Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Let me thank Mr. Miller for offering this substitute. I am pleased to join him. I listened to a lot of my colleagues talk in favor of this bill, telling me things they do not particularly like about it, things that will be, they hope, corrected in conference, and now we have a motion to recommit that does exactly that. So if we are sincere in wanting to move the process forward so that we can get to conference, let us speak to what we want to get from the conference report. Let me make it clear that the rule did not permit us to offer this directly as a substitute, so the only way we can do it is by the motion to recommit. But it does contain the issues that many have talked about. It has the good without the bad. It has the provisions for the defined contributions, so that we can deal with the 401(k)s and the IRAs and the savers credits and automatic enrollments and those provisions that are important. But it also deals with the issue of the airline industry directly, not on a promise that we will deal with it in conference, and it deals with the revolving door of bankruptcy, which, if we do not correct, we are going to have other problems in addition to the airline industry. So it deals with those problems. But it does one more thing, Mr. Speaker, that is critically important: It takes away the additional deficit that this bill would create. This bill will add an additional $14 billion to the deficit of this country. The substitute pays for the cost of the legislation so that we do not add to the growing problem of the deficit of this Nation. This is a responsible motion, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first let me yield myself 30 seconds to point out that I wish we did have provisions in this bill to deal with the airline industry, because I think we should. The problem is that we do not, and we go to conference with a situation where those who have well-funded plans are now likely to be asked to pay because of the costs of the airline industry. And let me also point out from Mr. Boehner's comment about making the PBGC better funded, if we have a lot of terminated plans, it is not going to be better funded. And the gentleman brags about a permanent yield curve which is unpredictable to business. It would be better to have a corporate bond rate, and I am sorry that is not in the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a senior members of the Ways and Means Committee and one of the leading experts on retirement issues.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the senior Democrat on the Subcommittee for Social Security and who understands retirement security. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am curious: Is the majority on the Ways and Means side going to be using their time or not? Does the gentleman know?

Mr. CARDIN. Can I inquire as to the amount of time that remains on all sides?

Mr. CARDIN. The time for the gentleman from Michigan?

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005. Through the PATRIOT Act Congress has attempted the essential task of modernizing law enforcement tools to effectively combat the 21st century terrorist, who can now use cell phones, the internet, and e- mails to plan and coordinate attacks in the United States. As originally enacted in October 2001, many PATRIOT Act provisions are set to expire at the end of this month if Congress takes no action. The conference report before us extends and improves many provisions of the PATRIOT Act. It is a substantial improvement to the bill that was passed by the House in July 2005. I do have significant concerns and misgivings about the administration's use of the new powers of the PATRIOT Act, and I am pleased that this legislation addresses many of these concerns. This legislation: includes three sunset provisions for PATRIOT Act authorities; requires greater oversight by Congress and the judiciary of the Justice Department; and gives new rights to subjects of a government investigation. Given the complexity and importance of this measure, let me review these provisions in some detail. The 4-year sunsets adopted by the conference report apply to business records, roving wiretaps, and ``lone-wolf' terrorist suspects who operate alone rather than as an agent of a foreign power. Congress must revisit these provisions in 4 years, which will expire unless approved again. The conference report adopts the Senate position of 4-year sunsets, and rejected the House position of 10-year sunsets. Under the business records provision, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the bill provides that the government may seek a court order for ``any tangible item'' if law enforcement officials assert that the records are sought in an effort to obtain foreign intelligence or in a terrorism investigation. The application to the FISA court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, must provide a ``statement of facts'' proving that the information sought is ``relevant'' to the investigation. This bill provides greater protection than current law, which simply requires the government to certify the records were sought for an authorized investigation without any factual showing. The conference report also explicitly provides--unlike current law-- that anyone who receives a request for records under this provision may consult with an attorney in order to challenge the request in court. The bill requires new high-level approval by one of the top three FBI officials for certain records, including library records, medical records, educational records, and tax return records. The bill has several new requirements for the Justice Department, including: issuing ``minimization procedures'' which limits the retention of, and prohibits dissemination of, information concerning U.S. persons; conducting two separate audits of the FBI's use of section 215 orders, which will examine any improper or illegal use of this authority, and the manner in which such information is collected, retained, analyzed, and disseminated by the FBI; and requiring the public reporting of the aggregate use of section 215 orders, and a breakdown of its use to Congress--comparisons of library, medical, educational records, for example. The roving wiretaps provision, section 206 of the PATRIOT Act, provides that the FISA court may issue ``roving'' wiretaps to conduct surveillance on a foreign power or their agent when the target of surveillance has taken steps to thwart the investigation by changing accommodations, cell phones, internet accounts, or other forms of communications. Court orders would apply to a person or persons, not a particular device or location, so that the government does not have to return to court each time that a target changes a communications device or moves to another location. The bill requires court orders for roving wiretaps to describe in detail the specific target in cases in which the target's identity is unknown, higher burden than current law, and requires more detailed and timely reporting by the FBI to the courts and Congress on the use of this authority. The conference report also makes substantial improvements to the national security letter, NSL, process, which existed before Congress enacted the PATRIOT Act in 2001. NSLs allow the FBI to request customer records from communications companies and financial institutions related to an investigation. The bill explicitly provides a new right to NSL recipients to consult with an attorney to challenge the letter in court. The court is also given a new explicit right to review NSL requests. The bill provides that courts may block an NSL if it is ``unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful'' (same standard as used to modify or quash a subpoena in a criminal case). Recipients are also given a new right to challenge the nondisclosure requirement in court. Congress also requires the Justice Department to report to Congress on the number of NSLs sent to U.S. persons or entities, and requires the department's inspector general to conduct an audit of the effectiveness of NSLs. The bill also provides that the Justice Department submit to Congress the annual aggregate number of requests made concerning different U.S. persons in an unclassified format. Finally, the conference reports places some new restrictions on delayed notice search warrants, commonly called ``sneak and peek'', under section 213 of the PATRIOT Act. This type of search warrant, which existed before the PATRIOT Act was adopted, requires that a Federal judge must find that there is probable cause to believe that: (1) A crime has been or is about to be committed; (2) evidence of those crimes will be found at the location to be searched; and (3) immediate notice would cause harm under certain specified criteria. The conference report restricts the government's authority to delay notice to 30 days, and allows for an extension only if approved by a court. The bill also requires new reporting to Congress on the use of this provision. Madam Speaker, we must not repeat the mistakes of the past, when the United States sacrificed the civil rights of particular individuals or groups in the name of security. Whether in times of war or peace, finding the proper balance between government power and the rights of the American people is a delicate and extremely important process. It is a task that rightly calls into play the checks and balances that the Founders created in our system of government. All three branches of government have their proper roles to play in making sure the line is drawn appropriately, as we uphold our oaths to support the Constitution. This legislation attempts to strike a balance as we seek to prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, while protecting Americans' constitutional civil liberties. I will continue to work in Congress to exercise our critical oversight responsibilities to protect our civil liberties.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Dr. Robert E. Fischell, a mechanical engineer, biomedical engineer, inventor, physicist, researcher and teacher. Robert Fischell is one of the brightest, most accomplished people I have ever met. Let me tell you a little bit about his career. After graduating cum laude from Duke University in 1951 with a degree in mechanical engineering, Bob earned a Masters degree in physics from the University of Maryland, where he also holds an honorary Doctor of Science degree. In 1959, he went to work for the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (APL), where he developed a number of inventions dealing with the control of satellites. His work at APL has led to numerous awards, including the IR-100 Award which is presented annually for the 100 most significant inventions. He has won this honor twice; once in 1970 for a rechargeable pacemaker, and again in 1973 for a drag-free satellite. Dr. Fischell holds nearly 200 U.S. and international patents. His inventions--which include an implantable insulin pump, a rechargeable pacemaker, a flexible stent for placement in coronary arteries, and a microminiaturized computer that can be implanted to prevent epileptic seizures--have changed the practice of medicine and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. On December 19, the University of Maryland at College Park is announcing the establishment of the Fischell Department of Bioengineering and the Robert E. Fischell Institute for Biomedical Devices. I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in honoring Robert E. Fischell, an innovative American inventor who has made enormous contributions to medicine, space discovery and higher education.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution as the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission. I visited Croatia in 2000, shortly after new leadership came into power, and I was confident of the country's commitment to reform. I believe, 5 years later, we have seen that the people of Croatia truly are committed to reform. Of particular interest to me as a determinant of U.S. policy toward southeastern Europe has been the degree to which countries cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, located in The Hague. While Croatia has had a generally good record in this regard, the Gotovina case remained as a blot on that record. Fortunately, with Gotovina's recent apprehension on Spain's Canary Islands, Croatia can put this issue behind it. I hope, however, that the people of Croatia will view the work of the Tribunal as a necessary step to determine guilt or innocence, and that Croatian courts will similarly seek justice regarding cases relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity that it considers, regardless of who was responsible for these crimes and who were the victims. I also call for all remaining indictees to be apprehended and transferred to The Hague, in particular Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic. The House made a similar call earlier this year when passing the resolution marking the massacre at Srebrenica in Bosnia. There has been some progress this year, but both Bosnian Serb and Serbian authorities need to do more. Otherwise, they will fall further behind in European and Euro-Atlantic integration to their own detriment.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support and as an original cosponsor of H.R. 972, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005. As the Ranking Member of the Helsinki Commission, let me commend Chairman Chris Smith for all of his hard work on this issue both in the United States and around the world. I also want to thank International Relations Committee Ranking Member Tom Lantos for his strong support. In 2000 Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVRA), which for the first time provided definitive protection for victims of human trafficking. Governments estimate that between 600,000 and 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year, yielding approximately $10 billion annually in illegal gains. When considering internal trafficking within a country, this number rises to an estimated 4 million persons. Human trafficking destroys families and communities across the world. Human trafficking is a modern-day form of slavery, which traps people into forced labor or sexual slavery. Human traffickers violate the most basic human rights of their victims. The international community must oppose human trafficking in all its forms, and work together to eradicate this scourge on humanity. I commend the work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for addressing this issue in a comprehensive manner, by creating an Action Plan to combat trafficking and appointing a Special Representative on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings. The United States also has a problem with human trafficking as a destination country for many trafficking victims, as we heard in a recent Helsinki Commission hearing on domestic trafficking. The State Department believes that more than 14,500 people are trafficked into the U.S. every year, either for forced labor or sexual exploitation and slavery. Traffickers bring these victims--mainly women and children-- from all over the globe, including Southeast Asia and the Americas. Traffickers often use criminal gangs to transport their human cargo. I am pleased that the government has created special ``T'' visas for victims of human trafficking who cooperate with law enforcement officials. In 2003 Congress adopted the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which created a new country ``watch list'' under the supervision of the Department of State. This list has had a measurable effect on the behavior of offending countries. The State Department places the worst offenders on Tier 3 and makes these countries subject to certain economic and trade sanctions by the U.S. The number of Tier 3 countries has dropped from 27 in 2001 to 14 in 2005, so we have made measurable progress in raising awareness on this issue, but more work needs to be done. This legislation will require USAID and the Department of Defense to include anti-trafficking policies in post-conflict and humanitarian assistance programs. Governments must put in place special measures to combat trafficking in countries that do not have a functioning and effective central government. This bill would enhance U.S. efforts to combat trafficking involving international peacekeepers. The bill also authorizes $15 million annually for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out a pilot program to establish U.S. residential treatment facilities for minors who are victims of domestic trafficking. The bill also expands counseling programs for victims of severe forms of trafficking. In total, the bill authorizes $68 million annually to combat human trafficking and assist victims. We must keep the pressure up on other countries that do little to stop human trafficking, by implementing sanctions when needed and by using all available diplomatic channels. United States courts need to prosecute those individuals who commit these crimes on U.S. soil to the full extent of the law, and to send a message that the United States does not and will not tolerate human trafficking. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support and as a cosponsor of H. Res. 575, which states that Hamas and other terrorist organizations should not participate in upcoming January 2006 legislative elections held by the Palestinian Authority. The aims and principles of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist groups are incompatible with the democratic process. Hamas has continually called for the destruction of Israel by any means, and their involvement in elections puts the road map process for peace in the Middle East in jeopardy. The foundation of the peace process was based upon the Palestinian Authority's acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation and their duty to end terrorist attacks from Palestinian soil. The first stage of the road map process calls on the Palestinian Authority to disarm all terrorist groups and their infrastructure. I am extremely disappointed that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has made such limited progress in dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian territories. The Palestinian Authority has the ability to dismantle terrorist groups, as their security forces dwarf the size of the Hamas militia by nearly 10 times. A recent survey indicates that the vast majority of the Palestinian people support an immediate end to all forms of violence. The Palestinian Authority has a unique opportunity under a new President to renounce all forms of terrorism, and move towards securing a lasting peace settlement in the Middle East. Just as the United States will not negotiate with terrorists, neither will Israel. Should members of Hamas become part of the Palestinian Government, the United States would have to reassess its financial assistance to, and its diplomatic relations with, the Palestinians. I welcome competitive elections in the Palestinian Authority. However, no functioning democracies permit terrorist organizations to participate in elections. Germany, Italy, Turkey and many other nations all prohibit any terrorist groups from participating in elections. In Iraq and Afghanistan, members of the former Ba'ath Party and the Taliban must renounce any links or support for the former regimes. Egypt and Jordan do not support the existence of Hamas or other terrorist organizations. I call for President Abbas to dismantle the terrorist organizations in the Palestinian territories and to meet his obligations under the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support and as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 312, to urge the Russian Government to alter or withdraw the proposed legislation affecting nongovernmental organizations, NGO's, operating in Russia. The Russian legislation would severely restrict foreign assistance to NGO's in Russia and would also force existing Russian NGO's to reregister with the government. The draft Russian bill raises a number of serious concerns, and may violate Russia's commitments to the OSCE. Several hundred thousand nongovernmental organizations currently operate in Russia, representing all sections of society. By forcing all NGO's to reregister, the Russian Government will have the power to subjectively deny registration to some organizations and limit the activities of others. This legislation strikes at the heart of basic democratic freedoms: the right of individuals to freely associate and participate in society. Some of the provisions in this bill would also increase the oversight of financial auditing of NGO's, which the government could use to place restrictions on opposition groups. Just months ago, the Russian President Vladimir Putin outlawed any foreign funding of political parties in Russia. This legislation goes further and affects human rights groups and other NGO's who are only seeking to improve the nature of Russia's civil society. Foreign organizations would be required to register as legal Russian entities, seriously hindering their attempts to promote democracy and accountability in Russia. Many organizations which have conducted prominent and important human rights work in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union would see their activities curtailed under the Russian bill, which may lead to the partial or complete closure of critical offices inside of Russia. Last month, the State Duma in Russia approved the first reading of the bill by 370 to 18 votes, despite more than 1,000 NGO's appealing for the Duma to reject it. This Friday, December 16, the Duma has scheduled a second reading of the bill. As the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission, I have worked closely with Commission Cochairman Chris Smith in opposition to this bill. The Helsinki Commission sent a bipartisan, bicameral letter in November--which I cosigned--to the Chairman of the Russian State Duma urging the rejection of this legislation. In particular, the letter emphasized the importance that nongovernmental organizations play in civil society and in fulfilling Russia's obligations as a democratic state and member of the international community. Russia has made great strides since the end of the Cold War. There were serious concerns that Russia would not have a smooth transition to a fully functioning democracy. I am gravely concerned about recent developments in Russia. President Putin himself has said that ``modern Russia's greatest achievement is the democratic process (and) the achievements of civil society''. I therefore call on President Putin and the State Duma to be true to their word and reject this bill, to reaffirm their commitment to the democratic process and civil society.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support and as a cosponsor of H. Res. 487, supporting the goals and ideals of Korean American Day. This resolution marks the upcoming 103rd anniversary, on January 13, 2006, of the day that the first Korean immigrants arrived in the United States. Today we acknowledge and celebrate the economic, academic and cultural contributions made by the immigrant Korean community to the United States. Korean Americans have made a significant and positive impact in this country, in the proud tradition of immigrants that for generations have traveled to come to the United States. I am pleased to work with various Korean American groups in my State of Maryland that have helped new immigrants gain access to social services, health care, and continuing education programs that allow them to prosper in America. I am also pleased that many groups are working to assist qualified legal permanent residents to become U.S. citizens and to participate in local, State, and national elections. I call on my colleagues to recognize the contributions made by Korean Americans and to support this resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time, and thank him for putting together a substitute that makes sense, that is an important bill. Yes, it is important to extend the expiring tax provisions, and the Rangel substitute does that. Research and development, the work opportunity tax credit, all the important tax provisions that will expire, the substitute extends those provisions. That is important. The Rangel substitute does another thing that is extremely important. It deals with the alternative minimum tax affecting 16 million of our taxpayers of the 19 million that are under the alternative minimum tax. That is very important to get done. And the Rangel substitute deals with that. The Rangel substitute deals with other inequities in the Tax Code, correcting them and getting them done right. But the substitute does one more thing that is very important to be done, and that is it is fiscally responsible. It does not add to the national debt. We have huge deficits, and where do you think we get our money in order to pay the bills? Money is coming, not from foreign investors or U.S. investors, it is coming primarily from foreign-owned banks who are buying our currency not because it is a good investment, they are buying it in order to have a favorable exchange rate with the U.S. dollar so that they can send more products here into the United States. It is important that we be fiscally responsible, that we do not add to the deficit. The Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that is only interested in trying to deal with the national debt, said that tax cuts need at a minimum to be offset, that we should not add to the deficit through the tax bills. The Rangel substitute pays for these tax reliefs. It is fiscally responsible. It not only provides relief in the Tax Code that we need to provide for the taxpayers of this country, it does not burden this Nation and the future generations. And by the way, it is also good for growth. Our deficit hurts growth in this country. The Rangel substitute is sensitive to the need for us to make sure that we are on the right glide path to create jobs in our economy. Mr. Speaker, this is the right thing to do. We want to provide tax relief, but we should do it in a way that does not burden our children and grandchildren. I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel substitute.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the U.S.- Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. This agreement reflects a bipartisan effort to make a deal that is worthy of broad support both in terms of the process used and the substance of the agreement. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for his help in this agreement. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for his persistence in keeping us focused on getting this agreement completed this year. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his help with the USTR and with the administration in pointing out the importance of making some additional changes. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for his contributions in regards to this bill. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Congress uses an expedited process when it considers trade agreements. As a result, Congress gives up a lot of its prerogatives, and it is absolutely critical that in giving up these prerogatives that the administration consult and work very closely with the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle in negotiating, entering into, and submitting to Congress the implementing legislation. Well, in regards to the U.S.-Bahrainian agreement, much of the work was done prior to the beginning of this year; and, quite frankly, there was not as close a relationship with Congress as I wanted to see. There were things that were not complete then when the agreement itself had been finished. But thanks to Ambassador Portman, thanks to the help from the majority side, we were able to continue consultation with Congress on both sides of the aisle prior to the submission of the implementing legislation. As a result, we now have an agreement that incorporates the important provisions that deal with worker rights as well as dealing with the issue of the boycott against Israel; and I want to compliment the process and the manner in which we have been able to complete this agreement. On substance, the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement is a good agreement for several reasons. First, the agreement provides substantial market access for U.S. service providers, immediate duty- free treatment for all currently traded consumer and industrial products, and duty-free treatment of nearly all U.S. agricultural exports. This is a good model for other agreements in the region and around the world. Second, Bahrain has taken truly historic steps by disavowing all aspects of the Arab League boycott against Israel. Not only the primary, but the secondary and tertiary boycotts. This should be the template that we use in all negotiations and free trade agreements in that region. That is exactly what the United States should be demanding. The third reason why this is a good agreement is that Bahrain has adopted major reforms in its labor code and is committed to making further reforms. In 2002 Bahrain enacted legislation that for the first time gave workers in Bahrain the right to belong to trade unions and to strike. Last month in an exchange of letters with the United States Government, the government of Bahrain made several additional commitments that would ensure its laws are in full compliance with basic international standards. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out that the process we use is that we identified certain weaknesses in the operation of the Bahrainian reform laws as it related to workers' rights. Bahrain now is committed by letter and interpretation to comply fully with the ILO standards in four of those areas. There are two additional areas that really require consultation with the union because they only have a single union, and under ILO standards they need to have multiple unions and need legislation to be enacted. Bahrain had filed earlier this week two of those laws to make it clear that it is not only going to be the manner in which the government enforces the laws, but the underlying laws themselves will be in compliance with ILO standards. We also are permitted under this agreement to use the agreement in the event that we believe that they have not carried out their commitment. So this does reflect what we should be doing on workers' rights. We can consider a matter arising under the FTA labor chapter if in fact Bahrain does not carry out its commitments as spelled out in the exchange of letters. This will allow the United States to initiate formal consultation with Bahrain on these commitments on the procedures outlined in article 15.6 of the agreement. Finally, the USTR is committed to report periodically to Congress on Bahrain's fulfillment of its labor commitments. The USTR is further prepared to invoke article 15.6 procedures if Bahrain fails to carry out any of these commitments. Mr. Speaker, I would note that the Bahrainian actions stand in contrast to some of the CAFTA countries that actually weakened or proposed weakening their laws after the CAFTA agreement was signed. Unlike the CAFTA countries, Bahrain is a country that is heading in the right direction with regards to labor reforms. For all of these reasons and for the reasons that have been outlined by my colleagues, I would urge my colleagues to support this agreement. It opens up a market in a very important part of the world. It offers us a template for moving forward in the Middle East by using economics to bring peace and prosperity to that region, which is clearly in the interest of the United States. 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 thank all of my colleagues who participated in this debate. Let me, once again, remind those who are following this debate that we are talking about a free trade agreement with Bahrain, a country which is about the same size as the city of Austin, whose total trade with the United States is measured in terms of a couple hundred million dollars. It is a country with a high standard of living for that region whose economy produces $19,000 plus per capita of GDP, which is about 4 times higher than we had in dealing with the CAFTA countries. It is also a country that imports labor and helps actually the economy of the region because of its economic opportunities. I mention that so we can put this agreement in context. Many of my colleagues who have spoken of concern have talked about concern on economic policies related to trade here in the United States, and I join them on many occasions, particularly as they are referring to problems that we are having with trading partners. But that is not the issue that we have before us today. The issue we have before us today is an agreement with a single country, Bahrain. One issue that we need to be concerned about is whether this agreement will not only advance the traditional barriers to trade by eliminating them, such as tariffs and some of the nontariff barriers, but how does it deal with issues that are becoming more important, such as workers' rights. On the traditional barriers of tariff and nontariff issues, I have not heard any debate against this agreement. This agreement, in fact, removes barriers so that U.S. companies and U.S. manufacturers and U.S. farmers will have greater access to the market of Bahrain. In regards to workers' rights, I agree with my colleagues that have spoken of concern about trade agreements. I think it is time that we graduate international labor standards to core provisions within the trade agreements, and that we have enforcement within the trade agreements. But I think in judging Bahrain, we need to use the standard that we have used, and that is, does this Nation measure up to international labor standards. The answer to that question is yes. They have passed major reform in 2002. They have acknowledged the difficulties with those laws that need to be changed. They have issued interpretations to comply with ILO standards and have introduced laws that will correct the additional standards, and they have agreed to allow us to use the trade agreement to make sure that in fact these new laws are not only passed, but in fact, Bahrain is living up to ILO standards. That to me is good faith with an ally, and one in which we can move forward and should move forward. So I think Bahrain has passed the test on an agreement that we should support, but at times there is more than just the economic issues that affect our country that we should be looking at whether we move forward with bilateral regional trade agreements. In Bahrain's case, I think the evidence is overwhelming. We need to expand opportunities in the Middle East. The best chance for peace in the Middle East is if we can open up the economic opportunities of that region, and Bahrain offers us a country that has stepped forward and offered leadership. In repealing the boycott against Israel and saying that it wants to have open trade in the region, they will now be the fourth nation in that region that we will have a free trade agreement with. We have Jordan, Israel and Morocco. So this represents an opportunity to advance U.S. interest in stabilizing a region of the world that has been of major interest to the United States. So for all these reasons, this agreement with a very small country that will have minimum impact on the economic activities of this country, I think it will be positive, but it will be minimum because of the size of the country, but represents progress as to how we should evaluate trading relations with other partners. Are they willing to remove barriers? Are they willing to respect international labor rights? Are they willing to be a good neighbor in the region to advance peace and stability? In each of these instances, Bahrain passes this test, and I urge my colleagues to support this agreement. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Levin) who has been one of the leading members of the Ways and Means Committee and the Trade Subcommittee on insisting that trade agreements include protection for workers' rights. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues that we are talking about a free trade agreement with Bahrain, a country whose size is about the same as the city of Austin, Texas, and of course a very important country within the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the tenth anniversary of the Dayton ``General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina'' is being commemorated here in Washington, in Dayton, Ohio, and in various European capitals. Despite its shortcomings, the Dayton Agreement has, in fact, formed the basis for maintaining peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and building a country devastated by a horrible conflict that included atrocities on a scale not seen in Europe since World War II. The very fact that discussions now center on moving beyond the confinement of Dayton's provisions through constitutional reform is a confirmation of the agreement's success. This success, as is widely known, did not come easily but required constant pressure from the international community. One area of particular concern to me has been the necessity, recognized in Dayton, to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, located in The Hague and commonly known as ICTY, in order to punish those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Officials in Republika Srpska, one of the two political entities into which Dayton divided Bosnia and Herzegovina, have been particularly recalcitrant in this regard, and most persons captured in this entity have been through the efforts of NATO-led peacekeeping units. Officials in Serbia have also resisted cooperating with The Hague in transferring indictees and providing access to evidence and witnesses. Fortunately, a combination of outside pressure--including conditionality on assistance and on Euro-Atlantic and European integration--and increasing revelations of the true nature of the Milosevic regime and its activities have led to considerable improvements in the last year. Many more individuals have now been taken into custody. Both in Bosnia and in Serbia, it is increasingly recognized that cooperation with international tribunal will not go away as a demand of the international community. Some go a step further and note that the same criminal circles which harbor persons indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide also undermine democratic institutions and thwart economic recovery. Some, but too few, also see it as a moral necessity to recognize the horrors that were committed in name of the nation. I applaud the efforts of those brave persons representing non- governmental organizations who have helped to document the atrocities which have taken place and increased public awareness of what really happened. I am also pleased to know that, ten years after Dayton, a War Crimes Chamber in the Courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been established and, with continued assistance, will relieve ICTY's work load and continue its work as necessary. Together, prosecuting war crimes will provide justice to the victims, strengthen the rule of law in the region, and hopefully serve to deter future war criminals from committing crimes against humanity. There would be added enthusiasm for commemorating Dayton, however, if it were coupled with the arrest and transfer of Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, who have been indicted by ICTY particularly for their responsibility regarding the genocide at Srebrenica in July 1995. The House commemorated the anniversary of that horrific event in which almost 8,000 individuals, mostly men and boys, were massacred in the days following an assault on the undeclared ``safe haven.'' Other at- large indictees also must be arrested and transferred. I therefore use this time, the commemoration of the Dayton Agreement signed ten years ago, to call upon those authorities in Serbia and in the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina to do the right thing, apprehend the remaining indicted persons, transfer them, and erase this as an outstanding issue not only in our bilateral relations but as an obstacle to integration. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to continue to support efforts that require consideration of ICTY cooperation as a determinant of U.S. policy.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2017, the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 2005, to reauthorize and increase funding for the treatment of torture victims. As the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission I was pleased to be an original co- sponsor of this legislation, which was introduced by Chairman Chris Smith. The international community must aggressively address the issue of torture. The U.S. Government estimates that about 400,000 survivors of torture live in the United States, oftentimes after escaping persecution abroad for their political or religious beliefs. This bill would help provide funding for 27 treatment centers in the United States and almost 200 treatment centers in other countries through the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID. The bill authorizes $90 million for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for the Department of Health and Human Services, USAID, and the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. In my congressional district in Maryland, the Advocates for Survivors of Torture and Trauma, ASTT, organization is one of the 27 nationwide treatment centers that is supported by this legislation. The Baltimore- based group was formed in 1994, and consists of physicians, psychologists, social workers, and human rights advocates who assist in supporting the victims of torture from all over the world. The center treats patients from Maryland, Washington DC, Pennsylvania and Delaware. Over the past 5 years this group has seen its client base increase from 25 patients to 181 patients. The vast majority of their patients are from Africa, although they also serve clients from Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. These individuals have been subjected to a horrifying range of physical and psychological torture. ASTT provides crucial psychological assessment and counseling to victims, works with other organizations to provide legal assistance to asylum seekers, and seeks to educate physicians and health care workers on how to identify and distinguish torture victims from other victims of violence. I congratulate and commend ASTT on their efforts. Torture victims require specialized treatment and counseling, and therefore it is critical that today we reauthorize the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998, TVRA, in order to meet the growing demand for treatment services provided by U.S. centers. U.S. centers have witnessed a significant increase in patients since the TVRA was enacted: from 935 in 1999 to 3,664 in 2002. The reauthorization of this legislation would ensure that victims continue to receive the treatment that they so desperately need and that centers will be able to expand their existing programs to treat more survivors. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker I rise in support and as a co-sponsor of H. Res. 438, which urges member states of the United Nations to stop supporting resolutions that unfairly castigate Israel and to promote within the United Nations General Assembly more balanced and constructive approaches to resolving conflict in the Middle East. Israel is a critical strategic ally of the United States and is the only true democracy in the Middle East. The United States and Israel are built on a common set of core democratic principles and operate under the rule of law. The United States and Israel must continue to work closely together to eliminate terrorism and foster the spread of democracy and economic prosperity throughout the Middle East. The state of Israel, founded shortly after the Holocaust, serves as a safe haven and strong voice for Jews around the world. The Charter of the United Nations--adopted after the end of World War II--states that the U.N. was founded to ``maintain international peace and security'' and ``develop friendly relations among nations.'' The Charter also states that ``[this] Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has utterly failed to live up to the principles and obligations of its charter when it comes to its treatment of Israel. The United Nations has a long history of singling out Israel for unfair, biased, and one-sided criticism and treatment. Let me mention just a few examples. Israel is the only country that has three special committees set up to support propaganda against it. Israel is the only country that has had its own agenda item dealing with its alleged human rights violations in annual meetings of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, in contrast to all other countries which are combined into a separate agenda item. Israel is the only member nation of the United Nations that has consistently been denied full admission to its regional grouping, which violates the U.N. Charter guarantee of ``sovereign equality'' and denies Israel the right to fully participate in all U.N. functions. Out of the ten emergency special sessions called by the United Nations General Assembly, six have related to Israel. During last year's session of the U.N. General Assembly, the body adopted a total of 71 resolutions by roll call vote, 21 of which (roughly 30 percent) criticized Israel. These resolutions are biased and one-sided, and I am disappointed that the U.N. has not focused its efforts on condemning and bringing an end to Palestinian terrorist attacks launched against Israel. Finally, I want to cite the recent bipartisan task force report issued in June 2005 entitled ``American Interests and U.N. Reform: Report of the Task Force on the United Nations.'' The report, authored by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, found that ``systematic hostility'' against Israel is ``routinely expressed, organized, and funded'' within the U.N. system, which treats Israel as a ``second-class citizen.'' Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has a critical role to play in the 21st century in its role as peacekeeper, election monitor, and humanitarian relief provider. The U.N. has also made great strides in promoting the rule of law and democracy. Unfortunately, the U.N. to date has not played a constructive role in resolving conflict in the Middle East, and the U.N. allowed itself to be hijacked by those with a political agenda. I have also written to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and expressed my concerns about anti-Semitic statements made by U.N. officers, and have urged him to follow the lead of the Helsinki Commission and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in combating anti-Semitism. I hope today's resolution will cause the U.N. and its member states to reevaluate their attitudes toward Israel and to reflect on how they can use the U.N. to make a constructive and meaningful contribution to international peace and security. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, tonight I am disappointed by the limitation placed on debate on the U.S. role in Iraq. Congress needs to have a real and meaningful debate on the future role of the U.S. military in Iraq as we approach the third anniversary of our invasion of Iraq. Congress should take seriously its obligation to oversee our military forces. I voted against giving the President the authority to go to war in Iraq. I have been an outspoken critic of the President's handling and planning for the Iraq War, and have criticized both the pre-war intelligence used by the President and the failure of the President to plan a realistic transition from a dictatorship to a democracy in Iraq with our allies. I commend the Senate for the debate it had this week in which real policy options were reviewed in a serious and responsible manner. I agree that 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, and that Iraqi security forces must take the lead in protecting its citizens. U.S. military forces should not stay in Iraq any longer than required, and Congress must insist on measurable benchmarks for bringing our troops home. Our soldiers have paid the heaviest price in Iraq: thousands are dead, and tens of thousands are wounded. The American taxpayer has already invested hundreds of billions of dollars. Mr. Speaker, our soldiers deserve better than the resolution we are considering this evening. The American people deserve a Congress that will give serious consideration to how we can safely bring our soldiers home.