Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to two leaders in the Baltimore Jewish Community. Arnold Cohen and Marty Resnick have been life-long friends who together and separately have worked to make our community and our world a better place. Childhood friends since first grade, Arnold and Marty have a remarkable friendship that has lasted more than sixty years. As successful businessmen, they turned their attention to the benefit of others in Baltimore and Israel. They became leaders in the Mercantile Club, Israel Bond and The Cohen/Resnick Institute of the Diaspora Yeshiva in Jerusalem. Separately, Arnold devoted his efforts to Ner Tamid and Beth Tfiloh congregations, and Marty became active with Morgan State University. On October 20, both will be honored by the Friends of Lubavitch as its 2004 Lamplighter Award recipients. In recent years, Arnold and Marty have turned their attention to the Lubavitch movement, helping Jews of all backgrounds learn more about their heritage. Both Arnold and Marty understand the importance of connections and of keeping Judaism alive for future generations. I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in thanking Arnold Cohen and Marty Resnick for their commitment and dedication to helping others. They understand that the world can be a better place through learning, knowledge and understanding.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) offered in conference to revisit the tax breaks on the upper 1 percent, and it is my understanding that that would pay for the entire cost of the bill. That is the reason why I stated that.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy my distinguished chairman comparing the records of the Democrats and Republicans on major issues. Let me try to complete that a little bit more, if I might. It was the Democratic administration under President Clinton that brought our budget into balance, and it was the Republican administration that undid all of that good work. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats support responsible tax legislation. The tax provisions in this legislation are well-targeted to extend important tax provisions that help most Americans and help our economy. But there are two glaring flaws in the bill before us. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) have already talked about the limited impact on low-wage families, particularly on military families. We did not do what was right as it related to the child credit for those groups of people. It certainly was not treated with equity as to what we did with the other provisions on extensions. The second major flaw is that bill adds $150 billion to our national debt, on top of the $422 billion deficit we have in this one year. I listened to my distinguished chairman talk about what happened in conference, the efforts made by some of my democratic colleagues to increase the extent of this bill and increase the cost of this bill. But what my distinguished chairman did not say is that the Democrats also offered in conference ways to offset some of the costs, and that was rejected by our Republican friends. We believe that this bill should be paid for. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has already given us one example of how we could pay for this bill. The Wall Street Journal today reported 82 companies, all which have benefited from these tax cuts, pay no taxes at all. We could have them pay some of these taxes. Mr. Speaker, if we could just revisit the tax changes for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, we could not only pay for the entire cost of this bill, we could also help reduce our national debt and deficit. So, Mr. Speaker, our objection is that we should be fiscally responsible. We should have paid for this bill. The underlying provisions are good and should be enacted.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would just yield for further clarification, I appreciate that statement, and the point is that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) would have covered all of those costs. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary process that we use when we consider a bill the same day it is reported out. One of the concerns I have about the process is that I want to make sure the Members understand exactly what is in the bill that they are asking to be considered and the process that it went through. I think it is important to point out that the underlying bill that we are talking about contains many important changes in the Tax Code that are supported on both sides of the aisle. There is no question that Democrats support an extension of the 10 percent bracket provision, child credits and marriage penalty relief, and certainly Alternative Minimum Tax relief, where more and more of our constituents are falling within the Alternative Minimum Tax, and extension of the so-called extenders, the research and others that would otherwise expire. That is without question. And there has been bipartisan efforts to try to make sure that those provisions in the Code are extended or made permanent. But this is where the bipartisanship ends, because there has not been an effort made to do this in a way that is in the best interests of the taxpayers of this country. Our only opportunity to raise these issues will be on the rules that are going to be presented today. My friend from New York will explain later the previous question votes we are going to ask to be taken, because that is going to be our only opportunity to raise the faults that are in the underlying bill, because, as I said, the substantive provisions are provisions that are supported by both Democrats and Republicans. The first problem is that these are just temporary changes. We do not make them permanent. As my friend from New York pointed out, we have until the end of this year on most of these provisions. Some of the provisions are extended for a year, some for 2 years, some for a little bit longer, but none of them are made permanent. So, once again, we are not really confronting the issue of making this predictable for the taxpayers of this country. But the more serious faults that will be raised by the previous questions deal with the fact that despite the efforts that we have made in a bipartisan opportunity to pay for these tax cuts so we do not add to the $400 billion annual deficit, we have offered ways to pay for these tax changes. The underlying bill is scored to add another $150 billion to the deficit of this country. Where does this end? Give us an opportunity to give proposals to offset the cost so that we are not adding to the red ink of the Nation. We should have that opportunity, and I think we could do that with a strong bipartisan vote in this body. The second problem, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, is that we did not correct a major problem with the Earned Income Tax Credit and to a certain degree with the refundable child credit, and that is we are not treating our military fairly. We all talk in our districts and here on the floor about the tremendous sacrifices being made by the men and women who are in harm's way serving our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. They put their lives on the line for us every day, and we are thankful. But we should show it by deeds. We have pointed out that because of the tax treatment of military pay, our men and women who are in harm's way will not get the full relief provided under this bill. That is wrong. The conferees from the other body made a suggestion that would have fixed this, one which is supported by the Democrats in this body. It is hard to believe that you get a more favorable tax treatment in the military if you serve in the United States than if you serve in Iraq. That is just wrong, and we should fix it. But instead of accepting the reasonable offer made by the Members from the other body, because of the House position of the Republicans, we have a very small, temporary fix for 1 year that will not provide the full relief to our military, which is kind of complicated, quite frankly, adding to the complexity of the Code without fixing the problem. That is wrong, and we should take care of that now. If there is an urgency, the urgency should be with our military and to make sure we do not discriminate against them. So, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to point out to my colleagues, yes, we will not have a lot of time to consider this bill. It was just reported out today. There are a lot of good provisions in this bill. But, once again, it is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity for fiscal responsibility, it is a missed opportunity to correct a problem with our military pay, and I hope that you will support the request made by the gentlewoman from New York in regards to the previous questions so we can fix these errors.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, I support this bill. It is good policy, the adoption tax credit. It should be made permanent. This bill will make it permanent. It helps families who need help in adopting children, particularly those with special needs. But I want to point out that this bill removes the sunset that would take effect in the year 2010. So if this bill were not to be enacted into law this year, I want people to understand that we are not endangering the ability of families to take advantage of the tax credit. There is no urgency as far as the expiration of the tax credit itself is concerned. I do want to correct statements that I think were made by two of my colleagues, because I think they were misleading when it was said that the passage of this tax credit is consistent with the budget. We have not passed a budget. We have not reconciled the difference between the House and the other body. Now, I know my colleagues will say, well, we passed one here and we are consistent with what we did. But there is no budget that puts us on a glide path towards responsible budgeting. That is my concern, Mr. Speaker, and that is one of the reasons I raised the issue. The deficit this year is $422 billion. I do not believe any one of my colleagues is happy with that result. What will this bill do? It will add a little bit more to the deficit. It will add a little bit more to the red ink of our Nation. I find that regrettable. I think we need to institute budget discipline. We need to offset our expenditures, whether they are in the Tax Code or in the operating budget, so that we do not add to the red ink of the Nation. Unfortunately, this bill will not do that. And it would be easy for us to agree in a bipartisan manner to the necessary offsets so this bill does not add further to the deficit. That is the offer that I make on behalf of this side of the aisle. Yes, we support this legislation. Yes, we will work with you to make sure it gets to the President for his signature. But work with us so we do not continue to add red ink and debt to our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, this discussion is becoming a little bit more interesting than we thought. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is broad bipartisan support for assisting adoptive families in meeting their expenses. Helping families afford the cost of adopting children in loving homes is clearly a worthy policy, and targeted tax relief can help promote that goal. I, therefore, support this effort to eliminate the sunset provision in the current adoption tax credit, and I want to compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), for his work and leadership on this issue. This extension is particularly worthwhile given the change in the adoption tax credit that took effect last year. Let me just point that out, Mr. Speaker, the adoption tax credit now provides a guaranteed $10,000 tax credit for the adoption of special-needs children who are classified as being more difficult to place for adoption because of certain factors, including physical, mental or emotional impairment. Prior to that change, it was very difficult for people adopting special-needs children to qualify for the tax credit. In fact, less than 15 percent did, because many of their expenses included in the adoption credit were already paid for. We know that people who adopt children with special needs incur additional costs, including modifying their home to take care of the physical impairments of the child and other types of expenses. Now that we have modified the tax credit, those families can take advantage of this $10,000 credit, and therefore, it is really helping deal with the placement of special-needs children, one additional reason why it is important for this tax credit program to continue without interruption, one additional reason why this legislation should pass. My only regret about this legislation is that there was no effort to offset its cost. Relative to the other tax extensions, the cost of the adoption tax credit is relatively modest. Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that the sunset provision is now in the year 2010. There are many other tax provisions that have much sooner sunset dates that we have not acted on yet and we need to deal with. I support this change, and it has a modest cost, but I am sorry that we did not take advantage of this opportunity to close some tax loopholes, including those available to companies who ship jobs overseas, that could have offset easily the cost of this bill so we do not continue to add to the growing deficit. The current budget deficit is $422 billion in this fiscal year, and it is projected to grow to over $1.6 trillion over the next 5 years. This amount will be added to a current overall of $7.3 trillion. It should, therefore, be no surprise that we are about to raise our government debt limit for the third time in just the last 3 years. At some point, we are going to have to own up to the fact that we are simply passing on our obligations to our children rather than living within our means. Mr. Speaker, I hope we will find a way to pay for this and other tax extenders through commonsense changes in the tax code. In the meantime, I support this extension of the adoption tax credit, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation but to continue to work for more responsible fiscal policies. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, each year the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill is one of the most difficult measures for this body to complete. One reason is that it is often the costliest of our spending bills. Another is that the programs it funds are the most critical to the well-being of our citizens. I want to thank the members of the Appropriations Committee, particularly Chairman Young, Ranking Member Obey, and Subcommittee Chairman Regula for their hard work on this measure, particularly in light of the budgetary limitations on what we can accomplish for many vital domestic programs. I am pleased that the House has increased by $22 million the bill's funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), and I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, for his leadership and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of his amendment. I also want to thank Mr. Obey for his leadership on the key issue of overtime pay. American workers deserve to be paid fairly for the work they perform, and I am proud that the House has voted to eliminate damaging aspects of the Labor Department's rule. This is a bill that in many ways improves upon the President's budget proposals, and I intend to support it. However, I am concerned about the low funding levels in several areas that I hope can be improved upon in conference. In the area of education, this bill does not do enough for our Nation's elementary and secondary school students. In my home state of Maryland, more than 100 schools do not meet state standards required by the No Child Left Behind Law. Even though many school districts find themselves unable to meet the goals of the law, the bill before us today provides $9.5 billion less than the funding promised. Today's bill also falls $2.5 billion short of the $13.6 billion promised last year for special education when IDEA was reauthorized last year. I would also hope that we can improve upon the higher education funding, particularly in the areas of Pell Grants and Perkins Loans, so that lower and middle-income students can continue to enroll in public and private colleges across the Nation. This bill also shortchanges Americans already in the labor market. Eight million Americans who want to work cannot find jobs, but the job training funds do not keep pace with inflation. In fact, compared FY 2001, it cuts job training funding in real terms by over $700 million. I would hope that we can improve upon these levels in conference. Finally, we must increase funding for several programs in the Department of Health and Human Services. Last month, we learned that the number of uninsured Americans reached 45 million, yet this bill reduces Maternal and Child Health Block Grants that fund care for uninsured women and children, and it eliminates the Community Access Program, which has funded grants across the Nation for preventive and primary care. This bill also cuts vital Ryan White AIDS Care programs, and it does not adequately fund the lifesaving NIH research that Americans diagnosed with Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes, and other debilitating diseases are depending upon. Unfortunately, this bill contains an increase of only 2.6% in NIH funding--less than medical research inflation. I hope, as this House bill moves forward in conference, that the funding levels for these critical needs can be increased to a more realistic level.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the town of Crofton, Maryland, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary. Located near Annapolis, Baltimore, and Washington, Crofton has contributed to Maryland's cultural and economic life since 1964. This celebration is designed to commemorate Crofton's growth from its beginnings as a small farm town to the large suburban community it is today. Crofton was established when Hamilton Crawford, a Louisiana developer, designed a community convenient to Washington and Baltimore that appealed to both residents and businesses. In 1965, one year after its establishment, the town experienced major growth and development, becoming home to more than 500 residents in its first year. A civic center, recreational facilities, schools, stores, and restaurants quickly followed. This expansion continued during subsequent decades, and today Crofton is a thriving community with more than 30,000 residents. Crofton prides itself on the fact that it has experienced economic growth while retaining its safe, family-oriented, and close-knit roots. Residents today still enjoy the amenities that originally attracted them--tree-lined streets, suburban environment and convenience to two major cities. Crofton's 40th anniversary celebration features children's activities, concerts, athletic events, banquets, and parades. The events began in April and will continue through the end of November. Local businesses, sports teams, armed forces, and firemen are all participating in these events. I hope my colleagues in the House of Representatives will join me in commemorating this milestone in Crofton history, as we celebrate 40 years of this dynamic Maryland community.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Michael Phelps for his performance representing the United States in Athens at the Games of the XXVIIIth Olympiad. Michael Phelps, who was born in Baltimore and now lives in Towson, is a lifelong resident of Maryland's Third Congressional District. So, we Marylanders have been following Michael's career long before these Olympic games. At age seven, he joined the North Baltimore aquatic club, and at age sixteen, he won his first world title at the 2001 world championships in Japan. This was only the beginning of many recordsetting victories. This August, joined by the rest of the world, we watched with extraordinary pride as Michael earned eight medals. Through seventeen races in eight days, Michael did much more than beat his competitors--he exemplified true sportsmanship. After winning his fourth individual gold medal, Michael stunned the athletic world by giving up his spot in the men's 400 meter medley relay on July to team mate Ian Crocker. The relay team won a gold medal, setting a world record. Michael's words say it best, and show why for him ``world-class champion'' is an understatement. When asked about his decision, Phelps responded, ``Ian is one of the best relay swimmers in U.S. history . . . when we want to put the four fastest guys up there, we look at everything, all the past swims, and we make the best decision . . . we came into this meet as a team and we're going to leave as a team.'' Those words demonstrate why Michael Phelps is recognized as an outstanding role model, not just for athletes, but for all of us, no matter what our life's work. As Michael leaves our state this fall to pursue his studies at the University of Michigan, we offer him our hearty congratulations and best wishes for the future. I urge all of my colleagues to join me today in thanking Michael Phelps for representing our country with such honor and grace.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my constituent, Nancy Haberland, for her participation in the Games of the XXVIIIth Olympiad. In her Olympic debut this August, Nancy Haberland was forward in the Yngling boat. Ms. Haberland, along with skipper Carol Cronin and middle Liz Filter made up Team Atkins. The yngling class was one of the most closely contested races at the U.S. Olympic trials. In a remarkable achievement, Team Atkins beat out a field that included a previous Yngling world champion, Betsy Alison, and past Olympians Jody Swanson and Cory Sertl. Ms. Haberland has also won numerous national titles in several classes. Nancy Haberland grew up in Northbrook, Illinois and started sailing at the age of 13. In 1984, she graduated from Miami University in Ohio with a degree in dietetics and management, and she is a registered dietitian. She serves our country now as a sailing coach at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, and I am privileged to represent her in Congress. It has been said that the trademarks of a champion are, ``The will to prepare, the guts to risk, and the desire to be the best.'' Ms. Haberland certainly possesses all three, and I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating her.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Rhadi Ferguson, a Maryland resident who proudly represented the United States as a member of its Judo Team in the games of the XXVIIIth Olympiad. A three-time national Judo champion, Rhadi was born in Portland Oregon, and earned a football scholarship to Howard University where he also wrestled and ran track. Rhadi won the 2004 U.S. Judo Trials in June and a bronze medal at the 2004 Pan American Games. Rhadi Ferguson is an academic champion as well, having earned a master's degree in teaching at Howard University with a perfect 4.0 grade-point average, and he is now pursuing his doctorate in education. Although many consider judo to be very similar to wrestling, the sport has as its origins in the ancient Japanese art of jujutsu, a system of hand-to-hand combat that is more than 2,000 years old. Dr. Jigoro Kano, the founder of modern Judo, introduced many of the current techniques used today, and he is largely credited with Judo's inclusion in the 1964 Olympic Games. Kano described the sport as ``the way to the most effective use of both physical and spiritual strength. By training you in attacks and defenses, it refines your body and your soul and helps you make the spiritual essence of Judo a part of your very being. In this way you are able to perfect yourself and contribute something of value to the world. This is the final goal of Judo discipline.'' I am proud that one of my constituents, Rhadi Ferguson, has achieved the status of national champion, and I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating him on his participation in the 2004 Olympic Games.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I first, again, thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for moving this resolution. I filed it on behalf of the entire Maryland congressional delegation. Mattie was a resident of our State. Jimmy Carter said that he was the most extraordinary person that he had ever met. Although only 13 years of age when he died, he had the courage that really led all of us. He captured love in the entire Nation when on Oprah's show, Oprah asked, what can I do for you, and he said just pray for me. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out, Mattie published five books of poetry, an extraordinary accomplishment for a person his age. Of course, he is best known as a national poster child for muscular dystrophy and along with Jerry Lewis appeared on national television on behalf of raising money to cure that disease. He was a national figure, a person who touched all of our lives, any person who met him.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, first I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) for bringing forward this unanimous consent request. Under my reservation, I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman to explain the resolution.

Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice a significant concern with regard to the proposed Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Morocco. While this is a concern specific to Morocco, it highlights a broader issue that I and many of my colleagues share in regard to the pace and ``individuality'' of the many bilateral FTAs being negotiated by the USTR. Reviewing the February 25, 2004 State Department Country Report on Human Rights for Morocco, I came across several issues. The report highlights a series of human rights abuses in Morocco and I believe these unacceptable practices need to be a priority of the United States as it builds and strengthens its long-standing ties with Morocco. I was greatly concerned with an issue that comes up several times in the report. To quote one sentence: ``The judiciary lacked independence and was subject to government influence and corruption.'' As I assume we can all agree, the lack of an independent judiciary and corruption are significant, fundamental barriers to the development of a sound, growing trade relationship. As the Ways and Means Committee considered this agreement I asked representatives of the USTR about this fundamental issue. They had no comment and promised to follow-up with me. I want to thank Chairman Thomas for for seconding my concerns at the markup and also seeking a response. The USTR has made available to me the American Bar Association report on the state of Morocco's judicial system, citing some hope for reform. My impression is that the state of the judiciary in the Kingdom of Morocco and corruption in commerce are issues that received little attention as the USTR negotiated this agreement. That should not be the case. Bilateral FTAs are a means to address issues such as these with key trade partners and strengthen the basis for trade relations. An independent judiciary is essential to sound, long-term trade relations. As well, corruption in many foreign nations has long been a concern of the United States; one where we have long set a high standard and required our businesspeople to operate on an ethical basis. I understand the USTR's current interest in pursuing a large number of bilateral agreements to advance trade around the world--particularly as our more broad based talks and negotiations on global agreements have stalled. That being said, quantity should not supplant quality in agreements. Our goals in each of our trade agreements should remain high and be targeted to the situation in each nation. I am concerned in this agreement we have not met our highest goals and lost an opportunity. Reluctantly, I intend to support this FTA because I believe the government of Morocco has demonstrated its commitment to working with us and raising its own standards; the new labor rights laws enacted last year are a good example. But I want to strongly urge the USTR to show more care and attention to the individuality of nations as we move forward, particularly as it relates to institutional reforms and the protection of human rights.