Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to correct the record from my friend from Pennsylvania. If AMT relief was a priority, you would have put it in budget reconciliation, because you know that is the only legislation that stands a chance of passage to the President. You have had 12 years to fix it and you have not. There is a statute of limitation on how long you can go back to when the Democrats were in control. In regards to the $1,400 you referred to for families under $75,000, I question your numbers. I will tell you, their share of the national debt as a result of your fiscally irresponsible policies will far exceed the $1,400 in tax relief. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to emphasize a point that Mr. Levin made. There is no question that the overwhelming amount of relief provided by the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 go to the highest income people. That is not tax fairness. There is modest relief that goes to middle income families, very modest relief. Every dollar and more of that will be eaten up by these increased debts and deficits. The interest costs alone, the share of the National debt all will make whatever relief is provided in here meaningless. And when you take a look at the impact that the deficits are having on our economy and you look at how middle income families are struggling in order to meet their needs, in order to be able to afford the increase in college education and energy costs and health care costs, they are falling further and further behind. So for the sake of middle income families, I would urge my colleagues to support this motion in the conference to bring back a responsible product. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear. I offered this amendment not as a Democrat, and I don't ask you to vote for it because you are a Democrat or a Republican. I offer it as an American who is concerned about the debt of this Nation. I want to see this Nation change direction. I don't think we are heading in the right direction on our economic policies. I think this debt is very dangerous and I want to change direction. Let me also just say to my friend from Pennsylvania, words have consequences, so please be careful obviously the words we use in this body. We have a responsibility. It is wrong to say that this motion increases taxes. You are using that because we don't extend in our motion a tax provision that will expire in 2008. Well, Mr. English, I could say that you are raising taxes by voting against it because you are only extending the R&D credit to 2007, where that is even shorter than 2008. And I would acknowledge to you that would be a wrong thing for me to say. So please be careful with the language you use. You know that this motion does not increase taxes whatsoever. A question was asked: What is the appropriate level of taxation? Well, this motion asks: What is the appropriate level of debt? Is anyone going to be concerned about the bottom line debt of our Nation? Isn't there a limit? Now it is $8.9 trillion. Whether we lose revenues through taxes or spend it through the appropriation process, it costs the people of this Nation the same burden to their economy. No, I am not happy about the economic progress that we have had over the last 5 years. I am not happy about our trade deficit of $720 billion. I am not happy about how many jobs we have exported to other countries. You look at the loss of jobs in America, good jobs, and you look at the job creation, and it is not equal. This has been the worst performance of any administration in modern times as far as the growth of good jobs here in America. So, no, I am not happy about our economic performance. But what I do ask my colleagues to do is look at this motion that is before you. Read it. It says that we don't want to increase the debt. I would hope all my colleagues would agree with that. It says we want to extend the R&D and the saver's credit to the maximum extent possible. I would think, using my friend from Pennsylvania's argument, that voting against that you are voting for a tax increase. And I don't believe you are, but I just point out the illogic of that argument. And then it says, yes, we have to make choices, and the Alternative Minimum Tax should be our top priority. Why? Because that expires this year. If we don't correct it in 2006, our constituents are going to have to be paying the Alternative Minimum Tax. And you can keep on saying you will pass legislation to do it, but you know if it is not in the budget reconciliation, if it is not protected by a point of order, we are not going to get it done. We know that. That is why we are saying let's put it in the bill that is going to make it to the President's desk that is going to be signed into law. Let's not play games with this. Let's do what is right for the people of this Nation. So if you read this motion to instruct, you are going to find that if you are for reducing the debt, if you are for the saver's credit, if you are for the research and development credit, and if you really want to provide Alternative Minimum Tax relief, and then lastly, if you want to avoid a calamity that may in fact be happening if the reports are correct about what is happening in the tax conference, where it is even going to be worse than what we thought, that we are going to be using gimmicks and accounting procedures in order to say that we fit within the budget reconciliation when in fact we don't. I have been told one of the provisions is the RSAs, the retirement savings accounts, which is going to count money as had, even though we are going to lose revenue in the long term. That is not what we should be doing here. Let's act responsibly. Let's act in the best interest of all the people in our community. Let's not just vote one way or the other because you are told that that is the partisan thing to do. Let's do what is right for this country. Let's speak out about this deficit. Let's speak to the priorities that should be in our Tax Code. This is our opportunity to do it, and I urge my colleagues to support the motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4297, the tax reconciliation conference report. The form of the motion is as follows: I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4297 be instructed-- (1) to agree to the provisions of section 102 (relating to credit for elective deferrals and ira contributions), and section 108 (relating to extension and modification of research credit), of the Senate amendment, (2) to agree to the provisions of section 106 of the Senate amendment (relating to extension and increase in minimum tax relief to individuals), (3) to recede from the provisions of the House bill that extend the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains that would otherwise terminate at the close of 2008, and (4) to the maximum extent possible within the scope of conference, to insist on a conference report which will neither increase the Federal budget deficit nor increase the amount of the debt subject to the public debt limit.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) in introducing this resolution we are considering today. As Mr. Shaw pointed out, last year the United States negotiated a bilateral trade agreement with Saudi Arabia which paved its admission into the WTO in December. A key commitment as part of the United States' agreement with the Saudis was that they would not have any further boycott with Israel, either primary or secondary. It was also clear that they would not invoke the nonapplication provision of the WTO agreement, meaning that it agreed it would treat all WTO members, including Israel, equally. Yes, the primary responsibility was to eliminate the secondary boycott; but in not invoking the nonapplication provision, it agreed to treat all WTO countries equally, including Israel. This was a key commitment for the United States' approval of an agreement that paved the way for the Saudis entering the WTO. Unfortunately, the Saudis' action in recent months appears to fly in the face of that commitment. In December, Saudi officials were quoted in the press as insisting that Saudi Arabia would continue its participation in the primary boycott against Israel which prohibits imports of Israeli goods. Saudi Arabia's continued participation in the boycott conflicts directly with the country's commitment as a WTO member to treat all nations in a nondiscriminatory manner. What is even more disturbing is that Saudi Arabia has not only continued to participate in the boycott, but Saudi Arabia has helped to promote it. In March, Saudi Arabia hosted a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference, an international organization with 57 member countries. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss strengthening the Arab League boycott against Israel. Mr. Speaker, I believe the United States must not stand silently while the Saudis disregard the commitments that it made to us and the WTO to treat all countries equally. We must insist that the Saudis live up to their commitments. I urge President Bush, the U.S. Trade Representative and all members of the administration to call upon the Saudis to adhere to the commitments that they made to us, that they made to the WTO. It is time for them to end their boycott against Israel, not just the secondary but the primary boycott. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just say that this is an important resolution because I think all of us believe that for peace in the Middle East it is important to open up economic opportunity within the entire region. This administration has put a priority on moving forward with free trade agreements in the Middle East with the support of both Democrats and Republicans. Because we do believe in commerce, there is an opportunity for better understanding in that region of the world. We have concluded free trade agreements with other countries and we have made it clear that the boycott against Israel must be eliminated. Not only eliminated, but the country must reach out so there is full participation among all of the countries of the region so they all can benefit economically from commerce within that region. Saudi Arabia is a major country in the Middle East. They need to exercise leadership in the Middle East. And in doing that, they must join us in our fight against terror and our fight against terrorism. They also must join us in making it clear that all countries in the Middle East need to be included in economics and commerce. They need to eliminate their boycott against Israel. We thought we had an understanding when we entered into an agreement that led to their accession into the WTO. Clearly the Saudis are not living up to that commitment. I think it is extremely important that this country make it clear that we cannot tolerate that type of conduct by the Saudis. It is time for them to end their boycott against Israel and exercise leadership in the Middle East so we can move forward with peace in the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support and as a co-sponsor of H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006. Since February 2003, the Sudanese government--through its proxy, the Janjaweed Arab militia--has carried out a campaign to loot and burn African villages in the Darfur region of western Sudan. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, and over 2 million people have been displaced. This systematic pattern of attacks against civilians includes arbitrary killings, abductions, looting, torture, and rape, and such attacks are supported by air and land strikes by Sudanese government forces. Congress declared in the summer of 2004 that genocide was occurring in Darfur, and the administration followed suit in the fall of 2004. This bill strengthens the Sudan Peace Act of 2004 by expanding sanctions, authorizing funding for humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts, and by taking additional steps to bring international attention to this conflict. First, this bill specifically targets individuals in the government as opposed to punishing the coalition government as a whole. It holds Sudanese government officials and Janjaweed officers accountable for genocidal acts. The bill also targets oil revenues of the Sudanese government by denying access to U.S. ports to any ships involved in the Sudanese arms or oil industries. It is important that we force those responsible for the violence to account for their actions and that we prevent the Sudanese government from continuing to profit while thousands are being killed. Second, the bill increases humanitarian aid to southern Sudan and other marginalized areas, which are currently under the control of the Sudanese government and thus sanctioned. With this provision, our aid will more efficiently reach those in need, even if they live under the coalition government. In this way, we can hope to protect those who have lost their homes and their livelihoods to the violence of the region. Third, the bill reinforces the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) in order to protect civilians and carry out humanitarian operations. Currently, the African Union Mission in Sudan consists of only a few thousand troops, and AMIS will require a significant number of supplies and additional troops to effectively carry out its mission. The United Nations Security Council should also consider authorizing a separate, more robust peacekeeping force under U.N. auspices. I was pleased that the House appropriated $500 million last month in emergency assistance to southern Sudan and Darfur. I urge the House to adopt this legislation today, which takes important steps to stop the ongoing genocide in Darfur.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4297, the tax reconciliation conference report. The form of the motion is as follows: I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4297 be instructed-- (1) to agree to the provisions of section 102 (relating to credit for elective deferrals and IRA contributions), and section 108 (relating to extension and modification of research credit), of the Senate amendment, (2) to agree to the provisions of section 106 of the Senate amendment (relating to extension and increase in minimum tax relief to individuals), (3) to recede from the provisions of the House bill that extend the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains that would otherwise terminate at the close of 2008, and (4) to the maximum extent possible within the scope of conference, to insist on a conference report which will neither increase the Federal budget deficit nor increase the amount of the debt subject to the public debt limit.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today, on the 38th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I urge my colleagues to join me in remembering this solemn day. Yet while we reflect on Dr. King's death, we should also celebrate his legacy of service and justice--for he was ever hopeful about the future of our nation. Martin Luther King, Jr., was born on January 15, 1929. He was one of three children of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Sr., and Alberta Williams King, in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. King graduated high school two years early and went on to study at Morehouse College, Crozer Theological Seminary, and Boston University. He began his career as an assistant pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. During his time leading the civil rights movement, Dr. King was arrested on more than thirty occasions for doing the right thing. He served as president of the Montgomery Improvement Association during the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott. He founded and led the Southern Christian Leadership Conference from 1957 until his death in 1968. He led the March on Washington in 1963, delivering the ``I Have A Dream'' speech to thousands, and focusing the eyes of the world on the American civil rights movement. Martin Luther King, Jr., worked tirelessly to promote the political, economic and social rights of millions of Americans, particularly those who felt that equal justice was beyond their reach. His passion was unmatched, his strength and perseverance were remarkable, and his enduring commitment to peace has provided an example to us all. On April 3, 1968, Dr. King was in Memphis to support the striking Sanitation Workers' Union. The night before his assassination, Dr. King prophetically declared that the movement for racial equality may have to continue without him. That night, he and other civil rights activists stayed at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. The next afternoon, April 4, Dr. King, the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, and Memphis minister Rev. Billy Kyles, met at the Lorraine motel. The three of them spoke briefly before Dr. King and Rev. Kyles stepped out onto the balcony. His colleagues, including the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the Reverend James Bevel, Hosea Williams, and the Reverend Andrew Young Jr. waited in the parking lot below with the car that would have taken Dr. King to his dinner. At 6:01 PM, a single shot rang out. One hour later, Dr. King, the icon of peaceful, nonviolent change, was pronounced dead at St. Joseph's Hospital. The following day, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared Sunday, April 7 a day of national mourning. Attending his funeral on April 9 were nearly 100,000 mourners who had felt Dr. King's impact and had come to pay their respects. His coffin traveled through his hometown of Atlanta from Ebenezer Baptist Church to Morehouse College, his alma mater. In the years since his death, his widow, Coretta Scott King, whom we mourned in January, carried on his work and his legacy. So many others who fought alongside Dr. King have also dedicated themselves to keeping the dream alive. I consider it an honor to serve on the Ways and Means Committee with my friend and colleague, John Lewis, who spoke so eloquently this morning of his friendship with Dr. King. The anniversary of Dr. King's assassination should remind us that America has far to go in the struggle to recognize all its citizens as equals. I look forward to the vote in this chamber to renew the Voting Rights Act before its provisions expire in the summer of 2007, and I would hope that we would remember and honor Dr. King's commitment to end poverty and injustice in all our work in the House. At Dr. King's funeral, former Morehouse President Dr. Benjamin Mays spoke these words: ``Martin Luther King, Jr., believed in a united America. He believed that the walls of separation brought on by legal and de facto segregation, and discrimination based on race and color, could be eradicated.'' Let us all share in Dr. King's beliefs and his dream for a better America.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Kimmie Meissner, who on Saturday, March 25, won the gold medal in Ice Skating at the 2006 World Championships in Calgary, Alberta. Kimmie was raised in Bel Air, Maryland, just a few miles from my home town of Baltimore. She began skating at age 6, and it was then that she began preparing for competition. With the help of coach Pam Gregory, Kimmie has trained at the University of Delaware Figure Skating Club since she was just 8 years old. In 2004, she won the State Farm Junior U.S. Championships. In 2005, she landed the bronze medal at the U.S. Championships and became just the second U.S. woman ever to land a triple axel. Last February, Kimmie represented the United States at the Winter Olympics in Torino, placing sixth out of 24 competitors. Along with Sasha Cohen and Emily Hughes, she was part of the trio of Americans to finish in the top 10. Although it was her first Olympics, Kimmie performed beyond all expectations and was confident even in the company of her impressive competition. On Saturday, however, Kimmie truly shone above all others. Her performance was simply amazing; it featured seven triple jumps, including the only two triple-triple combinations of the day. It earned her a personal best 129.7 points--more than enough to land her first place and win the admiration of thousands of fans. Although she entered the final program in third place, Kimmie did not let that discourage her. Instead, the Fallston High School student whose motto is, ``Do what you enjoy; enjoy what you do,'' surprised everyone by winning the championship. In doing so, she became the first woman to win the World Championships in her first appearance since Oksana Baiul's victory in 1993. Kimmie's performance was special--and I am certain that it will be remembered by her family, friends and fans for a long time. ESPN has called her victory ``one of the biggest upsets in World Figure Skating Championships history.'' After the event, Kimmie remarked, ``Standing on the podium and watching the flag . . . was such a proud moment for me.'' Mr. Speaker, I want Kimmie to know that she has also made Maryland and the United States proud, and I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating her.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the fine, effective work of the Coalition for International Justice as that organization closes its offices this Friday. Ten years ago, the world allowed genocide to occur in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shocked by this fact, as well as the associated war crimes and crimes against humanity, many Americans both within government and among the public decided to take action. As scenes of the destruction were broadcast to homes across this country, support grew for holding those responsible for the senseless killing accountable. Some dedicated experts in the field of international justice formed the Coalition, often known as ``CIJ'', to help guide the development of the international tribunal established for that purpose. While justice remains elusive, not just in the Balkans but elsewhere, the Coalition has been an indispensable part of the progress achieved in the last decade to hold more people accountable for horrible crimes, in Europe, Africa and elsewhere around the globe. The Coalition, in fact, argues not only for responding to crimes already committed but taking necessary actions to stop ongoing atrocities and to prevent future war crimes. This presents a challenge to the international community and its natural tendency to avoid taking bold and decisive action, and reflects the lessons learned from Rwanda that the international community cannot stand by as genocide occurs. I am extremely pleased that CIJ has taken a leadership role in galvanizing the international community to respond to the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. As the Ranking member of the Helsinki Commission, most of my work with the Coalition for International Justice has been related to what is unfortunately the still unresolved issue of obtaining Serbia's full cooperation with the International Criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), located in The Hague. Despite the democratic ouster of Slobodan Milosevic in late 2000 and his transfer to The Hague in 2001, Belgrade's cooperation with the tribunal has not been good. Despite Serbia's own need to break with a horrible past, and despite the obvious need for surviving victims and families to have some closure, Serbian officials have largely responded only when pressure is applied. Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, perhaps the two people most directly responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocent people in Bosnia and Herzegovina, remain at large. It has been clear for some time that Mr. Mladic has been protected by the military. Serbia's future integration in Europe is placed at risk by this irresponsible behavior. The Coalition for International Justice has been indispensable in tracking the developments of the tribunal, as well as following reports of where at-large indictees may be, as well as what access prosecutors have had to evidence and witnesses. The Coalition also has done excellent work in analyzing the work of the tribunal itself. This has been important. International justice is a relatively new phenomenon, and things have not always developed smoothly. The Coalition has not been an apologist for ICTY or the other war crimes tribunals, and has brought attention to areas where improvement was needed. The Coalition should take great satisfaction that today, 10 years after genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the war crimes chamber of Bosnia's court system now has the ability to handle the emotional and controversial cases from that dark time. The staff of the Coalition for International Justice has always been outstanding, and has provided critical assistance to myself, my personal staff, and the Helsinki Commission staff that work on these issues. CIJ staff have been more than willing and able to help those of us in Congress who have worked to ensure common concerns about international justice are appropriately reflected in U.S. foreign policy. Board members Mark Ellis, John Heffernan and Jim Hooper were involved from the earliest days, when few were certain justice would even be considered in diplomatic efforts to bring peace and stability to the Balkans. Staff past and present, including Edgar Chen, Stefanie Frease and Eric Witte, provided expertise not only on the work of the tribunals but also on the countries and conflicts the tribunals were created to address. I want to highlight in particular Nina Bang-Jessen, CIJ's Executive Director, who so effectively combined expertise and advocacy. She oversaw the Coalition as it broadened its focus to include not only the former Yugoslavia but Rwanda, Cambodia, Sierra Leone and today, Darfur. Ongoing humanitarian catastrophes, Mr. Speaker, may frustrate us, but those who have worked at the Coalition for International Justice can take satisfaction knowing they did something about it and advanced the cause of international justice beyond where it otherwise would be. They have saved lives and brought war criminals to justice, and played a role in preventing future crimes against humanity. For that, we owe them our thanks and best wishes.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, let me thank my friend from California for yielding me this time. Let me respond to Mr. Camp and invite him to visit communities in my State that talk with working families, where you see median income in America has not increased. Families in my State are concerned with how they are going to make their budget, how they are going to deal with increased costs of energy, because we don't have an energy policy, how we are going to deal with the increased cost of health care that is being put on their back because we have failed to deal with the health care crisis in this country, how they are going to deal with the cost of education. Your budget took away some of their funds from the Federal Government to help finance their costs of higher education and how they are going to be able to afford college education for their children. In short, they are falling behind. They are falling behind every month under this administration's economic policies. This motion to instruct is pretty simple. It says to the maximum extent possible, within the scope of conference, and the conference report not increase the deficit or the public debt. The families in my congressional district are worried about who is going to pay off this debt. They know that the budget deficit this year is unsustainable, and they don't want us to have tax cuts primarily for the wealthy and ask their children and grandchildren to pick up the tab. The deficit this year is projected to be $337 billion. When you add in the Social Security money that we are borrowing, that we shouldn't be borrowing, of another $181 billion, we have a right to be concerned. Enough is enough. We are getting the money to pay our bills from banks owned by foreign countries that are buying our bonds, not because it is a good investment. They are buying our bonds in order to manipulate currencies that will send more product into America, taking more jobs away from Americans. Enough is enough. These tax cuts unpaid for, unpaid for, are hurting our economy, hurting our future, and hurting the ability of the typical family in America to be able to deal with economic realities. The average family won't benefit from these tax cuts, but the average family would benefit from fiscal responsibility right here. I urge my colleagues to accept this motion, and let us work for the future of America's families.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, 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, and he distorted and misrepresented intelligence data about weapons of mass destruction. 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 have no choice but to approve this spending bill. We cannot put our troops at greater risk. If the President does not heed the intent of Congress and the American people, Congress should take more direct action to bring our troops home promptly and safely. We should not have American troops in the middle of a civil war. 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 more than $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 last week the House International Relations Committee reported out H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which I urge the House to take up without delay. Lastly, I strongly support the inclusion of an amendment adopted by the Appropriations Committee to cancel the planned transfer of U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates. Although the UAE recently agreed to abandon its efforts to take over American ports, this Congress still needs to enact bipartisan legislation that I introduced with Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Clay Shaw, H.R. 4839, the Secure America's Port Operations Act, which would prohibit any foreign-government owned operations at U.S. seaports in the future. Mr. Chairman, 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, I have no further requests for time, and I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the chairman of the committee. I think he has described this legislation accurately; that is, it contains provisions that are technical and miscellaneous in nature, but taken collectively they are very important changes in our trade laws that will help U.S. businesses, farmers, workers and consumers. Most of the provisions in the bill suspend or reduce import duties on items that are not produced in the United States, and correct instances where Customs has overcharged for import duties. These provisions improve the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers and provide a benefit to consumers by reducing the price of final products. I am pleased about the process that was again used in putting together the Miscellaneous Tariff and Trade Act. Beginning in March of 2005, Chairman Shaw invited Members to introduce bills for inclusion in the miscellaneous trade package. In July, Chairman Shaw requested public comments on each of the bills that were introduced. Provisions were then analyzed by the International Trade Commission and by the administration to determine whether there were any domestic producers that would be negatively affected by the bills. After this process was completed the final package was put together by Members and staff working in a bipartisan fashion. I would like to thank Chairman Thomas and Chairman Shaw and their staffs for the manner in which this bill is put together. I would urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a co-sponsor and in support of H. Con. Res. 190, which urges the Russian Federation to ``ensure full protection of freedoms for all religious communities without distinction, whether registered and unregistered, and end the harassment of unregistered religious groups by the security apparatus and other government agencies,'' as well as to ``ensure that law enforcement officials vigorously investigate acts of violence against unregistered religious communities, as well as make certain that authorities are not complicit in such attacks.'' As the Ranking House Member on the Helsinki Commission, I have seen how religious freedoms for minority religious communities throughout the Russian Federation have come under increasing pressure. Throughout that vast country, local officials and government authorities continue to harass and limit the ability of these groups to practice their faith freely. In addition, instances of violence, such as arson attacks, have been alarmingly common in recent years. The Helsinki Commission heard disturbing testimony to this effect in April of last year. The State Department's International Religious Freedom Report for 2005 reported that some federal agencies and many local authorities continued to restrict the rights of various religious minorities, and the internationally recognized expert on religious liberty in Russia, Larry Uzzell, has written that even in Moscow some 10 Baptist congregations have ceased to exist because local bureaucrats refused to allow rentals or property transfers for the use of worship services. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the religious liberty picture in Russia is deteriorating at a critical time for Russia. Russia is an OSCE participating state and assumes the leadership of the Council of Europe in May of this year. Russia also chairs the G-8 this year. A nation holding such positions should not be a country where members of minority religious groups need to constantly battle with bureaucrats in order to have a place to worship, or to get permission from the local clergy of another faith in order to hold a public gathering, or to wonder if their prayer house will be the target of vandalism. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 190, and I again thank my Helsinki Commission Chairman, Chris Smith, for introducing this resolution, and for his tireless efforts on behalf of religious freedom and liberty around the world. I also join Chairman Smith in commending John Finerty of the Helsinki Commission staff for his decades of service to the Commission, and I especially thank him for assisting me in my interactions with members of the Russian Duma through our OSCE Parliamentary Assembly process.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, one of the most important responsibilities for Congress after the September 11 terrorist attacks is to balance the needs of law enforcement to have effective tools to combat terrorism with the civil liberties and civil rights of Americans. I am pleased that the Senate bill strengthens the civil liberties protections of the PATRIOT Act, and provides for increased judicial oversight of the Justice Department as it uses these powers. The bill before us enacts a number of much-needed procedural changes that will enhance judicial oversight of Section 215 orders. Under current law, the recipient of a Section 215 order lacks an explicit statutory right to petition the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court to modify or set aside either the production order or the non-disclosure requirement. The conference report provides that recipients have an explicit right to challenge the legality of the Section 215 order in certain FISA courts. This bill further expands the individual's right to challenge the government assertion that a business records search must remain secret. The legislation also reforms the FBI process used to issue National Security Letters (NSL). Unlike current law, the conference report explicitly permits recipients of NSLs to consult with an attorney to challenge the letter in court. This bill further strengthens individual rights by allowing the recipient of an NSL to consult with an attorney in secret, and does not require the recipient to disclose the name of the attorney to the FBI. Finally, this bill provides that public, academic, or research libraries that offer Internet access or other electronic research tools are not considered to be electronic communication services, and therefore are not subject to search by an NSL.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our champion on human rights here in the Congress and our leader in the fight against anti-Semitism.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank Mr. Thomas for the manner in which this legislation has been brought forward, in allowing us to vote on the permanent normal trade relations with the Ukraine. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago, in my capacity as ranking member at the U.S.-Helsinki Commission, I traveled to the Ukraine with my colleague and chairman, Congressman Chris Smith. We made our trip shortly after the historic Orange Revolution, and I was impressed by the commitment of the Ukraine's new leaders to consolidate democracy, promote respect for human rights, and modernize the country's economy. I also was impressed by the leader's commitment to further integrate Ukraine into the European and Euro-Atlantic community. I am not the only one to have been impressed by Ukraine's efforts. International organizations such as Freedom House have acknowledged Ukraine's progress of recent years in protecting the political rights and civil liberties of its citizens. Mr. Speaker, I believe Congress should demonstrate its support for Ukraine's reforms by approving legislation today that would grant Ukraine's permanent normal trade relation status, and, therefore, take it one step closer to becoming a member of the WTO. The passage of PNTR for Ukraine will also show Congress's support for the efforts of the Yushchenko government to ensure that the upcoming March 26 parliamentary elections will be free and fair. I am pleased that my Helsinki Commission colleague from Florida, Congressman Alcee Hastings, has been appointed as the OSCE PA Special Coordinator for our election observation mission there, and I look forward to reviewing the mission's findings and reports. So far, the pre-election process, while not completely problem free, has been dramatically different from the period leading up to the fraudulent elections of November 2004, which ignited the Orange Revolution. In the 2004 elections, the Ukraine and government instructed the media about how to cover the elections and systematically abused government resources. In contrast, the upcoming elections are expected to be free and fair. Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a few moments to comment on the issues of the underlying legislation we are considering today. The issue Congress is formally considering today is whether to withdraw the application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Ukraine and thereby grant Ukraine permanent normal trade relations status. The Jackson-Vanik amendment, which was adopted in 1975, was intended to provide a way for the United States to deny trade benefits to countries that are denying the rights of its citizens, particularly religious minorities. Mr. Speaker, in light of the commitment that Ukraine has demonstrated in protecting the rights of religious minorities, I think it is appropriate that we withdraw the application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Ukraine. Since independence, each successive Government of Ukraine has demonstrated a consistent commitment to defending the religious and ethnic rights of all of the people of the Ukraine. Current President Victor Yushchenko has continued this unambiguous commitment by pledging to bring minority groups together and reconciling historic conflicts. The International Religious Freedom Report of 2005 published by the United States State Department recognizes, ``President Yushchenko has, since taking office, spoken publicly about his vision of a Ukraine in which religious freedom flourishes and people are genuinely free to worship as they please.'' It must be understood, however, that there remain issues of concern, most notably the return of communal religious property that was confiscated during the Soviet era, and the anti-Semitic activities of Ukraine's largest private university, the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management. Mr. Speaker, I have raised both of these issues in recent days with the Ambassador from the Ukraine and from other Ukrainian officials, and I have been impressed by their commitment to address these issues. Ukrainian officials have assured me that the government is committed to continuing its effort to return communal property and that the Government of Ukraine will continue to condemn at the highest levels the anti-Semitic activities of the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management and any other anti-Semitic activities. Mr. Speaker, given these concerns, I am pleased that the legislation we are considering today highlights the importance of Ukraine's continuing commitment to ensure freedom of religion, respect for minorities, and eliminating intolerance. Shortly I will yield time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the International Relations Committee and our leader in Congress on the issue of human rights, democracy and religious freedom. Mr. Lantos is the leader in Congress of our Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, and I want to thank him for working with me, the Helsinki Commission, and the OSCE as we have battled against the rise of anti-Semitism globally, and particularly within the OSCE states. Ukraine has agreed to certain commitments to fight anti-Semitism, as have all of the 55 participating states of the OSCE. And let me make this crystal clear: today we intend to hold Ukraine to these commitments, including the responsibility to denounce anti-Semitism statements and vigorously enforce hate crime laws and promote diversity and tolerance in school curriculum. I am pleased that section 1, paragraph 4 of the resolution before us references these OSCE commitments. Let me make a personal reflection here. During my visit to Ukraine last year, I visited two monuments, the Ukraine Famine Memorial, honoring the millions of victims of Stalin's genocidal 1932 and 1933 famine, and Babi Yar, where hundreds of thousands of Jews and others were massacred by the Nazis during World War II. Mr. Speaker, it was a moving experience for me to lay a wreath at these sites in the Ukraine. These horrific events were a testimony to the cruelty and intolerance of dictatorships, and I do believe that today's independent Ukraine now understands that respect for human rights and a commitment to democracy and tolerance are the best inoculation against the horrors like the famine and Babi Yar. The United States Government, the Helsinki Commission, and the OSCE look forward to working with a democratic Ukraine as they continue to build their institutions of democracy, establish the rule of law, protect human rights and religious freedom and combat corruption. I commend Ukraine for its progress in promoting political and economic freedom for its citizens and its integration into the global rules-based economy. I urge my colleagues to join me in demonstrating support for the Ukraine's efforts by voting today to grant the country permanent normal trade status. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Miller for yielding this time. Mr. Speaker, we do need pension legislation. We need pension legislation that will protect the worker, that will reform the PBGC, the guaranty fund, and will encourage companies to maintain and strengthen their pension plans. The Miller motion to instruct encourages us to be able to accomplish those goals. Mr. Miller has already talked about the provisions related to the airline industry that is very, very important. He mentioned the fact that we have to help younger workers and lower-wage workers by the refundability, by the savers credit, making permanent, and by dealing with split refunds of taxes. Let me deal with one provision that Mr. Miller covered very quickly, which I think is important, that is, encouraging companies to continue their defined benefit pension plans. If we put more and more burdens on companies that are well funded, that are in no danger of going into bankruptcy, these companies are going to freeze their plans, they are going to terminate their plans. Why would they stay around in the defined benefit world if we put more and more restrictions and more onerous funding rules that are unnecessary? The Miller motion is commonsense and asking us to be very careful on new requirements that we place on plans that are properly funded, plans that present no danger to the guaranteed fund. We are in danger of losing more and more defined benefit plans which are well managed, where the employees are guaranteed a certain annuity payment, and we don't want our legislation to be responsible for the termination of more plans. I would urge my colleagues to support this motion. I would urge my colleagues to make sure that in the pension legislation that comes out of conference, that we have legislation that, yes, we will protect our workers, and, yes, we will protect the guaranteed fund, but we will also make it easier for companies to maintain and expand pension plans for their employees. That is the best way that we can help provide security for all Americans on their retirement. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.