Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished whip for yielding. And I have listened to this colloquy. And let me try to add a little bit to it, if I might. First, I appreciate the leader's acknowledgment on process because the process is very important. I think the debate that we are having on the floor should have been had prior to the rule being brought under a very partisan environment for passage on the first day of session. I think if we would have had a chance, Democrats and Republicans, to review the rules changes, some of the problems that are now being brought out by these rules changes would have been understood. So let me get to the policy issue that the leader brings up. And that is, yes, the chairman and ranking member can proceed to bring a matter before the full committee. But they do not have the investigative power in order to understand what is involved in the particular matter. I served on the Ethics Committee for over 6 years, during some very difficult times, including the bank issues, including a charge against the Speaker of the House. And I can tell you this, that if we would have had a 45-day deadline considering an investigation of this matter, there would have been no way that we could have gotten the necessary votes to proceed. In my entire time on the Ethics Committee we never had a partisan division. We always were able to work out our issues. It was not easy. It took time. We had to sit down and listen to each other, get the facts. In reality, when you look at the rules that we are bound by and the facts, generally you will reach consensus and agreement within the Ethics Committee, and that is exactly what happens. But if the clock is running and there are only 45 days, and after that time there is an automatic dismissal, and that is what is in these rules now, it encourages a partisan division. It works counterintuitive to trying to work out what a consensus would bring out which is in the best interest of the institution. And I regret we did not have the opportunity to debate that during the process of the adoption of the rules. It is interesting to point out that the investigation and the charges that were held against Speaker Gingrich brought about a lot of controversy on this floor. And the majority leader and the minority leader at that time recognized that the only way that we could resolve rules changes was to set up a bipartisan task force, and that is when Mr. Livingston and myself were the co-chairs. And we listened to the debate. And due process for the Member was a very important consideration. And we did change the rules in order to provide for that, but we did it in a bipartisan deliberation, and that was missing this time. And I regret that.

Mr. CARDIN. Just to correct the record, and the leader is correct. We did vote against the package. The package was developed in a very bipartisan manner through the task force. There were some votes that took place on the floor of the House that were recommended against by the task force that changed some of the recommendations, and we had a motion to recommit to try to clarify that. The gentleman is correct on the final vote, but the package itself was very much developed in a bipartisan manner through the task force in a way that it should have been done, contrary to the process that was used on this rules package.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CARDIN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I want to just conclude by acknowledging the work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley). He really does deserve the credit for being persistent to get this legislation passed prior to April 15. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), our chairman, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our ranking member, for arranging this process. It has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman. As the gentleman knows the problems we have had in Maryland with Hurricane Isabel and the hardship that that caused, I got to see firsthand the damage and devastation to families in my own State. This bill will help. It has been my pleasure to join my colleague from Florida in sponsoring and supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I support equitable reform of our nation's bankruptcy laws. I recognize that there has been abuse of our bankruptcy system, and that reform is needed. I think we can all agree that those who can afford to should pay their creditors back--that they should be responsible for their debt. Those debtors who charge thousands of dollars on luxury items prior to declaring bankruptcy, should be held accountable. It is contrary to our values as Americans--this idea that some people are able to abandon their debts by gaming the system. Their actions are not fair to the vast majority of Americans who work hard to pay their debts in full, and Congress should act to limit irresponsible use of our bankruptcy system. I have in the past supported reasonable bankruptcy legislation, and although this bill does contain some good provisions, I regret that I cannot vote for the bill before the House today. S. 256 would make it more difficult for individuals and families who have suffered bona fide financial misfortune to get a fresh start. It does so by establishing a rigid means test to determine if an individual is eligible for Chapter 7 relief. Regardless of the circumstances that led the individual to seek bankruptcy, the court is not permitted to waive the means test. In other words, ``one strike, you're out.'' I am disappointed that we did not add some reasonable flexibility measures to the ``means test.'' The stated purpose of the bill's means test is to prevent consumers who can afford to repay some of their debts from abusing the system by filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy. It makes sense to require those who are able to repay their debts to do so. However, there are some situations that warrant an exception to the means test. What are the reasons that individuals seek what we call ``bankruptcy protection?'' Harvard Law School recently researched bankruptcies and found that nine out of ten persons filing bankruptcy have faced job loss, severe health problems, divorce or separation. Illness or medical bills drove nearly half of these filings. Unfortunately, the bill before us does not offer any relief in these or other tragic circumstances. I voted against the rule because it provides the House no opportunity to vote on amendments that would allow a court to consider extreme circumstances that might have led to bankruptcy filings. I am disappointed that here in the House, the Judiciary Committee failed to close a popular loophole used by the very wealthy to shield millions of dollars by setting up asset protection trusts. If the majority were truly interested in creating a more fair bankruptcy system for all Americans, this would have been included in the bill. The Judiciary Committee also failed to rein in some of the practices of credit card companies that are in part responsible for the rise in bankruptcy filings. They refused to provide credit card users with more detailed information to assist them in handling debt. Why not help consumers understand the consequences of their financial decisions, such as making only the minimum payment each month, so that they can avoid some of the missteps that can lead to higher debt? We do need bankruptcy reform, and I wish that we had an opportunity to address many of these valid concerns. I want to address the concerns of elderly Americans. The number of senior citizens in bankruptcy tripled from 1992 to 2001, representing the largest increase of any group of Americans. According to the Baltimore City Department of Aging, bankruptcies among elderly city residents have increased by nearly 50 percent over the past year. Their costs of living are increasing steadily, including their rent, food, and heating costs. Many of them routinely use credit cards to cover their daily expenses. They are not spending frivolously--they are just getting by. During previous Congresses when this bill was considered, employers were less likely to file for bankruptcy to shed health care and pension obligations to their retirees. More than one million Americans have had their pension plans taken over by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. From 2003 to 2004 alone, 192 plans were taken over by the PBGC. These retirees have seen their benefits reduced and so they must pay more for health care. But they have not had their debts reduced accordingly. An amendment in the other body that would have required companies that dropped retiree health benefits to reimburse each affected retiree for 18 months of COBRA coverage upon reemerging from bankruptcy was defeated. Many seniors who do not yet qualify for Medicare or who have prohibitively high copays also pay medical bills and prescription drug costs with credit cards. Often they skip dosages or forgo care entirely because they cannot afford it. We know the result, which is that many end up with much more severe conditions and many wind up in nursing homes. That translates into greater burdens on our federal and state budgets, and higher costs for us all. I am disappointed that the victims of identity theft cannot seek relief under this bill. We have just learned that between ChoicePoint and Lexis-Nexis, thousands of individuals have been the victims of identity theft. In the last few years, the Ways and Means Committee has held fifteen hearings on a bill to reduce Social Security Number theft, and last year, we reported out a responsible bipartisan bill, but it was not brought to the floor. This year, I am again an original cosponsor of this bill, but it is not yet law, and so virtually every American remains at great risk for identity theft. Unfortunately, our vote on the previous question--to allow bankruptcy judges to take into consideration the fact that persons are forced into bankruptcy because of identity theft--was defeated. Mr. Speaker, I want to vote for an equitable bankruptcy reform bill. So many Americans have been driven into bankruptcy not from a desire to game the system, but because of circumstances beyond their control. This legislation fails to adequately protect their legitimate needs. It is because of them that I must vote against this bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the Order Sons of Italy in America in celebration of their 100th anniversary in June 2005. The OSIA is the largest and longest established organization for men and women of Italian heritage in the United States. Established in 1905 as a mutual aid society for early Italian immigrants, the OSIA has grown to more than 100,000 members nationwide and 2,500 in Maryland. The OSIA is dedicated to preserving Italian- American traditions and culture among the estimated 26 million people of Italian descent living in the United States. I want to commend S. Joseph Avara of Baltimore, past president of the OSIA who did so much to bring financial stability and order to the Maryland Lodge. The OSIA also is a charitable organization, raising millions of dollars for Alzheimer's Disease and Cooley's Anemia, a severe blood disorder that affects those of Mediterranean descent. In addition, the OSIA has also raised a significant amount of money for the March of Dimes. Italian-Americans have made enormous contributions to our nation-- from serving in the armed forces to achievements in science and medicine to public service. I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in saluting the OSIA for its work to ensure that all Americans appreciate the contributions made to our nation by the Italian-American community.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I hope we will reject this bill. Let me give two reasons why: first, the cost. We talk about being fiscally responsible, we talk about trying to balance the Federal budget and say we have a problem with Social Security as far as long-term solvency of 75 years; but let me point out that the revenue loss of this bill equals the 75-year amount to provide long-term solvency for Social Security. What we do here is make choices. If we have a choice to provide for the long-term strength of Social Security or the passage of this bill, my vote is for the long-term solvency of Social Security. The second issue I would like to point out is the predictability of the current estate tax situation. It is not very predictable, and the passage of this bill will do nothing to assure people when they do their estate plans that they can rely upon the schedule Congress has passed. We have a chance with the Pomeroy substitute to bring certainty to estate taxes with a reasonable exemption of $3.5 million, $7 million per couple, and reducing permanently the tax by 10 percent. That is what people want when they do their estate planning. They want predictability. So if Members are fiscal conservatives and are concerned about the cost of this bill on our children and seniors and if Members want predictability in the estate tax, this legislation does not give it to us. This legislation should be rejected, and we should pass a bill that provides certainty with the estate tax. We will have that opportunity with the fiscally responsible substitute so we can deal with the budget problems of this country. We are borrowing way too much money for our children and grandchildren. They deserve better than that. They deserve a Congress that will be fiscally responsible, and the passage of this bill just does not do it. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' comments, and I agree completely with his point. The point that all of us who have served on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and have gone through investigations understand that when we meet in that investigative setting when we have a specific matter before us and when we start looking at the rules of the House and the precedence of the House, we do not get into a disagreement along party lines as to what the rules are and what the expected conduct is. We then look at the facts, and once again the facts become the facts, and we do not divide along party lines as to what the facts are and how we apply them to the rules, and generally, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) pointed out, in an overwhelming number of cases we reach consensus, unanimous judgment, as to what the rules of the House applied to the facts require us to do. And even when we reach disagreement, it is not along party lines. Sometimes there is disagreement on the interpretation of the rules or the facts, but they are not along party lines. In every case that I can ever recall in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, that is exactly how we proceeded and reached judgment, because of the point that the gentleman said, the seriousness of our work and the credibility of this institution and the confidence of this institution is very much affected by it. I think what is extremely disappointing is that we now have rules changes that were dictated in a very partisan manner that make it impossible for the committee to function. This is one of the few bastions of nonpartisan activity within the Congress. Now that is unable to operate because of the way the rules changes were made, and I just thank the gentleman for underscoring how important this matter is.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for yielding me this time. I had the opportunity to serve on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for a little over 6 years during some very difficult times for this institution. I remember Speaker Foley calling me and asking me to serve on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It was not a request. I was being drafted to carry out a very important responsibility that we all have. Under the Constitution, we must judge the conduct of our own Members. It is a solemn responsibility. How we go about doing that will reflect on the integrity of this institution, and that is why it is so important that we do it in the right manner and in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Speaker, we are all human and we do make mistakes, and that is why we need a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, to give guidance to Members as well as monitor the conduct so the public has confidence that in fact we are carrying out our Constitutional responsibility to judge the conduct of our Members. For that reason, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for his service on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, very distinguished service on behalf of this institution. And I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), who has devoted much of his time to the ethics work, as has the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). I thank him for his work on ethics issues. We do not issue many press releases for this work. This is not something Members do because they want to do, it is something Members do because they have to. Mr. Speaker, I was on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct when we had the charges brought against Speaker Gingrich and the so-called banking scandal. Both of those issues were highly publicized, received a lot of attention and were extremely difficult matters. I was one of the four members of this body that served on the investigative subcommittee on Speaker Gingrich. We spent hundreds of hours in deliberations and in preparations. We spent months in work, but we reached a conclusion. We reached a conclusion not because it was easy. We reached a conclusion because we were able to listen to each other. We worked not as Democrats or Republicans. We worked as Members of this body to do what we are required to do, and that is to judge the conduct of one of our own Members, and we reached a unanimous conclusion. As a result of that particular case, this body thought that we should review the rules under which the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct operates. We thought it was appropriate to review the process that we use. So what did we do after the Gingrich investigation? The majority leader and the minority leader sat down and worked out a process that would maintain the bipartisan reputation of the ethics process and allow a fair, transparent, open process for looking at changes in our ethics rules. I was named the co-chair of that task force along with Bob Livingston, a Republican, who was named the other co-chair, and we had an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on that task force. We held hearings, and we had witnesses who came before us. Members came before us, and we looked at the concerns that were expressed during the Gingrich investigation about trying to move in a more timely manner to give due process to each Member and looked at ways to streamline the process but still maintain the integrity of the ethics process. That was our charge. We came up with changes, and we did that in a bipartisan vote of our commission. The only way the ethics process works is if it is bipartisan. We cannot do it just because one side has the votes in the majority. We must maintain the bipartisan manner of the ethics process, including the way we change the rules, if we are going to be able to maintain the integrity of the process and be able to look the public in the eye and say, yes, we are carrying out our constitutional responsibilities to judge conduct of our own Members. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has gone through the three rules changes passed at the beginning of this Congress on a partisan vote. I want to talk about one, the automatic dismissal. It was interesting, in 1997, a Member of this body offered an amendment to our rules package and suggested after 180 days there be an automatic dismissal of a complaint, a much more modest proposal than the one ultimately brought forward by the Republican leadership and passed by the membership on the first day of this session by this Congress. That 180-day automatic dismissal was rejected by a bipartisan vote in this body in 1997. The reason was quite simple: We thought it would just add or just bring us to partisan gridlock. Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what is happening. The first day of this session we passed a rules change that says after 45 days there is an automatic dismissal of a complaint that is brought. So inaction becomes action. There have been many serious issues that have confronted this Nation that have taken us terms of Congress to deal with. For instance, in working on the welfare reauthorization bill, we have been working on that for three Congresses, and we have not been able to pass it. It has taken time. Inaction here becomes action. That is not what it should be and obviously will not have credibility with the public. Partisanship is rewarded with a deadlock being dismissal. Each of us belongs to a political party. The pressure on us would be immense just to do nothing for 45 days. I think that is quite obvious. And that gets rewarded. The ethics process must be bipartisan. We should not have a basic rule that rewards partisanship. And then delay is rewarded. Inaction is rewarded, as I indicated. And the complexity of the issues that you have to deal with on the Ethics Committee would give you a practical reason to say, Well, I'm sorry, we couldn't complete it in time and now there's an automatic dismissal. I think about the Gingrich case that I had to investigate, and I think about the complexities and the documents and the depositions and all the work that we did in that case. You could not possibly have done that in 45 days and do justice to the Member who is accused or the institution that is being challenged as to whether we can, in fact, investigate a case fairly. Yet this rule change will say, if you cannot complete it in 45 days, there can be an automatic dismissal. So, Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons that the gentleman from West Virginia has pointed out on substance, these rules changes were wrong; but I think the underlining point, the most important point here is the process must be bipartisan. It was violated in these rules changes that were passed at the beginning of this Congress. I urge my colleagues to listen to the gentleman from West Virginia. Let us repeal those three rules changes and go back to a process that has served this institution well over many, many Congresses, a bipartisan process, a true bipartisan process to look at rules of the committee and, if changes are needed, to do that in a bipartisan manner rather than by the strict votes of the majority. I would urge us to do that for the sake of the integrity of this institution.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, just as a final comment in answer to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), I do not know of it ever being done the way these rules changes were made. We have always had a deliberative process for the reasons the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) pointed out, so we have a chance to understand the ramifications of these changes. We have never had significant changes to the ethics rules done on the opening day by the majority without working with the minority.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARDIN. I cannot think of any case that we ever had that could have been handled in 45 days. I am just trying to think about the time period for answer, the time period for staff review, the time period just to verify basic simple facts. Even in the simplest case, I do not know of any case that we could have handled in a professional manner within a 45-day period.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for this resolution and my deep regret of the recent passing of Pope John Paul II. I also extend my special sympathy to the more than one billion Catholics around the world and the more than 66 million Catholics in the United States. Pope John Paul II was one of the most significant leaders of our time. He worked tirelessly to promote the basic freedoms and dignities shared by all humanity. He was instrumental in serving as a catalyst for the fall of the Soviet Union and the emancipation of millions from totalitarian rule. More broadly, he worked in public and in private to persuade world leaders to respect their citizens' basic human rights. The Pope consistently embraced the poor and the oppressed masses of the world, and urged governments to take care of the needs of all its citizens. One right of particular importance to John Paul II was freedom of worship. Ministering to Catholic and non-Catholic alike, the Pope took unprecedented steps on behalf of the Catholic Church to promote religious freedom for all citizens, regardless of their particular religious belief. To that end, he became the first Pope to visit a synagogue and a mosque, and made numerous public pronouncements committing the Vatican to upholding religious tolerance. As ranking member of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I met John Paul II during a 2003 trip to the Vatican, and listened to his address to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. In that speech he praised the work of the OSCE to encourage the recognition of religious freedoms among its member nations. He observed that maintaining a secular state while promoting the ability of individuals to worship as they choose in private ``corresponds, among other things, to the demands of a healthy pluralism and contributes to the building up of authentic democracy, to which the OSCE is truly committed.'' The Pope took historic steps to heal divisions between the Catholic Church and other Christian faiths. I was pleased that the Vatican strongly supported our efforts to host the first-ever OSCE conferences on the issue of anti-Semitism. These conferences produced the ``Berlin Declaration,'' which unambiguously condemned all forms of anti-Semitism and committed the members of the OSCE to collect and maintain statistics on anti-Semitic crimes and hate crimes, and to promote Holocaust education and remembrance programs. In September of 2004 Archbishop of Baltimore Cardinal William H. Keeler, who has fought tirelessly to ensure that discrimination and racism have no place in the public dialogue, attended the OSCE's Conference on Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination in Brussels. I hosted a roundtable with Cardinal Keeler and other religious leaders in Baltimore in October 2004 to discuss the conference and how we can work to prevent racism and xenophobia and promote tolerance. I wish Cardinal Keeler well as the cardinals meet in a conclave over the next several weeks to elect a new pope. Pope John Paul II was an inspiring leader in the battle to stamp out religious discrimination and ensure that all individuals have the freedom to worship as they desire. Future generations must work to promote his legacy, so that we may one day live in a world in which no individual is denied their inalienable right to worship as they see fit.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Saul Stern who will receive the Project Interchange Am Yisrael Chai Award on May 25, 2005. Saul Stern has worked tirelessly on behalf of Project Interchange to provide American political and civic leaders with a first-hand look at the vibrant democracy of Israel. His efforts have increased the understanding of many American leaders of the special bond shared by the United States and the State of Israel. Saul has made involvement with international, national and local Jewish and secular communal affairs a lifetime commitment. Over the years, Saul has accompanied many political and military leaders to Israel to help educate them about the complex issues affecting Israel. A passionate supporter of Project Interchange, he believes that the most effective way to help people understand the value of the U.S.- Israeli relationship is by becoming a true eyewitness to life in Israel. I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Saul Stern for his commitment and dedication to fostering understanding between the United States and Israel.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the Lansdowne Christian Church of Baltimore County marking its 100th year of celebrating Memorial Day Services. The Church, which was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1977 by the U.S. Department of Interior, is the only Church in the United States built to honor the men of the Grand Army of the Republic and the sacrifices they made to preserve the Union. On May 14, 1905, the first annual Memorial Service for the Grand Army was held at the Lansdowne Christian Church. Memorial Day was established in the wake of the Civil War to remember and pay homage to all those who had died in service to our nation. The Service on the last Sunday in May continues today. This year's service will be held on May 29, 2005, continuing a tradition for which Church members and the community should be very proud. Today, we are engaged in armed conflict in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Many of our soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice, and it is important that we honor their commitment to freedom and democracy. I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting the Lansdowne Christian Church for making duty, service and dedication to our nation a central focus of church life.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise first to extend my thoughts and prayers to the loved ones of Teresa Marie Schiavo at this extraordinarily difficult time. America has seen the anguish in the faces of Ms. Schiavo's family members. The legislation we are considering will determine whether we will send to federal court one case that has been adjudicated in Florida's state courts for nearly a decade. For the past seven years, this particular case has traveled through Florida's state court system. The Florida courts determined through a review of testimony that, as her husband has testified, Terri Schiavo would not have wanted her life continued by artificial means. This Congress has chosen to disregard the ruling of the state court, the appeals court and Florida's Supreme Court. This bill stands in stark contrast to the principles of federalism, and it is the wrong direction for this Congress to take. But as this debate is carried out before the entire world, it is clear that the issue is far more fundamental than state versus federal jurisdiction. The issue before us involves one of the most personal and controversial matters we face as humans: how do we deal with end-of- life care decisions for patients who cannot speak for themselves? Certainly not through this unprecedented act of intrusion into a personal family matter. I believe the authors of this bill know that this is not the correct approach. Section 9 of this bill includes a ``Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding or withdrawal of foods, fluids, or medical care.'' When to stop life support when a person has no chance of recovery is an arduous decision. It is for that reason that Congress passed in 1990 the Patient Self-Determination Act as part of OBRA '90, which requires all hospitals, long term care facilities, home health agencies, hospice programs and HMOs that receive Medicare and Medicaid dollars to recognize a patient's living will and power of attorney for health care as advance directives. Health care organizations must provide patients with written information about establishing an advance directive and document if the patient has an advance directive that is placed in the patient's medical record. Patients are then able to decide in advance what medical treatment they want to receive if they become physically or mentally unable to communicate their wishes. This piece of legislation gives patients the right to make choices and decisions about the types and extent of medical care they wish for themselves. With this act, patients can specify if they want to accept or refuse specific medical care. They can also identify a legal representative for urgent health care decision purposes. Then if they become unable to make decisions due to illness, the patients' wishes have been clearly documented at an earlier point of time. Unfortunately, Ms. Schiavo did not execute an advance directive. There is conflicting information as to her wishes as expressed by her husband and parents. That conflict was resolved by the appropriate Florida court. It is not appropriate for Congress to pass special legislation for this one case. Fifteen years after the passage of the Patient Self-Determination Act, the vast majority of Americans have not completed an advance directive. My colleague in the Senate, Bill Nelson, has introduced legislation that would improve compliance with the 1990 legislation and provide a benefit under Medicare for end-of-life consultation. That is the bill Congress should move as we debate this complex issue, not the bill that's currently before us. If we enact this bill, it could very well result in an avalanche of cases in federal court. According to medical experts, as many as 35,000 Americans--nearly one-third of them children--are in a condition similar to that of Terri Schiavo. Their families face the same difficult decision-making process that Ms. Schiavo's parents and husband are contending with. I believe most Americans would agree that the last thing we want to do is encourage more divisive court cases and bills of this nature. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, there will be no clear winners at the conclusion of this debate. Our judicial system and the rights of patients and their next-of-kin to make end-of-life decisions with their providers will be clear losers. Congress should never have considered this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Jay B. Cutler--a dedicated public servant, a champion for mental health parity, a gifted attorney, and a dear friend. Mr. Cutler passed away on March 4 at the age of 74. A native New Yorker, Mr. Cutler's accomplished career includes service as administrative assistant to former U.S. Senator Jacob Javits and minority counsel and staff director to the Senate Health and Human Resources Committee. From 1977 to 2003, he directed government relations efforts for the 35,000-member American Psychiatric Association. He will be remembered as a passionate and trusted advocate who fought to improve the quality of, and access to, America's mental health system. All who were fortunate enough to be lobbied by Jay Cutler recognized that he was so much more than a lobbyist. Over the years, his name became synonymous with the cause of mental health parity. Because of his untiring efforts, millions of Americans received better, more compassionate care. His unwavering commitment to protecting patient confidentiality, broadening coverage for psychiatric and substance abuse treatment, and improving patients' rights will continue to serve as an inspiration to those of us who fight for these causes today. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing condolences to Mr. Cutler's wife, Randy, his two daughters, Hollie S. Cutler and Perri E. Cutler, and his granddaughter, Makayla Lipsetts. We are deeply saddened by his death, and we are warmed by the memory of his remarkable life.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker I rise today to pay special tribute to Sam Lamantia Jr., a man with a heart of gold who has spent 27 years raising money to help abused children. Sam is a master barber in Baltimore, and in 1978 he almost single-handedly started the Ed Block Courage Awards. Sam Lamantia conceived of the award as a way to help abused children in Baltimore. Named for Ed Block, the athletic trainer for the Baltimore Colts, the award was first designed to honor one Baltimore Colt player a year. Since then, 17 Ed Block Courage Houses have opened in NFL cities around the Nation, helping abused children and their families. Sam moved with his family from Italy to Baltimore as a young child. In Baltimore, he grew up playing and loving sports. As an adult, Sam and his boyhood friends from the Eastside Athletic Club began sponsoring sports teams and giving back to local charities. Eventually, they conceived of the Ed Block Courage Award, and Sam talked many of his clients who were members of the Baltimore Colts into helping. Sam's vision of giving back to the community has now grown to include 28 NFL teams and their players. I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Sam Lamantia Jr., a true hero who has found a way to help bring hope back into the lives of abused children.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Anne L. Blumenberg, founder of the Community Law Center in Baltimore. Anne, who recently retired as the Law Center's long-time executive director, has been instrumental in developing legal strategies to empower neighborhoods and communities. Anne is a remarkable women who has dedicated her life to improving our community. Over the years, she has performed ground-breaking work in the areas of low-income housing acquisition, community-based planning, coalition building and community advocacy. Through her efforts, the Community Law Center has become a leading advocacy organization for community and economic development in distressed neighborhoods. She has lead the way in fighting predatory real estate practices that have been so destructive to many Baltimore neighborhoods. A graduate of Catholic University's Columbus School of Law, Anne founded the Community Law Center in 1983, becoming its executive director in 1986. The Community Law Center's philosophy has been that access to lawyers could help revitalize neighborhoods. Initially, most of the work focused on public safety. In recent years, that focus has shifted to real estate and economic development. The Center's successes include: enactment of legislation giving community groups legal standing in drug nuisance cases and legal action against owners of vacant properties. I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Anne L. Blumenberg for her work in helping neighborhoods and communities maintain some degree of control over their destinies.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for his leadership on this issue, for bringing forward this legislation. It certainly is a bill that will help those who have been victims of natural disasters and a bill of which I am a cosponsor and strong supporter. Thousands of Americans in all parts of our country have faced tragedy brought by natural disasters in the past year. Whether in the form of hurricanes in the Southeast, or torrential and resulting mudslides in the West, many Americans have had to deal with Mother Nature's forces and have faced the daunting task of reassembling their homes and lives in the aftermath. H.R. 1134 aims to offer some relief to Americans who, as a result of these unpredictable natural disasters, will suffer personal and property losses. FEMA helps those affected get through the difficult times following such disasters; but today, Congress is taking our own role, one step closer to helping these victims. I am proud to join my colleagues and 84 additional bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 1134, which will allow an exclusion from taxes for relief payments made to tax-paying Americans for efforts taken to mitigate some of the possible effects of natural disasters. Mr. Speaker, this not only helps the victims because it gives them some relief from having the burden of paying the taxes on these funds; but it also encourages mitigation, which is by far the priority, to try to mitigate the future damages caused through unpredictable natural disasters. Americans can benefit from taking steps to prevent the extent of damage that could occur during these times of natural disaster, and we should encourage such steps being taken. Today we have the opportunity to vote on H.R. 1134 and offer some additional assistance to Americans at a time when many might need that help the most. I know this does not do everything for everyone, and we will certainly be hearing from my colleague from New York who has a valid point, but I urge my colleagues to take the step we have available today to help those receiving assistance through FEMA for mitigation funds so it becomes more of a reality to these victims. They have suffered enough. We can help through this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me once again urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I was listening to my colleagues speak, and there is not a region in this country, there is not a State in this country that has been subjected to natural disasters. In my own State Hurricane Isabel left an indelible mark upon the people of Maryland, and I saw firsthand the people who suffered as a result of that natural disaster and the need to do mitigation and FEMA-providing resources in order to assist us to take action to prevent this type of devastation in the future. This bill will help in dealing with those types of circumstances. And once again I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for bringing this forward. This is strongly supported on both sides of the aisle, and we urge our colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support this temporary continuation of funding for TANF, Temporary Assistance For Needy Families. It also extends the Child Care Development Block Grant Program and transitional medical assistance for people who leave welfare for work. The bill extends funding for these programs for the next 3 months without any changes in current law. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) pointed out, this is the ninth temporary extension for TANF over the last 3 years. I agree with those who say we should be doing much more. I think it is wrong we have not brought forward legislation that deals with the reality of what has happened in our communities over the past 3 years. We have seen a significant growth in poverty in this country, growing by 4.3 million people. In 2003 alone, almost another 800,000 children fell into poverty; yet we see no action by this body to deal with the realities in our community. Regrettably, the long-term welfare reauthorization plan put forward by my Republican colleagues largely ignores this problem. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has pointed out that TANF has been remarkably successful, using his own terms; yet the legislation they bring forward radically changes the program by putting more mandates on States and less opportunity to tailor the program to meet the needs of individual States and fails to give the resources necessary in order to accomplish the task. Instead, they have suggested that poverty is rising because welfare recipients are not working hard enough. However, this suggestion falls flat when Members consider one basic fact: the welfare rolls have been declining as we continue to see an increase in poverty. That points out the fact that there are just no jobs available. We are going through a recession; it is not that we have welfare recipients who are failing to work. They cannot find jobs; and when they do find jobs, these jobs do not pay enough. They need job training and help to move up the economic ladder. Mr. Speaker, we should be providing more child care assistance, more job training, and a higher minimum wage; and yet in all three of these areas, the majority and President Bush have resisted such reforms. In fact, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) points out, the Subcommittee On Human Resources is scheduled to mark up legislation tomorrow which is nearly identical to the same bill we have been debating for the last 3 years. In baseball, it is three strikes and you are out. Unfortunately, that does not apply here; otherwise perhaps we would finally get a bill that would be worthy of bipartisan support. We do not seem to be getting that from the majority. While we are doing this, the other body is working on legislation, which I am happy to report. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) pointed out, the Senate Finance Committee has given a road map by recently reporting a bipartisan bill to improve TANF. Let me underscore that. The Senate Finance Committee reported a bipartisan bill, a bill that represents give and take among all of the Members of the committee. Mr. Speaker, I am not thrilled by all of the provisions in the bill that was marked up, but I think it does allow us to move forward to get a bill to the President's desk. It increases access to education rather than placing new limitations on education and training. It does not double work hours for mothers with young children. It does not include an open-ended superwaiver authority that could reduce protections for food stamps and housing benefits, and includes six times as much new child care funding compared to the bill that will be marked up tomorrow in our committee. As I said, the Senate finance bill is far from perfect, and I hope it will improve when considered by the full Senate; but it represents a much better approach than the Republican bill in this body. I hope we can continue to work towards a long-term bill that reflects many of the improvements made in the Senate bill. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I support this temporary extension of current law, hope we can work together, and hope we have a bill worthy of bipartisan support we can get to the President. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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