, and we are adding to that birth tax. This bill, as advertised, adds another $70 billion or $69 billion to the debt, but when you look at it, it is much higher because we are using gimmicks again. We remove the income ceiling on Roth IRAs, and we count that as a revenue gain of $6 billion when we know, in fact, it will lose revenue for the Treasury to the tune of $1.3 trillion a year. So we are using gimmicks and we are going deeper and deeper into debt. We are doing this for what? Why do we not have offsets? You look at the extension of dividend exclusion, the dividend exclusion does not end until 2008. Why do we not work out a program to pay for these extensions? We tell our students they have got to pay more for their college education, and that we are not going to provide the relief because we do not have the money. We tell our veterans we cannot provide the health care that we promised them because we do not have the money in the budget; but the tax cuts, that do not expire until 2008, we can put in this bill, knowing full well it is going to add to the deficit of the Nation. Where is fiscal responsibility? Why are we not looking after our children and grandchildren? Why are we adding more debt to what they are going to have to pay? We could have a responsible bill that deals with the alternative minimum tax, that deals with selective inequity that we have in the Tax Code, and we could pay for every dime of that tax cut, as we should, so we do not add to the deficit of the Nation. In the last 5 years, we have accumulated more debt held by foreign countries of U.S. debt than in the first 225-year history of America. It is a matter of national security that we pay our bills. This bill moves in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed one vote on May 3, 2006. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 781 (Rollcall 120).

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a missed opportunity for the House to address lobbying and ethics reform in a responsible manner. Our ethics process in the House of Representatives is broken, and the actions of some members and lobbyists have brought discredit to the reputation of this body. That is why I am so disappointed in the response of the House leadership in bringing this extremely weak bill to the floor today, using a partisan process which deliberately shuts out debate on the most pressing reform issues before this House. 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 Speaker Gingrich. In 1997 the House leadership appointed me to serve as the Co-Chairman 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 which the House adopted. This was the last bipartisan revisions of House ethics procedures. Our bipartisan legislative package in 1997 also included a provision which authorized non-members to file complaints against members, provided that the complaints were in writing and under oath. Unfortunately, the full House rejected this proposal, and for the first time the House closed its doors to the receipt of outside ethics complaints. In March I testified before the Rules Committee and urged them to allow consideration of my amendment, which I subsequently filed with the Committee. I am disappointed that the Committee would not even allow my amendment to come up for a vote in the full House, and that it also refused to allow the House to consider the alternative approach offered by Mr. Shays and Mr. Meehan to create an independent Office of Public Integrity (OPI) to receive and investigate complaints from non- members. Our ethics process has broken down in the past. Indeed, when our task force was meeting and deliberating in 1997, the House took the extraordinary step of imposing a moratorium of the filing of new ethics complaints. I am afraid we have reached a similar crossroads in the House today. Some members have recently talked about ethics ``truces'' in which the political parties have voluntarily agreed to place a moratorium on filing ethics complaints, regardless of the merits of the charges. The Chairman of the Ethics Committee was removed from his position, perhaps as retaliation for agreeing, on a bipartisan basis, to repeatedly admonish the former House Majority Leader for ethical misconduct and transgressions. Outside good government groups have repeatedly called for non-members to be permitted to file ethics complaints. In December 2004 the Congressional Ethics Coalition, a nonpartisan group which included Common Cause, Democracy 21, Judicial Watch, and Public Citizen, issued a statement which called on Congress to authorize non- members to file ethics complaints against members of Congress. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is the only committee of the House with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. The Committee can only work effectively in a bipartisan manner. In March the Senate passed strong ethics and lobbying reform legislation by a vote of 90 to 8, and I am disappointed that the House is not given the similar opportunity today to pass a strong bill. I will support the Motion to Recommit which would substitute the text of H.R. 4682, which I have co-sponsored, which would strengthen our ethics and disclosure standards. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Matrys' and Heroes' Remembrance Day, which memorializes the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis during their campaign of genocide in World War II. We mourn the innocent lives lost and vibrant communities destroyed while the world shamefully stood silent, and honor those heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto who faced certain death when they refused to submit to the Nazi's planned extermination of their community. To this day, Mr. Speaker, many European countries have failed to right the past wrongs of the Holocaust by failing to adequately redress the wrongful confiscation of property by the Nazi and communist regimes. These seizures took place over decades; they were part of the modus operandi of repressive, totalitarian regimes; and they affected millions of people. The passage of time, border changes, and population shifts are only a few of the things that make the wrongful property seizures of the past such difficult problems to address today. While I recognize that many obstacles stand in the way of righting these past wrongs, I do not believe that these challenges make property restitution or compensation impossible. On the contrary, I believe much more should have been done--and can still be done now--while our elderly Holocaust survivors are still living. Today I also want to sound the alarm about a disturbing trend that Jews face today: a rising tide of anti-Semitism throughout the world. I serve as the Ranking Member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, CSCE, commonly known as the Helsinki Commission. In 2004 I traveled as part of the U.S. Delegation, with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, to attend a special conference in Berlin addressing anti-Semitism, held under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE. The OSCE is a 55-nation regional security organization which promotes democracy and human rights in Europe, Central Asia, and North America. Before traveling to Berlin, I made a point to visit Auschwitz for the first time. I was shocked and stunned to see how efficient the Nazi operation was: they wanted to maximize the number of individuals that could be killed. Seeing the remains of that factory of intolerance, hate and death, it reaffirmed how we must continually stress the importance of advancing understanding throughout the OSCE region and the entire world. We must tirelessly work to build understanding and respect between different communities to prevent future acts of prejudice and injustice. At the Berlin Conference, I had the privilege of participating as a member of the U.S. delegation, and I gave the official U.S. statement in the session on tolerance. The meeting ended with the issuance of the Berlin Declaration of Action. The Berlin Declaration laid out a number of specific steps for states to take to combat the rising tide of anti-Semitism, including: striving to ensure that their legal systems foster a safe environment free from anti-Semitic harassment, violence or discrimination; promoting educational programs; promoting remembrance of the Holocaust, and the importance of respecting all ethnic and religious groups; combating hate crimes, which can be fueled by racist and anti-Semitic propaganda on the Internet; encouraging and supporting international organizations and NGO's; and encouraging the development of best practices between law enforcement and educational institutions. As we commemorate Yom Hashoah, let us honor the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust by pledging to fight intolerance, hate crimes, and violence in our community and around the world. We shall never be silent again.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I agree with many of the comments that have been made on this floor about the dilemma we have now in Iran as a result of our policies in Iraq. I opposed the U.S. involvement in Iraq. I thought it was wrong. And as one of the consequences, it has caused us to lose focus on our war against terror and to make it more difficult for us to deal with Iran. Having said that, I think this is an important bill that we need to move forward. It is an important effort to make it clear that Iran cannot be permitted to become a nuclear weapons power. Madam Speaker, let me point out some of the proudest moments in U.S. history have been the use of sanctions. I think back about U.S. leadership and imposing sanctions basically against the Soviet Union which allowed people to be able to leave that country. I think back about the U.S. leadership in South Africa when it was an apartheid country and how we imposed sanctions against South Africa and were accused of causing problems in doing that. But what we did was bring down the apartheid Government of South Africa without the necessary use of force. So I think it is critically important that we stand united in our efforts to impose sanctions against Iran to make it clear that we cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. Make no mistake about it, Iran is trying to do that. We know Iran is trying to do that. We know about the vote of the IAEA of 27-3 that referred Iran to the Security Council, that they are enriching uranium clearly to develop a nuclear weapon, that they have supported terrorist organizations, the Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad. The Iranian President has made it clear that he wants a world without the United States and he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map. These are serious threats that we need to take seriously. Therefore, we need effective sanctions against Iran so they change their way. This legislation is an effort to strengthen the sanctions against Iran by removing the sunset, by taking away some of the discretion and removing the sanctions unless Iran changes its way. Madam Speaker, I look at this as a way to engage the international community to work with us. We did not do that in Iraq, and that was one of the fatal flaws of our policy in Iraq is that we did not engage the international community. This legislation says, look, we have a chance with Iran to get them to change their ways through the imposition of sanctions and isolating the country, but we do need the help of our friends around the world. We do need them to work with us. It is in the interest of the civilized world to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power. We need their help. Working with them, we can add another proud history to America in its international leadership of saying yes, we are going to use our international power, our diplomatic skills, to change the direction of a country that otherwise would become even a more dangerous risk to the United States and the civilized world. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act. This bill strengthens U.S. sanctions on Iran, and requires that they remain in place until Iran has dismantled its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Iran is actively seeking weapons of mass destruction, which poses a threat to the national security of the United States and to the world. Iran has repeatedly violated its obligations to the international community, specifically the 1973 Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In 2002 the world learned that Iran was illegally continuing to develop a secret nuclear program, which has led to years of negotiations with the international community. Last August, however, the Iranian government resumed its conversion of uranium. In February the IAEA voted 27 to 3 to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council for further action. In March the U.N. Security Council directed Iran to its nuclear activities. Iran defied the United Nations, and made an announcement that it had enriched uranium to reactor-grade levels, which is a precursor to the development of a nuclear bomb. This week the U.N. Security Council is meeting to evaluate Iran's behavior, and I urge the Security Council to use all the tools at its disposal to pressure Iran to meet its commitments to the IAEA. I am pleased that the legislation today establishes mandatory sanctions for contributions to development of weapons, limits the President's flexibility to waive sanctions, authorizes funding to promote democracy activities in Iran, and supports efforts to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Finally, this bill eliminates the sunset of sanctions against Iran, and requires them to remain in place until the President certifies that Iran has dismantled its WMD programs. I am pleased that the United States has continued to work closely with the international community--including the European Union, Russia, and China--on this urgent matter. I urge the President to keep Congress fully and current informed on this matter, as called for in this resolution. I urge the international community to impose economic sanctions designed to deny Iran the ability to develop nuclear weapons. We cannot allow a rogue nation such as Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Iran has actively supported terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Iran has funded suicide bombers in Israel and militant organizations elsewhere. Many of these terrorist groups are seeking weapons of mass destruction (WMD) so that they can kill or injure thousands or even millions of people. The Iranian President has publicly expressed his hope for a world without America, his desire to wipe Israel off the map, and has denied the existence of the Holocaust.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to America's working men and women. These are the mineworkers, firefighters, nurses, janitors, postal employees, and hundreds of other workers who often are exposed to serious injury or even death while on the job. Friday, April 28, is Workers Memorial Day, a time when we remember the thousands of Americans who have been killed or injured while doing their jobs. I also want my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me today in taking a moment to remember Jeffrey Wroten, a Maryland Division of Correction's officer who was killed in January while guarding a hospitalized patient. This also has been a deadly year for coal miners. In January, 12 miners died during the Sago Mine tragedy, and, Nation Wide, 24 coal miners have lost their lives this year. For the first time since 1994, there has been an increase in workplace fatalities. In 2005, more than 5,700 workers were killed on the job and more than 50,000 Americans died from occupational diseases. We pledge to them that we will rededicate our efforts to fight for safe working conditions; we pledge to them that we will fight for decent wages; and we pledge to them that we will make sure they have good pensions and health care benefits. I also want to commend the many unions throughout the Nation that work everyday to protect American workers. The best way to help ensure worker safety is to make sure workers have the freedom to join unions so they can fight for their rights. I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in honoring America's working men and women by ensuring they have the rights and protections they need to stay safe on the job.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Dick Davidson, President of the American Hospital Association, who has announced that he will retire on January 1, 2007. I have been privileged to know Dick Davidson for decades, since he headed the Maryland Hospital Association and I was a member of the Maryland House of Delegates. During his 22 years as the first president of MHA, Dick believed strongly in the shared obligation between state government and hospitals to ensure that communities' health needs are met, and he put that belief into practice. MHA was a proactive partner with the Maryland state government in creating innovative approaches to issues of health care costs and quality, most notably the Health Services Cost Review Commission, and the MHA Quality Indicator (QI) Project, the largest national and international effort to measure and compare indicators of hospital performance. More than 1,900 health care organizations in the United States and abroad now participate in the QI Project. I am pleased to note that the tradition of collaboration established by Davidson continues at MHA today. In 1991, Dick Davidson was named President of the American Hospital Association, which represents 4,800 hospitals and health systems throughout the nation. At AHA, he continued to foster the tenet that hospitals and the federal government could together create ways to better serve the health needs of their communities. He assembled what is often considered the finest team of policy professionals and advocates in Washington. Davidson's tenure will also be remembered for promoting diversity in health care leadership. In 1994, AHA founded the Institute for Diversity in Health Management to expand leadership opportunities for ethnically, culturally, and racially diverse individuals, and increase the number of these individuals entering and advancing in the field. Over the past decade, the Institute has awarded more than $110,000 in scholarships to undergraduate and graduate students, and placed candidates in residencies and fellowships at health care organizations across the country. Among health care providers, payers, analysts, and policymakers, there is strong consensus that Dick Davidson's leadership has contributed to the improvement of the quality of health care across America. For that, the health care community and, indeed, our nation are grateful. I also want to congratulate Dick's wife Janet, who will undoubtedly be able to spend much more time with him beginning in 2007. Janet was herself a fixture in the Maryland state house for many years, having worked for current Senate President Mike Miller and former Senate President Steny Hoyer, among other distinguished elected officials. I would ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in wishing the entire Davidson family--including their three sons--Mike, Andy, and Rick--all the best as the Davidson era at the American Hospital Association draws to a close.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Eve J. Higginbotham on her appointment as the new Dean and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs at the Morehouse School of Medicine. Dr. Higginbotham has long been a valued member of my Health Advisory Committee, where she has demonstrated remarkable leadership abilities. Dr. Higginbotham received her S.B. and S.M. degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and her M.D. from the Harvard Medical School. In 1994, Dr. Higginbotham was appointed as Chair of the Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Department at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, becoming the first woman in the United States to head a university-based ophthalmology department. Previously, she served on the University of Illinois faculty as Chief of the Glaucoma Clinic and an Associate Professor and Assistant Dean for Faculty Affairs at the University of Michigan. Dr. Higginbotham has also served on numerous boards, including those of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and the Helen Keller Foundation. Her strong commitment to improving health care is evident from her work with the Friends of the Congressional Glaucoma Caucus Foundation, where as Director of Outreach Services she established a program through which medical students screen patients in their communities for glaucoma. The program, Student Sight Savers, has been a great success and is currently in operation at more than thirty medical schools nationwide. Throughout her career, Dr. Higginbotham has received numerous awards and honors, including the AAMC Humanism in Medicine Award in 2004. She has received the Suzanne Veroneaux-Troutman Award and the Roman Barnes Achievement Award. She has consistently been listed among the Best Doctors in Baltimore and America for over a decade. The Morehouse School of Medicine (MSM) is an historically black institution established to recruit and train physicians, scientists, and public health professionals committed to primary health care. Founded in 1975, the Morehouse School of Medicine admitted its first class in 1978, became an independent, four-year medical school in 1981, and was fully accredited in 1985. Since its founding, it has graduated 602 physicians, 68 percent of whom are primary care practitioners and 84 percent of whom practice in economically depressed areas. I am confident that Dr. Higginbotham will help continue and further shape the legacy of the Morehouse School of Medicine as it works to fulfill the needs of America's under served communities. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Higginbotham is both a renowned expert in her field and an outstanding public servant. I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to congratulate Dr. Eve J. Higginbotham on her new role as Dean and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. This week, Maryland's loss is Atlanta's gain, and I wish to stand with the many Marylanders who are grateful to Dr. Higginbotham for her tremendous service to our community.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Earth Day 2006, which was celebrated last Saturday, April 22. Earth Day was established in 1970 by Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, who firmly believed that education was the key to changing public attitudes about the environment. Since then, Earth Day celebrations have spread throughout America and to the rest of the world, with more and more people getting involved in efforts to clean and nurture the environment. Despite Earth Day's popularity and the many programs that were created to improve the planet's health, our world is still wrought with environmental problems. We still face many pressing issues, such as protecting coastal waters from offshore drilling, preserving the Alaskan Tongass Rainforest, the Redrock lands in Utah, and resources in the Rockies. Closer to home, we must continue to focus our efforts on restoring the Chesapeake Bay. The Bush Administration's budget proposes drastic cuts to vital initiatives, including the Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watershed Grants Program, the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office, and several Farm Bill Conservation programs that help farmers reduce nutrient runoff entering the Bay. Last year, I was pleased to participate in the Living Shoreline Grants program, which involved growing seagrasses in my office that I later planted in Annapolis' Back Creek. I am also pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Enhancement Act, which will reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program and implement new water quality standards for the Bay's tributaries. I have long supported a comprehensive, long-term, more environment- friendly energy policy that places emphasis on increasing the availability and use of renewable energy, as well as promoting greater energy efficiency that new technologies can provide. The United States needs to utilize new technologies that focus on renewable energy sources to reduce the nation's dependency on foreign oil and high gasoline prices. Earth Day celebrations serve as important reminders that we cannot take America's natural resources for granted. I urge my colleagues to join with me in doing our part to preserve, protect, and restore our planet's natural treasures.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee who is known for his commitment to tax fairness and fiscal responsibility.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, people of this country are looking to our leadership for change. They want us to move in a different direction. They are tired of our spending money and going further into debt. They want to see us do something about the national debt and the deficit here in Washington. They want us to stop digging the hole deeper. They want to see a commitment to reduce the debt. They want to see tax fairness. They understand that the tax bills that we have passed in recent years provide average tax relief for those under $50,000 of $435 a year while those between $500,000 and $1 million enjoy $22,000 of tax relief. They want to see tax fairness. They want economic opportunity so this economy can grow. They know that the R&D tax credit that allows companies to invest in the future needs to be made permanent. And they certainly want to see more savings in America. They understand that we have a negative saving rate. We know that young people and people of modest income have a very difficult time putting any money away for their retirement savings and too many companies do not offer incentives for their employees. They want to make sure that we extend the saver's credit that allows them to put money away. Mr. Speaker, my motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 4297 deals with these opportunities. When I noted this motion last night, I was not aware that the conference is close to an agreement, and I use that word reluctantly because, as I understand it, there has been no conference. It is basically the Republican members of the conference committee have been negotiating; and according to the most recent Congressional Daily, tax writers are within striking distance of a reconciliation deal. We have received a red alert from the Concord Coalition. The Concord Coalition, which is a nonpartisan body whose sole purpose is to try to bring some sense in this Congress in dealing with the deficit, says watch out. The deal that is being struck, ``instead of choosing among competing priorities,'' and I am quoting from the Concord Coalition, ``identifying revenue offsets or otherwise scaling back the cost of the tax cuts to comply with the budget, Congress is considering gimmicks and legislative maneuvers to circumvent budget limits and increase the deficit even more than the budget already allows. Evading the limits in the budget resolution would make a bad budget worse.'' I could not agree more with the Concord Coalition. So what does my motion do with the tax legislation that is in conference? It provides for four instructions to our conferees: First, it says to the maximum extent possible within the scope of conference, insist that a conference report will neither increase the Federal budget deficit nor increase the amount of debt subject to the debt limit. I would think that every Member of this body would endorse that instruction to our conferees. I was just listening to the debate on the budget resolution and heard how we need to rein in the deficit. Well, this is our opportunity to act on that intent. This motion makes it clear that we want to rein in the deficit and the debt to the maximum extent possible. The 2006 budget had a deficit of $371 billion. The 2007 presented budget will increase the deficit by $423 billion, and I am not even counting the surpluses from Social Security that should not be counted in this. According to the Joint Tax Committee, the conference may very well bring out a report that could increase the deficit by another $80 billion. Enough is enough. Let's make a commitment to America's future. Let's recognize how dangerous this deficit is to America's future. Let's understand that in order to pay our bills, we have to ask foreign governments to buy our bonds, governments that don't agree with our foreign policy, who buy our bonds not because it is a good investment, but because they want to make sure that the exchange rate between their currency and ours is favorable so they can send more products into America, taking more jobs away from America. Yes, this is a matter of national security, and that is why this motion speaks to this bill that could make the circumstances much worse. Let's tell our conferees not to do that. The second part of the motion to instruct deals with two very important tax credits that are scheduled to expire. One is the savers credit. The other deals with the R&D credit. I mention both of those because it is important that we deal with these two credits that are scheduled to expire. My motion tells us to take the longer period that the other body agreed to. Let's extend for 3 years the savers credit. I want to make it permanent. At least let's make it 3 years. The R&D that allows businesses to reinvest to create jobs, we should make it permanent. Let's make it at least 2 years. But, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you my fear. I would urge my colleagues to support this motion. Let me tell you my concern. The Concord Coalition is admonishing us that they believe that we will be keeping these politically popular tax cuts hostage to new legislation, that it won't even be in this legislation, in this conference. Instead, we are going to put it in another bill to make the deficit even greater. This should be our priority, extending these tax credits. This may be our last opportunity to speak to that. So I urge my colleagues who profess to support the savers credit and R&D credit to support this motion. This motion also deals with the Alternative Minimum Tax, to make it clear we need to extend the Alternative Minimum Tax. If we don't, taxpayers will soon be getting information from the IRS, instructions to let them know that their taxes for 2006 are going to be substantially higher than they are for 2005. For you see, Mr. Speaker, if we don't correct the alternative minimum tax, and let me remind you the bill that passed this body did not include that, if we don't include it at this stage, because this is the bill that is going to be on the way to the President, we are going to find in excess of 15 million of our constituents across the country are going to wake up and find they now have tax liability they didn't expect, not because they are trying to avoid taxes, but because of action taken by us which increased liability for the Alternative Minimum Tax. So it is critically important. This is our last opportunity to say before the conference is likely to take action that the Alternative Minimum Tax is our priority. Then the fourth thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to make choices. We can't do everything. I was listening to the chairman of the Budget Committee tell us that we can't give everything to everybody that everybody wants. Well, I hope he will vote now in the first vote after his speech to carry that out. We can't do everything that everybody wants and still bring the budget deficit down. The capital gains and dividend provisions, they are not set to expire until 2008. Let me remind my colleagues of that. We have plenty of time to take that issue up. So my instruction includes holding off on that issue so that in fact we can bring in a conference that is in compliance not only with the letter, but the spirit of our commitment to deal with the budget deficit. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion. I believe this is what almost everyone in this body has been speaking about. Now let's see how they vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recount a story of hard work and dedication, a story of perseverance in the face of daunting odds, a story of achieving what once seemed impossible. In short, Mr. Speaker, I want to recount a story of how the University of Maryland Women's Basketball Team defied all expectations to claim the 2006 NCAA Basketball championship. Go Terps! Mr. Speaker, this is a David and Goliath story. Duke has performed well in the NCAA tournament, having reached the Final Four in three out of the last five seasons. The team's starting line-up consists of numerous seniors, including 6-foot-7 center Alison Bales. The Terps, by contrast, have never competed in a national title game. The Terps' starting line-up has no seniors and two freshmen, including 5-foot-7 guard Kristi Toliver. Mr. Speaker, last night's game was the stuff of legends. The more experienced Duke took immediate control of the game, and built a 13- point lead with less than 15 minutes left in the game. Rather than succumb to frustration, the Terps patiently chipped away at the lead, with tough baskets from forward Laura Harper and freshman Marissa Coleman. With just seconds left in regulation, the Terps managed to cut the deficit to three points, setting the stage for the game's electrifying conclusion. Mr. Speaker, with 6.1 seconds left, Toliver dribbled around two screens and then nailed an audacious 3-pointer right over Bales. The shot capped the Terps' 13-point comeback and sent the game into overtime, where the team sealed its stunning 78-75 victory with confident free throws from Kristi Toliver and Marissa Coleman. Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my congratulations to each of the members of the Terps Women's Basketball Team for their outstanding performance last night and all season long. The members of the 2005- 2006 Maryland Terps championship team are: Charmaine Carr, Marissa Coleman, Shay Doron, Kalika France, Laura Harper, Crystal Langhorne, Christie Marrone, Ashleigh Newman, Aurelie Noirez, Jade Perry, Angel Ross, Kristi Toliver, and Sa'de Wiley-Gatewood. The fact that 5 players on the team averaged more than 10 points per game this season exemplifies the Terps' selfless and team-oriented approach to the game. Last night's performance exemplifies their ability to play with grace under pressure. Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my congratulations to Coach Brenda Frese who, in only her fourth season as head coach, guided this splendid team to last night's remarkable victory. I also want to extend my congratulations to Assistant Coaches Jeff Walz, Erica Floyd, and Joanna Bernabei, as well as to Director of Basketball Operations, Mark Pearson. Finally Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not put other collegiate sports teams on notice for the future: Fear the turtle!