Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). I think the gentleman pointed out that there are no sections other than the two I mentioned that are action sections in your bill. And I point out again that the double-counting provision will make the application of countervailing duties much more difficult, if not impossible, in a nonmarket economy; and that is not helpful to companies that have been hurt by subsidized products coming from China. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, in response to my friend from Florida's (Mr. Shaw) comments on the intellectual property problems that we are having with China, and they are substantial, China is violating intellectual property rights every day not only with videos and tapes, but also with industrial products. Listen to what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said. Listen to the action required by the President if China violates intellectual property to gather information. We already have that, Madam Speaker. Action is filing a claim under the WTO. That is following the requirements of the WTO dispute settlement resolution process. There is no action whatsoever in this bill. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) got it right. This is a bill about saying things about China that people might feel good about. And if you are so inclined to feel good about it and want to vote for it, fine. But to say that this is taking action against China is just wrong. It does not take action against China. The administration tomorrow could file a claim against China on intellectual property against China if it wanted to, and it should have. The administration yesterday should have filed claims against China for currency manipulation, and it has not, and then allow the WTO process to proceed. But for us to say that we are requiring the administration to make a finding and then collect information which they already have is being tough on China, come on now. Let us be straightforward on this bill. It is a bill that says things about China that many Members might feel good about, but as far as taking action against China, this bill comes out short. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. In response on the currency issue, section 6 in this legislation deals with currency manipulation. It does not deal with China specifically. And it requires the Secretary of the Treasury to define currency manipulation and describe actions of foreign countries that will be considered to be currency manipulation. The problem is Treasury has already done this and found that China was not manipulating its currency despite the fact that we know it undervalues its currency between 15 percent and 40 percent. So I appreciate the gentleman's concern about the competitive problems that we have with American manufacturers and producers trying to compete with an undervalued Chinese currency, but this bill comes up very short. But I very much appreciate what the gentleman said because we will be come back in a little bit and offer him an opportunity to really do something about the manipulation of China's currency. Madam Speaker, let me also point out while I am on the floor that legislation filed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), H.R. 3306, would take action in this area by requiring the administration to initiate a WTO action to address China's currency manipulation. Now, that would bring action consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization because we would act under the World Trade Organization. That is what we should be doing. Let me suggest that when you file an action under the WTO, it is not the end of issues, it is the beginning of a process. To ask the Secretary of the Treasury to do another study or come up with another definition, all we do is delay for another year any action against China. And to suggest that there are minor adjustments that they made is in any way dealing with the underlying problems of currency manipulation is just unreal. China announced today that they do not intend to do more. So we need to take action against China. American jobs are at stake. We can compete if it is on a fair, level playing field. It is not. This bill does not deal with the China currency issue. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the textile issue that was recently mentioned on the other side. When we negotiated our WTO accession agreement with China, we provided certain safeguards against the flooding of a market on textiles, knowing that the textile quota would be expiring. The concern many of us have had with China is that our government has not exercised the safeguards that are currently available to us under the agreement negotiated with China. We would like to see the administration be more aggressive in making sure that we do not get a flooded market either here or with trading partners that would have an adverse impact on the textile industry. That is a major concern in our relationship with the People's Republic of China. The concern is that this legislation does absolutely nothing about that. So I appreciate the comments of my colleague on the other side of the aisle that there is no provision in this bill that would require action against China consistent with the provisions of the WTO accession agreement. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the discussion that we have had. One of the advantages of the consideration of this bill under a rule as restrictive and repressive as the rule was, is that we do have a chance to have a more open and full debate, and I appreciate that. I appreciate also the fact that we have been able to go through many of the provisions, including the colloquy that was just recently put on the record. I found that colloquy helpful, because I must tell you I shared the same concerns as to whether we were turning over to dispute settlement panels a decision as to whether we would bring future cases using counterveiling duties. And if I understand my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), that would be a determination made solely by our Commerce Department consistent with U.S. interests, and I certainly agree with that interpretation. I regret that we have not had the chance to consider amendments or consider a substitute, because I do think that there is general sentiment among the overwhelming majority of the Members of this body to take action against China for its failure to comply with international trading rules. China has violated currency manipulation, which has worked to the disadvantage of American manufacturers, farmers, and producers. China has not enforced intellectual property issues, which has worked to the disadvantage of our entertainment industry, and to our engineering and manufacturing industries. China has flooded the markets, contrary to its trade agreements on textiles, which has worked to the disadvantage of the U.S. markets. China over and over again has denied access on services and many other areas that require action. So it is appropriate that we should be considering legislation to address the shortcomings of China's compliance with international trade rules. Now, I think we could have come up with a much stronger bill. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), as I pointed out earlier, introduced H.R. 3306. And when you compare H.R. 3306 with the bill that is before us, you cannot help but feel that we should have done a much better job. H.R. 3306 would have applied U.S. countervailing duty laws to China and other nonmarket economies without the additional burdens imposed by the underlying bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) quoted from some sources that support that provision. Let me just tell you that Nucor, which is, as you know, a steel company that has to live with subsidized steel from China coming into the U.S. market, opposes the provision. Nucor believes that the extra burden of trying to establish the amount of subsidy when you have to factor additionally for nonmarket economies domestic subsidies, it is a burden that will make the new countervailing duty application meaningless as it relates to China. That is a specific company telling us, who supported the original English bill, they oppose this provision because of the problems. I could cite other examples, Madam Speaker, but on one hand the bill gives some relief for countervailing duties to nonmarket economies; but on the other, the bill imposes new restrictions that really make it very difficult if it provides any help at all. The Rangel bill would require the administration to initiate WTO action to address China's currency manipulation. Instead, the underlying bill provides for another study generally by Treasury which will delay action taken against China by another period of time. H.R. 3306, the Rangel bill, would strengthen special China safeguard laws. The underlying bill does nothing on that at all. So, Madam Speaker, we have a bill that contains the sense of Congress and provisions that I think most of the Members of this body would agree with. It contains some other provisions that are well intended, and I think the majority of the Members of this body would agree with. But I want to make it clear that for those who are claiming this bill is tough on China or tough on enforcing our trade rules with China, it does not do that. It does say certain things about China that most Members of this body would agree with. The main purpose of this bill was to deal with countervailing duties to nonmarket economies, and it does that in a way that probably will provide no relief. It provides authorizations for additional funds for two agencies that deal with trade, but we have already taken care of that in the appropriation bill. So I come back to the point of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). If you want to feel good and vote for this bill, go ahead and do it. But if you think you are taking action against China, if you believe that this bill will speak to the trade imbalance we currently have with China because of China's failure to adhere to their international responsibilities under the WTO or under the accession agreement with the United States, if you believe that, this bill does not do that. This bill is a missed opportunity because we were not able to have a free and open rule. So I regret, Madam Speaker, that we are sort of in a dilemma with this bill as to what advice we should give Members. If you look at it as a resolution expressing the sense of Congress, there is nothing wrong with this bill. But if you look at it as a bill to provide action against China, there is really nothing in it to do that.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

Mr. CARDIN. I am at this time

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond to gentlewoman's comments. Madam Speaker, there is nothing in this bill that deals with dumping and enforcement in China. There is nothing in this bill that takes action against China for currency manipulation. And there is nothing in this bill that takes action against China for intellectual property failures. On the countervailing duties, I have already commented on that. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the former ranking Democrat on trade, the senior member of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the 15th anniversary of the signing of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA extended landmark civil rights protections to an estimated 43 million disabled Americans, which is roughly 1 out of every 7 Americans. It established a comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability in the areas of employment, public services, transportation, and telecommunications. The ADA seeks to guarantee that every American should have the right to live independently and fully participate in all aspects of our society. The ADA has had its greatest successes in improving physical accessibility, transportation and communications. The ADA has also begun to change society's attitudes toward people with disabilities. Despite this impressive progress, the promise of the ADA unfortunately remains unfilled for too many disabled Americans. In the area of employment, for example, today only 35 percent of people of working age who have a disability are employed, compared to 78 percent of people without disabilities. Federal courts have also issued rulings interpreting the ADA whereby individuals may be considered too disabled by an employer to get a job, but not disabled enough by the courts to be protected by the ADA. This violates the spirit and intent of the ADA, which was designed to protect employees from discrimination based on real or perceived impairment. Congress should take action to correct these court decisions and strengthen the ADA. As a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, I was pleased that in 1999 Congress enacted the Ticket to Work Act, which provides Americans receiving disability benefits with greater access to vocational rehabilitation services. This initiative provides tickets to recipients of both Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) that can be used to purchase rehabilitation, employment and other supportive services designed to help them secure and maintain a job. Payments to providers of these services are based on the success individuals using the tickets have in overcoming barriers and ultimately in becoming employed. The Ticket to Work Act also created state options to eliminate the dilemma faced by many individuals receiving disability benefits-- choosing between work and health insurance coverage. The Ticket to Work Act allows States to adopt a Medicaid ``buy-in'' program to permit individuals to maintain Medicaid coverage while still working. Finally, the measure extended Medicare Part A coverage to working SSDI beneficiaries for a total of 8\1/2\ years--4 years beyond the coverage previously provided by Medicare. As our Nation celebrates the 15th anniversary of the ADA, let us rededicate ourselves to carry out the commitment of that historic legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I, along with many Democrats, have supported every trade agreement that has been presented. We do that because we believe trade has the potential to generate economic growth and raise the standard of living. The trick though is to make sure that we realize that potential. During the last several decades we have really changed our focus in opening up markets for American manufacturers and producers. We have initially worked on removing tariff barriers. Now we are concerned about nontariff barriers. It does not mean we have done all we need to on tariff barriers, but the priority in our country has been to open up markets by removing nontariff barriers. That is why we spend a lot of time on intellectual property protection, on opening up opportunity for services, and, yes, Mr. Speaker, working on basic international labor standards. I believe everybody in this body would agree with me that we do not want products coming into this country that violate child labor standards. Well, the same is true with other basic internationally recognized labor rights. We have made progress. The Caribbean Basin Initiative, the CBTPA, AGOA and GSP all have improved labor standards around the globe because we have raised the issue and raised the bar. In the Central American countries today, we have the Caribbean Basin Initiative. It has worked. It gives trade preferences to the Central American countries provided that they recognize international labor standards. The failure to do so allows us to impose trade sanctions. The threat has made progress in raising international labor standards and workers' rights in the Central American countries. Mr. Speaker, I do not expect the administration to perform miracles when they negotiate free trade agreements, but I do expect them to represent the priorities of our Nation. In the CAFTA agreement, they repeal the rights we currently have under CBI, under the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Therefore, CAFTA is left with a weaker standard than current law in regards to workers' rights. All CAFTA provides is for a country to enforce their own laws, regardless of how they may be; and then the sanction for failure to enforce their own laws that we have under the dispute settlement resolution are weaker standards. We cannot impose trade sanctions. All we can do is impose a fine, and that fine goes back to their own country. We cannot even enforce these weak standards. You have to draw a line somewhere, Mr. Speaker. We have the constitutional responsibility on trade. We have to make that judgment. This agreement fails in that regard. I had hoped that we would be able to renegotiate so that we could have a strong bipartisan vote on CAFTA. After all, we did that with textiles, and we could have done that with workers' rights. But this administration chose not to do it. In a way, Mr. Speaker, it is more important for a CAFTA agreement than some of the other agreements that have passed, for Chile and Singapore, Morocco and Australia, because of the standard of living in the Central American countries. For people living in poverty, trade, if properly structured, holds out the promise of more meaningful economic opportunities and a better way of life. But trade without basic labor standards will not do that. I think this agreement is not a good agreement for the Central American countries, and it is not a good agreement for the United States.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to first answer my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), and he is my friend. I deeply respect his views as to why we would oppose this agreement when we supported the other agreements that he mentioned. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is correct. In the 18-plus years that I have been honored to served in this body, I have voted for all of the free trade agreements. This will be the first agreement that I will vote against. This is the first agreement in which we actually move backwards on advancing international labor standards. Currently, with the Central American countries, we had the Caribbean Basin Initiative. The Caribbean Basin Initiative has worked. It has provided opportunity for the Central American countries. It has opened up markets for their products. They get preference. But in order to get that preference, they must move towards international labor standards. That is the requirement. We use the threat of withholding trade benefits if they do not adopt international labor standards. That is what we currently have with Central American countries, and it is working. We have made progress. CAFTA repeals those obligations. As the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) said, what is in place is enforcing your own rules without any adequate enforcement. We have a constitutional responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to approve or reject this free trade agreement. Trade opens up opportunity, not only for the United States but for the countries that we do business with. I represent the Port of Baltimore. I am very much in favor of free trade. I would have liked to have had a CAFTA agreement that I could support. The standard of living in the CAFTA nations is not as high as previous agreements that we have approved for Chile, Singapore, Morocco, or Australia. So for people living in poverty, trade if properly structured holds out the promise of a more meaningful economic opportunity and a better way of life in providing markets for our products. But in order for that to occur, we must move the ball forward on protecting labor rights, workers' rights. That is our responsibility. That should be our priority. This agreement moves backwards. We have a constitutional responsibility to make a judgment on this. I do not know how we can support an agreement that moves us in the wrong direction. I do not expect miracles from our negotiators. But I certainly expect that they will adhere to priorities. I certainly expect that they will not give up something that the other countries have not asked us to give up. You start to worry when you see those types of provisions in an agreement. Mr. Speaker, this could have been corrected. We made changes in the CAFTA agreement for textiles. We could have made changes for these labor provisions. We could have kept the Caribbean Basin Initiative protections; but, no, we did not do that. We could have done it. If we would have done it, we could have had strong bipartisan support for this legislation, as trade bills should be considered. This CAFTA agreement is not good for the United States. It is not good for the Central American countries. I urge my colleagues to exercise their constitutional responsibility, as I am, and vote against this agreement.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my Republican colleagues talk about this rule, I understand why the Republican leadership is bringing forward a closed rule, because if we had an open rule, we would end up with a very good bill that would do something about enforcing our laws against China. I listened to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) talk about this being the key trade vote of the year, and I think we should understand that the Committee on Rules is responsible to make sure that we have a fair and open debate by the manner in which they propose rules. There has never been an opportunity to offer a single amendment to this bill anywhere along the process, whether in the subcommittee, the full committee, or here on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I understand that Trade Promotional Authority gives the right of the administration to submit a trade-negotiated bill to the Congress after consultation and after a mock markup on an up-or-down vote. I just did not know that we had given the Republican leadership the right to bring out any bill they wanted to with an up-or-down vote without having democracy work. That is what this rule represents, and it is shameful. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) talks about the tradition. The minority normally gets an opportunity to offer a substitute on a major bill. They do not even give us the right to offer a substitute. That is just wrong, and that is not a democratic process. Let me just talk for a moment or two about substance. I heard my colleagues talk about the manipulation of currency by China. No action is taken in this legislation in that regard. China undervalues its currency between 15 to 40 percent. We know that. Nothing is done in this bill to bring action against China for currency manipulation. Another study by Treasury? Excuse me, they just came back and told us there is no manipulation. What do we expect to get from that? My friends talk about intellectual property. They are absolutely correct. China does not adhere to international standards on protecting intellectual property. No action is provided in this bill against China in regards to their infringement of intellectual property. My friends talk about the textile issues and the flooding of the market after the quotas were finished. We have certain safeguards. Nothing is done in this legislation for action against China in regards to the flooding of markets. So what does this bill do? Does it deal with countervailing duties? Yes, it does. That is where we have illegally subsidized products coming into the U.S. market. But what does it do? It provides some relief on one hand, but makes it more difficult on the other. It is hard to figure out whether it is a plus or a minus. Then my friends talk about more money. It does not provide any more money. We have already done that through the appropriation bills. We do not need this bill to do it. There is nothing new in this bill. Then my friends talked about other issues that are not in this bill. Read the bill. We have missed an opportunity to deal with China by this rule. I hope we will listen to what the gentleman from the Committee on Rules is saying on the Democratic side. Give us a chance to have a full debate on China. That is the tradition of this body.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the underlying bill for many reasons. Fundamentally, it violates the concept of federalism that is embodied in our Constitution, respect for our States, and the ability of our States to be able to regulate public safety issues and health issues for the people of our States. This legislation would preempt the ability of my State and your State to protect the rights of our own citizens through regulation. That is wrong. That is the wrong usurpation of power by the Federal Government. This underlying legislation would adversely affect the people of Maryland, and let me tell you why. Our legislature has passed small market reform. People who work for companies that are between two and 50 employees have the opportunity to purchase insurance, affordable health insurance in Maryland as a result of our small market reform. The passage of this legislation will mean the end of the small market reform and the opportunity to purchase insurance by small employers in my State. That is wrong. We are going to be moving in the wrong direction with making affordable health insurance available for the people of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I want you to understand the Insurance Commissioner of Maryland is a Republican. The Governor of Maryland, who opposes this bill, is a Republican. This should not be a partisan issue. This should be a matter about the appropriate use of the Federal authority and it is being used wrong here. I congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for his substitute which is sensitive to the rights of our States. I hope Members will support the substitute and reject the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, as a member who is dedicated to protecting the rights of Americans who have health insurance and to ensuring that opportunities to secure affordable health insurance can be expanded, I rise in opposition to H.R. 525. Since coming to Congress, I have heard frequently from individuals who work in small business. They have spoken to me about the difficulties that result from a lack of health insurance coverage, skyrocketing premiums, and reductions in benefits. I remain committed to developing solutions that will alleviate the hardships faced by many Maryland families and small businesses. However, the Association Health Plan (AHP) legislation we are considering on the House floor today is not a viable solution. H.R. 525 would exempt AHPs from State laws and State regulatory oversight. Through this special exemption, AHPs would be able to severely undermine the goal of greater health care access and affordability for Maryland residents. Although some supporters of this legislation claim it will benefit small employers, the reality is that H.R. 525 will only hurt the small business community. H.R. 525 would leave the Maryland insurance commissioner powerless to protect our citizens. Under this misguided bill, unregulated out-of- state AHPs could operate in Maryland without being required to comply with health care safeguards enacted by our state legislature, such as: Appropriate access to emergency care. The right to independent appeal of denied claims, Fair insurance premiums for small groups, Consumer marketing protections, Prevention of health plan failures due to insolvency. Under this legislation, my constituents would not only lose their ability to demand an independent review of denied claims, but they would lose guaranteed access to important benefits such as emergency medical treatment and mammography screenings. Workers who purchase association health plan coverage--believing that they are getting comprehensive insurance--may very well find that they would still have to shoulder the costs of these essential services. Not only would this bill be harmful to potential subscribers, it would destroy the small group market reforms already in place in Maryland. Twelve years ago, my home state of Maryland took a major step toward helping small businesses afford health insurance for their workers. Our reforms guarantee the availability of reasonably priced, comprehensive health insurance for all small employers. Specifically, Maryland requires all health insurers to sell a comprehensive standard benefit package designed by an independent commission to all employers with between 2 and 50 employees. The plan must have benefits that are actuarially equivalent to those required to be offered by federally qualified HMOs, and the average cost cannot exceed 12 percent of Maryland's average annual wage. Insurers have the option of offering additional benefits, but they must be priced separately. Insurers must use adjusted community rating to price their plans, and they cannot impose pre-existing condition limitations. The Maryland plan not only guarantees the availability of reasonably priced insurance, it also makes it easier for small employers to make ``apples to apples'' comparisons of health costs throughout the state. Due to these reforms, more Maryland small businesses offer health care coverage to their employees than in any surrounding states or in the nation as a whole. Maryland's system is one in which healthy subscribers subsidize those who are less healthy. These reforms work because insurers are not allowed to ``cherry pick'' the businesses that have the healthiest workers. Association health plans have been outlawed in our state. The association health plan legislation before us would undermine our system by using the lure of lower premiums to attract firms whose workers have fewer health problems, firms whose employees might be willing to forgo some of the consumer protections offered under Maryland law. Businesses with older, sicker employees would remain in the state system, driving up premiums. H.R. 525 would, in effect, lead to the collapse of Maryland's system. I want to emphasize that this is not a partisan issue--AHS's are opposed by my own governor, our former colleague Robert Ehrlich, and by the National Governors' Association, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. I will submit for the Record an April 19 letter from Alfred Redmer, Maryland's Insurance Commissioner, expressing his opposition to H.R. 525. This bill would be devastating on a national level, as well. The non- partisan Congressional Budget Office found that premiums would increase for 20 million employees and their dependents who are covered through small firms, and that 100,000 of the sickest workers would lose coverage altogether if this AHP legislation were enacted. Passage of this legislation would be a disservice to every worker, every family, and every small business in Maryland. H.R. 525 fails to provide meaningful help for the uninsured, denies access to affordable health care for older, less healthy groups, and undermines the crucial consumer protections that our General Assembly has enacted. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Mr. Speaker, the following is a letter from our insurance commissioner who is opposed to H.R. 525: Maryland Insurance Administration, Baltimore, MD, April 19, 2005. Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Cardin: As Commissioner of the Maryland Insurance Administration I am writing to express my strong opposition to federal legislation that would create Association Health Plans, AHPs. I understand such legislation, H.R. 525, has been passed, again, by the House Education and the Workforce Committee and may soon come to the floor of the House for a vote. H.R. 525 would allow AHPs to form and operate in Maryland outside the authority of my office and beyond the reach of proven State consumer safeguards and solvency laws. If enacted into law, this could do irreparable harm to our small group market and strip our citizens of critical protections. Altough I share the sponsor's concern for the growing number of small business employees who cannot afford adequate coverage, the fact is this legislation would do little, if anything to address this problem. H.R. 525 ignores the root cause of the current crisis--skyrocketing healthcare spending. Unless spending is brought under control no attempts to increase competition or enhance options for small business will truly make insurance affordable and, thus, promote coverage. Even more troubling is the harm the legislation would do to consumers, H.R. 525 would: (1) permit risk selection thereby creating opportunities for ``cherry-picking'' among healthier groups; (2) allow inadequate capital standards and solvency requirements, both of which are inferior to existing State standards; (3) eliminate proven State consumer protection laws, including those designed to allow consumer appeals of adverse plan decisions and those aimed at preventing and fighting fraud; and (4) allow AHPs to ignore State benefit requirements. To add insult to injury, while longstanding State oversight and consumer protections would be eliminated, H.R. 525 provides no additional resources to the Department of Labor to regulate AHPs or help consumers. I remain committed to improving access to affordable insurance for small business owners and workers in Maryland. Together, we can find solutions that will be effective and not lead to greater problems in the future. H.R. 515 is clearly not the answer and I urge you to oppose it. Sincerely, Al Redmer, Jr., Insurance Commissioner.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, normally the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and I are on the same side when it comes to antidumping and countervailing duty bills. Both of us have a strong desire to make sure that our antidumping laws and countervailing duty laws are enforced, particularly as it relates to our manufacturing industries. We differ on this bill. This bill purports to move forward and clarify the use of countervailing duty remedies against nonmarket economies, but it establishes two new loopholes that will make it difficult for industry to get relief. It is already difficult for industry to get relief. This bill will make it more difficult. I find it difficult how people can understand our debate here today. These are very complicated issues talking about double counting. I would like to have a debate with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) in regards to problems of double counting. These are complex issues. This bill is on the suspension calendar. We cannot even offer any amendments or substitutes. We are limited to 40 minutes of debate. That is not the way we should be talking about a major issue concerning our relationships with nonmarket economies and our trading rules. This bill does address some specific issues, but does not address the problems. As it deals with countervailing duties, it creates two new problems for cases to be filed. In regard to currency manipulation by China, an issue that many of us have talked about on this floor, what does this bill do, it sets up another study by the Treasury Department. We already know what they are going to do. They have already reported back to us. We need action. In regard to the use of safeguards, no action in this bill. International property violations, no action in this bill. In regards to the loophole Chinese exporters have to avoid paying duties, it provides a temporary 3-year provision rather than permanently fixing the action. Despite what the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, there is no new money in this bill in order to enforce our laws. We have already gone through the appropriation process what this bill purports to do through the suspension calendar. Mr. Speaker, we should be able to consider H.R. 3306 introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). That bill would fix the countervailing duty problems we have with nonmarket economies such as China. It would allow us to take action against Chinese manipulation of currency. It would allow action to be taken in regards to the safeguards that we have negotiated with China on the WTO accession agreement. It would provide permanent relief in regards to the loophole that Chinese exporters are currently using to avoid duties. That is the legislation we should be able to consider, at least through amendment, but we cannot because of the process that is being used here. The bottom line is this legislation actually creates more problems in industry being able to bring antidumping or countervailing duty actions, and we should not be making it more difficult. It is already too difficult for industries to get the type of relief that they desire. We should have a full and open debate on our relationship with nonmarket economies. This legislation does not allow us to do it. I urge my colleagues to reject the suspension.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, since 1990 the Hubble Space Telescope, HST, has inspired scientists and students' alike. Unlike ground-based telescopes, HST is uninhibited by the Earth's atmosphere and therefore uniquely suited to capture images from distant space with high image clarity. HST allows us to look further back in time to the universe's earliest days. By design, the Hubble Telescope requires regular servicing missions. These missions have occurred in 1993, 1997, 1999, and 2002, and the mission scheduled for 2004 was postponed after the Columbia Shuttle tragedy. Servicing missions allow us to repair broken parts of the telescope and to add additional components that improve viewing abilities by ten degrees or more. Our next servicing mission would repair three faulty gyroscopes that failed in April 2003. Without this mission, HST will continue to operate in degraded mode. There is only a 50 percent chance that HST will be in operation past March 2007 without a servicing mission. Beyond 2007, the chance for continued operation of HST declines significantly. On January 16, 2004 former NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe informed workers at the Space Telescope Science Institute at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (which built Hubble and oversees STScI) that he was canceling SM-4, a Hubble Servicing mission, because the shuttle would not have the International Space Station as a safe haven. The implication was that shuttles that have the ISS as a safe-haven are safer, but this claim is not supported by NASA or STSI experts. I am pleased to see Congress respond to this decision, and to authorize a Hubble servicing mission in the near future. Section 302 of base bill takes into consideration the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, and states that ``it is the sense of the Congress that the Hubble Space Telescope is an extraordinary instrument that has provided, and should continue to provide, answers to profound scientific questions . . . all appropriate efforts should be expended to complete the Space Shuttle servicing mission. Upon successful completion of the planned return-to-flight schedule of the Space Shuttle, the schedule for a Space Shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope shall be determined, unless such a mission would compromise astronaut safety.'' I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005. Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress undertook a review of Bush Administration proposals to strengthen our laws relating to counterterrorism. Congress passed the Patriot Act in October 2001--which I supported--recognizing that it needed to give law enforcement the proper tools to effectively combat new terrorist threats. The law took account of new changes in technology that are used by terrorists, such as cell phones, the Internet, and encryption technologies. The original Act gives federal officials greater authority to track, intercept, and share communications, both for law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering purposes. It vests the Secretary of the Treasury with regulatory powers to combat corruption of U.S. financial institutions for foreign money laundering purposes. It seeks to further close our borders to foreign terrorists and to detain and remove those within our borders. It creates new crimes, new penalties, and new procedural efficiencies for use against domestic and international terrorists. Indeed, the PATRIOT Act gives federal prosecutors many of the same tools to use against terrorists that Congress has already granted them to use against drug traffickers, for example. The original Act also creates judicial safeguards for e-mail monitoring and grand jury disclosures; recognizes innocent owner defenses to forfeiture; and entrusts enhanced anti-money laundering powers to those regulatory authorities whose concerns include the well being of our financial institutions. Congress did not grant all of the authority the President sought in the first Patriot Act, and sunsetted much of the Act's authority in 2005. Many of the wiretapping and foreign intelligence amendments sunset on December 31, 2005. The sunset provisions require Congressional oversight because Congress must take an affirmative action to keep these provisions in effect. I believe that Congress should exercise greater oversight of the use of new authority under the PATRIOT Act, as I have some misgivings about the Administration's use of the new powers under the PATRIOT Act. Over the past few years I have continued to insist on greater oversight by Congress of the Justice Department as it executes its new powers. I am pleased that the Committee includes sunsets for two provisions: access to business and other records, and roving wiretaps. I support additional sunsets for other provisions in this legislation such as the ``sneak and peek'' provision which allows delayed notification for search warrants--and I am hopeful that the House will ultimately adopt the additional sunsets approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee when this bill returns from conference committee. I am disappointed that the House leadership did not make in order amendments that would have: exempted library and bookstore records from Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) searches; reformed the roving wiretap authority in FISA cases to contain the same privacy safeguards as roving wiretaps in criminal cases; established the traditional FISA standards for search warrants; required individual suspicion for records orders; allowed citizens to challenge secrecy orders in records requests; and extended the sunset clauses for numerous other provisions of the Patriot Act. I voted in favor of a number of bipartisan amendments to limit the Justice Department's power and increase Congressional and judicial oversight of the executive branch, including: requiring the FBI Director to personally approve searches of library or bookstore records; additional reporting to courts by law enforcement when they change surveillance locations under a ``roving wiretap''; allowing recipients of National Security Letters to consult with an attorney and challenge the letters in court; and increasing reporting requirements and making it more difficult to obtain ``sneak and peak'' search warrants, which entail secret searches of homes and offices with delayed notice. 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 upheld our oaths to support the Constitution. I support H.R. 3199 but I hope as this legislation works its way through Congress, we will include sunsets on the provisions we are reauthorizing, so that Congress will continue to oversee the executive branch's use of these new powers.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Barbara R. Heller, Rauschenbach Distinguished Professor of Nursing and Executive Director, Center for Health Workforce Development, University of Maryland, Baltimore for her many years of service to the citizens of Maryland, and to commend her for her leadership and unwavering commitment to help alleviate the shortage of nurses and allied health care workers. The Center for Health Workforce Development at the University of Maryland is dedicated to analyzing and understanding health workforce issues, dynamics and trends with the goal of translating knowledge derived from research and evaluation studies into policies and programs to enhance the nursing and health workforce. Since its inception in 2002, the Center has produced documentation of the extent of the nursing shortage in Maryland; sponsored interdisciplinary consensus conferences on seeking solutions to nursing and health workforce shortages in acute and long term care; collaborated in the development of innovative nurse retention initiatives; and designed and implemented a model AmeriCorps Health Care Volunteer Service Program to train a cadre of skilled volunteers who are assigned to serve as auxiliary health care workers in hospitals and nursing homes. This program aims to lessen critical nursing and health workforce shortages and augment service delivery to patients while at the same time establishing an educational pipeline that encourages AmeriCorps members to pursue nursing and other health careers. Dr. Heller has more than 30 years of academic and administrative experience. She served as Dean of the University of Maryland School of Nursing from 1990 until 2002, and previously held senior academic administrative posts at Villanova University in Pennsylvania, and the State University of New York. Her past experience also includes an inter-governmental personnel assignment at the Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health; a Congressional Fellowship in the U.S. House of Representatives; an appointment to the Commission on Health, Montgomery County, Maryland; as well as service as a member of the Board of Directors of the Southern Council on Collegiate Education for Nurses; the Board of Governors of the National League for Nursing; and the Board of Directors of Hadassah Medical Organization in Jerusalem. She currently serves as a member of the Boards of Directors of the Washington Hospital Center and Nurses Educational Funds, Inc.; as a member of the Greater Baltimore Health Subcommittee; as well as my Health Care Advisory Committee. She is an alumna of Leadership Maryland, Class of 1996; the 1998 class of the Robert Wood Johnson Executive Nurse Fellows Program; and has been named to the Circle of Excellence of Maryland's Top 100 Women. Mr. Speaker, it is for her dedication to the pursuit of academic excellence and her contributions to improvements in nursing and health care that I rise to thank Dr. Heller. Nurses across the Nation and the people of Maryland are in her debt. I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Dr. Heller's accomplishments and thanking her for her service to Maryland.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on June 24, 2004, this House passed a Resolution, H. Res. 695, honoring Mattie J.T. Stepanek and his ``braveness, generosity of spirit, and efforts to raise awareness of Muscular Dystrophy.'' Today I am pleased to note the June 18, 2005 groundbreaking for the Mattie J.T. Stepanek Park at King Farm, to be constructed on the corner of Crestfield and Piccard Drive in Rockville, MD. Dedicated to a young man whose courage and vision for peace provide an example for all, his park will become a favorite for Maryland residents and visitors. A young poet who was diagnosed with neuromuscular disease known as dysautonomic mitochondrial myopathy, Mattie Stepanek achieved international recognition when his collection of poems, Journey Through Heartsongs, which reached the New York Times Best Seller List in 2002. Mattie also authored four other books of poetry. He served as the National Goodwill Ambassador for the Muscular Dystrophy Association in 2002, 2003, and 2004, and in 2004 the Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon was dedicated to him. Mattie also befriended Oprah Winfrey, and was featured often as a guest on her television program. One of his goals was to meet his hero, former President Jimmy Carter. When Mattie was hospitalized in September 2001, he got his chance. Nurses and staff recall that during their 15-minute conversation, Mattie did not discuss his illness with President Carter, focusing instead on problems affecting developing nations. The former President and Mattie developed a close friendship, and when Mattie passed away on June 22, 2004 at the age of 13, President Carter delivered a eulogy in which he recalled winning the Nobel Peace Prize. ``Mattie shared the honor that I had received,'' he noted. Mattie was a gifted poet, and a great companion to his mother, Jeni Stepanek. Mattie's sister, Katie, and his two brothers, Stevie and Jamie, died in early childhood from the same disease Mattie battled. Plans for the 26.2-acre memorial park include a statue of Mattie with his golden retriever, Micah. The park will plan activities specially designed for people with disabilities, and it will host an event each year for local schools in the spirit of Mattie's passion for peace. Mr. Speaker, Mattie was a child filled with compassion and imagination. He won the respect and friendship of a President and Nobel laureate, who continues to call Mattie the ``most extraordinary person whom [he has] ever known.'' No one who met Mattie Stepanek could ever forget him. Now future generations of Marylanders--who will not have that opportunity--will be able to visit Mattie's park, celebrate his life, and enjoy the sunsets he loved so much.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his many years of service to this institution, again bringing forward a well-balanced bill. I want to thank him and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Madam Chairman, I want to bring up two provisions that are in this authorization bill that relate to the work of our Helsinki Commission. I note that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is on the floor, our chairman. I work with him as the ranking Democrat, and over the last several years we have raised priorities for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe through our Helsinki Commission, and I am very pleased that this authorization bill carries out those priorities. First let me point out that the bill authorizes $225,000 annually for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and $125,000 annually for general religious freedom programs that are administered by the OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. This carries out a commitment that our commission brought forward in fighting anti-Semitism and developing international meetings to deal with strategies to combat anti-Semitism. This authorization will help us accomplish those goals. These are important initiatives. I must point out that, although we have made progress, there is a lot more that needs to be done, and I am confident that by this authorization we will have the tools, at least in our country, to see to the implementation of these commitments. H.R. 2601 regrets the lack of implementation by many of the OSCE participating states and their commitments to track and report on anti-Semitic crimes and hate crimes. In the last Congress I was pleased to join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), Helsinki Commission chairman, in working to enact the Global Anti- Semitism Review Act of 2004. So I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for authorizing resources in this bill to deal with that. The second point I would just mention very briefly is the fact of expressing concern about restitution of property taken during the Nazi era in Poland. I appreciate that also being included in this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out to the gentleman from California, we have worked together when he was chairman and I was ranking member. I would just urge the gentleman to sit down and try to work out a bill that represents the views of all people of this country and all 435 Members of this distinguished body. I would point out very clearly that, the last time I checked, the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and the White House since 2002, and yet we have been unable to pass a TANF reauthorization bill. Stop placing blame. Let us sit down and work together. Give us a chance to sit at the table, and you are going to have a much better bill that will help American families escape poverty and will give the resources necessary to the States so that they can get the job done and will provide safe and affordable daycare, child care for the families that need it. In my own State of Maryland, the only way you can get child care is to go on welfare. That is the wrong message. Let us get it done right.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I must tell you, I am extremely disappointed. In 2002, the TANF law expired. This is the tenth temporary extension. These are missed opportunities. The Democrats believe that we should extend the TANF bill. But we should stop trying to micromanage from Washington, one size fits all, and we should provide resources necessary for our States to be able to lift American families out of poverty. Our objective in TANF reauthorization should be to lift families out of poverty, yet the bills that have passed this body that the chairman of the committee has referred to fails to incorporate lifting families out of poverty as a core requirement of TANF. We should be providing education and training to the mothers leaving welfare so that they can move up the economic ladder, yet the bills that have passed this body have restricted our States in their ability to provide education and training to the people on welfare. We should be providing safe and affordable child care so that families can, in fact, move up the economic ladder and accept employment opportunities. Yet the bills that have passed this body have provided inadequate funds for child care. We have provided more mandates, $11 billion more needed in child care alone, yet the bill that passed this body provides only $1 billion, an unfunded Federal mandate. We can do better. If we really want to lift families out of poverty, let us sit down now. Stop stalling. Let us work together, Democrats and Republicans, so that we can have a TANF reauthorization bill that will help American families out of poverty rather than the bills that have passed this body that will step backward.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and urge my colleague to vote for its passage. Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, quoted in the text of this resolution, defines genocide as ``any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group''. Genocide is defined as the commission of acts with that intention whether or not the acts succeed or are completed. The word ``prevention'' is also in the title of the Genocide Convention. While not specifying what could be done or obligating countries to do any specific thing, clearly genocide must be defined as something taking place and not as something necessarily accomplished. If accomplished, it is too late to prevent it. When I look at this definition and then hear what happened in Srebrenica 10 years ago, I can only agree with the Appeals Chamber at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which confirmed in April 2004 that the crime of summarily executing almost 8,000 men and boys at Srebrenica alone meets the legal definition of genocide. The Appeals Chamber, in which an American is the presiding judge, concluded in a decision appealing a conviction that ``the law must not shy away from referring to the crime committed by its proper name . . . The Appeals Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide. Those responsible will bear this stigma, and it will serve as a warning to those who may in the future contemplate the commission of such a heinous act.'' Twenty-three people have been indicted for genocide by the Hague. Regardless of individual guilt or innocence, the acceptance of the legitimacy of the charges is a recognition that genocide occurred. Indeed, if it is accepted that Srebrenica itself was genocide, then we must consider the 20-30,000 non-Serbs killed in the Prijedor region, which gets less attention mostly because it took place over a 6-month period rather than a week, especially given that the crime was committed perhaps by some of the same people and certainly under the same command. Similarly, we must consider the more than 10,000 killed and 50,000 wounded by the sniper fire and an average of over 300 shells per day fired into the city Sarajevo in the more than 3-year siege of that city--a crime again committed by perhaps some of the same people and certainly under the same command. We must consider what happened in Foca and Brcko. When we add all these and other places together, we must conclude that genocide occurred. This, of course, does not mean that Serbs were not also victimized, nor does it mean that all Serbs are somehow guilty for what has been done in their name. But today, it is entirely appropriate that we focus on what happened in Srebrenica, and to put Srebrenica in the context of the larger Bosnian conflict. It is also an important time to urge the authorities in Belgrade, who have made considerable progress this year, to finally complete their cooperation with the tribunal. Serbia must transfer Ratko Mladic and other at-large indictees to the Hague immediately, so that this issue no longer holds Serbia back from taking on a more prominent role in Europe. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this important resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a true patriot. Known simply as ``Jake,'' James Jarrell Pickle served in the House of Representatives for 32 years where he became a senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee--where I had the pleasure of serving with him. While in Congress, his dedication to the concerns of his constituents as well as putting their interests first made Jake a well respected figure on Capitol Hill. Publicly listing his home phone number and personally taking calls from his constituents well into the night, Jake embodied accountability in governance. His political drive was so focused that it is said that he lost 25 pounds during his first Congressional campaign. The strength of Jake's political convictions can best be seen in his vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--one year after his first election. Jake was convinced that this vote would guarantee him a ticket out of Washington in his next election. Regardless of this potential outcome, he became one of only seven southern Representatives to vote for this important piece of legislation, and the good voters of Texas' 10th District sent him back to Congress for the next 31 years. As the Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, Jake played a major role in writing legislation that saved Social Security in 1983, when, much like today, it faced financial challenges. His words then calling for bipartisanship ring true today-- Jake said, ``We should hold our fire. We can't inflame this subject. If we inflame it too much, nothing will get done, and if nothing gets done, the American people will have the right to throw us all out.'' One year later, Jake was influential in preserving Social Security benefits for the disabled. Before he entered Congress, Jake served in World War II as a Gunnery Officer on the USS St. Louis and the USS Miami. During his three year stint, starting in 1942, Jake survived three torpedo attacks. Clearly he was meant to make it back. When he returned home, he established Austin, Texas's third radio station, KVET. When I was first elected to the Ways and Means Committee, Jake helped me understand the great tradition of that Committee. Once, our Committee held a retreat in Austin, Texas, and Jake entertained us for hours with Lady Bird Johnson, telling us story after story. Jake served his District and Nation well, and he will be missed by all of us.