Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have heard my distinguished chairman make his argument many times about the fact that we did this problem as Democrats when we were in the majority. I would think that after 10 years, the statute of limitations should have run on that argument. The Republicans have had 10 years in which to act. I guess one of the problems that I have, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill did not go through a markup in the Committee on Ways and Means. We did not have an opportunity to offer amendments. The chairman complains about the fact that we do not like the title of this bill, Tax Simplification for Americans Act. If we had had it in committee, maybe I would have had a chance to offer an amendment to clarify exactly what this bill does, which is very little. It does not carry out a commitment that was made by the Republicans to simplify our Tax Code. We bring that up because, as my colleagues have already pointed out, there were statements made 10 years ago when the Republicans took control of this body that tax simplification was going to be their top priority, and they simply have not delivered on that. We have not had any bold proposals. Instead, what does the record show? Well, we have seen that the number of pages of the Internal Revenue Code and Regulation now equals 54,846 pages. That is a 35 percent increase from what it was in 1995. That is hardly tax simplification. We have talked about the alternative minimum tax, and why do we mention this? My good friend from Ohio indicates that we are making progress in dealing with the alternative minimum tax. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues that we are not making progress in dealing with the alternative minimum tax because, under current tax law, the number of taxpayers who are going to be subject to the alternative minimum tax by the year 2010 will be 33 million taxpayers, up from 1 million taxpayers in 1999. That is not making progress. One out of every three taxpayers will be subject to the alternative minimum tax. Six million taxpayers will face the alternative minimum tax in 2010 just because they have children, and we talk about marriage penalties here. A person is 20 times more likely to be subject to the alternative minimum tax if they are married. These are issues that we would like to address in the committee that I have the honor of serving on; but instead, we get bills that are brought directly to the floor; that we do not have a chance to offer amendments on; that are brought up under suspension where all we can do is vote the bill up or down. Obviously, it might make some progress but very little, and it does not deal with the underlying issue of complexity in our Tax Code and, therefore, should not be called the Tax Simplification for Americans Act. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in conclusion, we are doing all this and still adding billions and billions of dollars to the national debt in the tax policies that we are bringing forward. That is hardly serving the interests of the people we represent.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and join our chairman in support of this legislation. I do want to point out that it also provides for the authorization of our United States Trade Representative and gives our USTR some additional resources, $2 million of additional funding, in order to be able to more aggressively represent our interests, particularly in the World Trade Organization. We have been involved in numerous litigations within the WTO, and we have found in the last couple of years that we have been on the losing side of some very important cases. I think the importance of this legislation to provide the additional resources is so that the USTR can more aggressively represent U.S. interests in the World Trade Organization on cases which are consistent, particularly with our anti- dumping and countervailing duty laws. We have found over and over again that we have not been successful in defending our rights under these domestic laws in the WTO. We also, of course, found on the tax issues we were unsuccessful. So we are hopeful that these additional funds will, in fact, be used by the United States Trade Representative to fight for U.S. interests in the World Trade Organization that is consistent with our domestic law to prevent our market from being flooded by illegally subsidized products that we have seen over and over again, particularly in steel. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I just wanted to point out to our membership the additional resources that are being made available, and certainly our intentions are that they are to be used by the USTR to defend the right of American producers and manufacturers, particularly when they are facing unfair competition from foreign markets.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague, the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), in support of this legislation. It is important legislation that will save our States money and help the employers in our State that are playing according to the rules. This bipartisan bill will help ensure all employers pay their fair share into our Nation's unemployment compensation system, which provides benefits to laid-off workers. I am pleased to have worked with the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) in developing this legislation, as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who serves also on our Subcommittee on Human Resources. Mr. Speaker, this bill has the support from organizations representing both workers and business. Unemployment tax payments are determined in part by a company's experience rating, meaning their experience with laying off workers. Companies whose employees receive fewer unemployment benefits have lower tax rates, while those employers whose workers receive benefits more frequently have higher tax rates. To artificially reduce their unemployment taxes, some companies engage in a practice known as State Unemployment Tax Assessment dumping, or SUTA dumping, which allows them to lower their experience rating. Examples of this practice include the transfer of a company's employees to a fake shell company which has a new and lower tax rate. As a result of this practice, the State loses millions of dollars in proper tax payments and, therefore, has to increase the tax rates on the vast majority of employers who are playing according to the rules. In fact, the Department of Labor has said SUTA dumping eliminates the incentive for employers to keep employees working and returning claimants to work as soon as possible, and it unfairly shifts costs to other employers. Mr. Speaker, according to a General Accounting Office survey, three- fifths of the States believe their laws are insufficient to prevent SUTA dumping. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, we need to act. Fourteen States have reported they have identified specific SUTA dumping cases within the last 3 years, with losses from these cases exceeding $120 million. H.R. 3463 would require States to impose meaningful penalties on employers that engage in SUTA dumping by shifting employees from one shell company to another. More specifically, the bill would require that a company's experience ratings for unemployment taxes follow that portion of the business that is transferred to another company if both corporate entities are ``under substantially common ownership, management or control.'' Additionally, the bill would require penalties be imposed on financial consultants who market SUTA dumping as a tax shelter. Finally, the bill includes a provision allowing State unemployment agencies access to the National Directory of New Hires, which is used to track employment for the purposes of collecting child support. State agencies would use this information to prevent fraud, such as individuals both working and claiming unemployment benefits. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation designed to ensure fair and accurate payment to our Nation's unemployment compensation system. 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 Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources and one who has worked very hard on this legislation. (Mr. LEVIN 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 indicated earlier, this is an important bill. This is a bill that will save millions of dollars for our unemployment trust accounts at the State level and will work to the advantage of workers and businesses that are playing according to the rules so that they pay their fair rates into the unemployment trust accounts. This is important legislation, it is bipartisan legislation, and it is legislation I hope my colleagues will all support. I do, though, want to underscore the point that the gentleman from Michigan made, and that is there are other issues in regard to the unemployment insurance funds that we should be dealing with. I would hope that we could use this model of working together to deal with the extension of unemployment benefits. Let me just remind my colleagues that we have record amounts of people who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits without finding employment, the highest in the history of keeping these records. Yet, in this downturn in our economy, we provided Federal unemployment benefits for one of the shortest times and for the number of shortest weeks in recent times when we have had problems with our economy. That is wrong. We should have done better. I hope that we will do better. Secondly, let me point out there are other issues in regard to the unemployment accounts that we need to take a look at. The Department of Labor 3 years ago suggested that 80,000 workers may be denied unemployment benefits every year because they are misclassified as independent contractors. That is another issue that I would hope that we could look at in order to properly preserve these funds. And then let me also suggest that several years ago the stakeholders in our unemployment compensation system came together with certain recommendations that dealt with the tax, that dealt with part-time workers, that dealt with using the most recent earnings quarters. We have not yet acted on those recommendations which could again provide meaningful benefits to people who are entitled to it, who pay into the trust accounts and are being denied benefits today because of the Federal rules. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation, but to understand we have a lot more work that needs to be done in regard to our unemployment compensation system, including the fact that we inappropriately failed to extend benefits to unemployed workers during this economic downturn. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this free trade agreement and urge my colleagues to support it. This is a bilateral free trade agreement between the United States and Australia. I think that we stand to make more progress when we work on bilateral agreements rather than multinational agreements, particularly when we are dealing with a country that is very similar to the United States. The United States and Australia have much in common. Both nations respect basic labor rights and the enforcement of basic workers' rights. This agreement strengthens the enforcement of those laws. Both nations respect the environment, and the agreement calls for both parties to commit to establish high levels of environmental protection and not to weaken or reduce environmental laws to attract trade or investment. Australia is a close ally of the United States in many of our international activities. The United States enjoys a trade surplus with Australia of $9 billion per year. It is our ninth largest export market. Mr. Speaker, Australia is a good friend, and it is in our interest to establish a free trade agreement with Australia. It will open up more markets to U.S. manufacturers and farmers. Australia's tariffs for manufacturing will basically be eliminated on goods coming from the United States to Australia; 99 percent will enter Australia duty free. There is key relief on the exports of agricultural products to Australia. The United States estimates that more than 400 million per year will receive immediate duty-free access to Australia; and let me just point out as a footnote, there is no additional access to Australia in regards to sugar. This agreement will help U.S. manufacturers and farmers. The United States will enjoy tariff preferences over its European and North Asian competitors and products, such as chemicals and heavy machinery. In fact, the U.S. National Association of Manufacturers has estimated that the free trade agreement will result in a minimum of $2 billion per year increase in manufacturing exports to Australia. In regards to farming, the United States is already the second largest supplier of Australia's food imports. This bill will even give us greater access. Mr. Speaker, I think my district is somewhat typical in the Nation. I have a port. We have a large presence of manufacturing. We have a strong agricultural community. My State and the people of Maryland will benefit from this free trade agreement. The people of this Nation will benefit from this free trade agreement. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on July 6 and July 7, I was away from Washington on official Congressional business. During that time, I was unable to vote on several issues of importance to the people of my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 328, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 329, ``no'' on rollcall No. 331, and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 332.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me take this time just to express my disappointment with this rule and my opposition to it. I listen frequently where Members of Congress like to say that we do not want to treat ourselves differently than we treat the general public. Yet on this appropriations bill that affects our budget, we use different standards than we do on other appropriations bills. That is wrong. The ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), pointed out there are only eight amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules. It would have been very easy to allow those amendments to be considered and then use the democratic process to either vote up or down those amendments. But, no, the majority refuses to allow us to have a debate on this floor on issues that affect the manner in which we operate the legislative branch. I am particularly disappointed that the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) was not made in order. We have an obligation to make sure that the resources of this body are used appropriately. That is the Committee on Appropriations' responsibility; that is the responsibility of our debate on the legislative branch bill. Yet we are not going to have an opportunity to see whether we could use a better standard on the franking privileges of our committees. It is my understanding that the majority controlled that. The minority has no opportunity. The majority has used that at least in one committee in a partisan manner. That is wrong. We should have a chance to be able to debate that issue. We work together to try to make sure that the resources of the legislative are used appropriately. In this case, it looks like it was not. Our opportunity to speak is when the legislative appropriation bill is on the floor. We are going to be denied that opportunity, because the majority refused to make in order an amendment so we could have that debate. That is wrong. Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, reject this rule, so that we have an opportunity to be able to have a full discussion on the legislative branch appropriation, as we would on any other appropriations bill that comes before this body.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as we mark June as National Homeownership Month, it is imperative that we look for ways to help more of our citizens to achieve the American Dream of homeownership. Home ownership is the cornerstone of the American Dream. For millions of American families, this dream is still just out of reach. This is especially true for families living in economically distressed neighborhoods, where the costs of renovating existing buildings or that of new construction frequently exceed the market value of homes in the community, making it impossible to obtain mortgage financing. This leads to further deterioration in declining neighborhoods, and forces families to look elsewhere for the opportunity to own their own home. My friend Rob Portman and I introduced H.R. 839, the Renewing the Dream Tax Credit Act, which would provide a tax credit for single- family home ownership. Modeled after the successful low-income rental housing tax credit, this proposal would allow states to allocate federal tax credits to developers and investors who provide single- family homes for purchase by qualified buyers in qualified areas. The program will also help stabilize troubled urban neighborhoods, while spurring new construction and rehabilitation in rural areas targeted for economic development. The bill would allow states to provide developers or investors tax credits up to 50% of the combined costs of acquiring, building, and renovating properties for sale to qualified buyers. The tax credits would be carefully targeted to areas in need of economic growth incentives, and to families who need help buying a home. States will have flexibility in allocating the tax credits. The available tax credits under the program are capped at $1.75 per capita, with no state to receive less than $2 million in credits. This proposal has the support of a broad coalition of groups with substantial expertise in the housing industry, including the National Association of Home Builders, the National Conference of State Housing Agencies, the National Association of Realtors, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and a number of non-profit organizations, including the Enterprise Foundation, the Local Initiative Support Corporation and Habitat for Humanity International. H.R. 839 could open the door to affordable homeownership for as many as 50,000 families annually. It would not only provide affordable housing, but is expected to create up to 120,000 jobs annually. H.R. 839 enjoys broad bipartisan support, with 288 co-sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives. House passage of H.R. 839 would be a fitting tribute to National Homeownership Month, bringing the American Dream home to tens of thousands of working American families.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds mainly to comment on the comments of my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), in that I am one of those Democrats who supported the bill in 1996. It was a bipartisan bill. It was a good bill and it did move us forward. What is surprising to me is why the legislation that passed this body is so radically different, so prescriptive at the Federal level as to what the States must do; taking away the flexibility, putting in more mandates, and not providing the funds necessary in order to carry out the new responsibilities. I am surprised that we moved in that new direction when we were moving, I think, in the right direction, and all we needed to do was fine-tune the 1996 law. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I think the comparison to how we proceeded in 1996 versus how we have proceeded in the year 2002, 2003, and 2004 is very instructive. In 1996, we had a President who ran for the Presidency saying that he would end welfare as we know it. He established three parameters for a new welfare bill, which were flexibility to our States, accountability, and resources. In 1996 in a bipartisan manner, we passed welfare reform with the support of our national Governors. In 2002 and 2003 and 2004, this body has passed legislation in a very partisan manner, without the support of our national Governors, for good reason. The three pillars on which welfare reform was built in 1996 which has gotten such praise from both sides of the aisle are severely compromised by the legislation that passed this body. First, on flexibility to the States, we take it away in the bill that we passed. We cannot use vocational education as the States would like to do, and I can name example after example. On accountability, we have make shiftwork rather than real jobs, people moving up the economic ladder in the legislation that passed this body. And in resources we provide $1 billion only in new child care that is mandatory, even though the estimates are that the mandates in this bill will cost our States an additional $11 billion, an unfunded mandate. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this extension because it is clean. It has none of those extraneous issues in it. It extends the 1996 law for 3 additional months. And then I hope we will get back to working together as Democrats and Republicans for a long- term extension that builds on the success of 1996. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation to extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program for the next 3 months. The bill will allow our States to continue to provide assistance to struggling families while also providing a variety of services to help people leave welfare for employment. Additionally, this legislation would extend a number of important related programs, including transitional Medicaid which provides continued health care coverage for people leaving the welfare rolls to go to work. Like the previous six welfare extensions passed by Congress over the last 2 years, this bill is a simple extension of current law. It does not include any of the controversial policy changes to the underlying program which were incorporated in the legislation that passed this body; and for not including those controversial provisions, I commend my friends on the other side of the aisle. While I support this temporary extension, I wish we were here today, as the chairman of our subcommittee has said, to pass a long-term bill to help our States plan future efforts to move individuals from welfare to work. I, however, disagree with my subcommittee chairman in that the legislation that passed this body, in my view, and I think in the view of the experts in this area, makes it more difficult for us to accomplish the goal of a long-term extension of the welfare program. The House-passed welfare bill was denounced by Governors, mayors, State welfare administrators, and poverty experts as an inflexible, unfunded mandate. The divisive debate instigated by the legislation has stymied a goal that should be bipartisan, extending the 1996 welfare reform law. We are now on the seventh temporary extension of TANF funding. This process leaves the States uncertain about the future Federal funding levels and policy requirements, which in turn makes long-term or even intermediate range planning increasingly difficult for the State welfare programs. Given this problem and the apparent deadlock on a broad reauthorization bill, the time is coming for Congress to pass a long- term continuation of TANF. For example, after this next extension expires at the end of September, Congress could extend the current law for 5 years. Mr. Speaker, considering how we on both sides of the aisle have hailed the success of the 1996 law, it is surprising to me why it is so difficult for us to at least use that as the building block, rather than as an area to impose new requirements on our States that are not funded by additional resources. If we did extend the current law for 5 years, we could use that as a stepping-stone to debate other proposed reforms separately. At the very least, this step would ensure the continuation of a program that many of us have declared a success. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I support the temporary extension of the welfare-related funding provided by the legislation currently before us. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Virginia for bringing forward this legislation which I support. I think it is a very important change in the flexible spending arrangements that are permitted under the Internal Revenue Code. And I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for bringing forward this legislation. Mr. Speaker, as my friend has indicated, this bill would permit a taxpayer to carry forward up to $500 of unused benefits in a dependent care flexible spending arrangement from one year to the next plan year. The flexible spending arrangements are a way that you can use pretax dollars to pay for expenses that are, according to what the policy makers have determined, areas that we want to encourage our constituents to be able to spend. This is in dependent care expenses, to take care of our children. This is certainly an area where it is becoming more and more difficult for working families to be able to afford dependent care for their children. The flexible spending arrangements allow them to use pretax dollars in order to offer some help and assistance. The problem with the flexible spending arrangements is that you have to determine at the beginning of the year how much money you are going to spend for dependent care. If you are wrong and you put away too much money, you lose that money. That is certainly a pretty harsh penalty for misjudging the amount of money that you will need for dependent care. And, therefore, this bill would allow a taxpayer to roll over up to $500 from one tax year to another. And it certainly makes sense to make this modification in our Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Speaker, I might point out though that I am disappointed that we are not doing more, not doing more for dependent care in our society. In the committee that I serve on, the Committee on Ways and Means, we have looked at authorizing additional day care aid to our states. In my own state of Maryland the only way that you can get assistance on dependent care is to go on to cash assistance welfare. That does not make a lot of sense. Prior to a year ago, we were helping working poor in our state with dependent care from the state government using Federal assistance. Well, we have not increased that Federal assistance. I would urge us to consider increasing the amount of dollars made available for safe, affordable day care for our constituents. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I do support H.R. 4372. It is a step in the right direction. And I would encourage my colleagues to accept this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to a remarkable man from my district. Simon Avara has dedicated many years of his life to the betterment of the Baltimore community. He is an accomplished businessman and friend, as well as my own long-time barber. In cities and towns across America, barber shops have come to be recognized as familiar gathering places that help create a sense of community. Following in his father's footsteps as a master barber, at the age of 16, Mr. Avara obtained his master license and opened his own shop. While still a young man, he put his life's dream on hold to serve our Nation during the Korean War. When he returned to Baltimore, he began opening doors for others seeking to pursue a tonsorial profession. He has founded two schools, training a whole new generation of Baltimore barbers. Today, I am placing in the Congressional Record an April 2004 article from RazorsEdge Magazine tracing Mr. Avara's career. I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Simon Avara, a true pillar of our community. Simon Avara: A Cut Above (By Rebecca Mein) ``I see a man in a $600 or $700 suit dressed real well and he has a bad haircut,'' says Simon Avara. He pauses and then packs a punch. ``It spoils everything!'' After all, that ``everything'' only costs a man about a six bucks if he visits one of Avara's two Baltimore barber schools for a cut. This 70-year-old master barber has spent nearly a lifetime communicating that message to clients and customers alike. He runs the International Academy of Hair Design on Pratt Street in downtown Baltimore and Avara's Academy of Hair Design in Dundalk. You could say Avara was born into the business. In fact, as a young boy, he never even had to leave his own house to get a sense of what his father did for a living. Back in the 1930's, he remembers seeing his father's clients show up at he family's front door for a last minute cut. ``The judges would knock on our door on Sunday mornings,'' he says. They wanted a fresh haircut before heading back to the courtroom on Monday. Avara's father had his own idea of a barber uniform--a suit, a dress shirt, and a tie. But back then, Avara had no idea that he would one day follow in his father's footsteps. Sadly, his father would never live to see his son pick up a pair of shears. The older Avara died tragically in a car accident. Avara was just 14 years old at the time. Little did he know, that summer, people would start coming to him for a haircut. It all started when a friend of a friend asked for a trim. Within one year, he went from having no experience and no interest to starting a barber school and landing his first apprenticeship. Only, his first apprenticeship was not quite the same learning experience that he offers his students today. ``In those days, you ran errands,'' he explains. ``They'd let you shave behind the ears. I was persistent. I hung in there.'' That persistence paid off after a West Baltimore barber gave him his first break. This is where Avara's story takes an extraordinary turn. ``By the time I was 16, I passed the board and got my master license. I was probably one of the youngest barbers in the state.'' At just 16 years old, with one year of high school under his belt and some used equipment in his possession, Avara opened his own shop in a former funeral parlor. He charged 60 cents for a man's cut and 40 cents for a child. ``I was very young when this happened,'' Avara says. ``In everything I've done, I've been blessed.'' But then, came another twist of events. During the Korean Conflict, Avara was drafted and had to leave his shop for the service. While in Korea, Avara says he had time to think about what he wanted to do when he returned to Baltimore. He saw his options as either opening a first class salon or opening a school. ``I had trained some people before I went. I felt that then, and I still feel, that if you train them right, a part of you will always live.'' When Avara returned to civilian life, he wound up making a third choice. He attended cosmetology school in order to improve his skills when it came to cutting women's hair. Then, he decided it was time to open his own school. Soon after, came another achievement. He became a member of the Maryland State Board of Barber Examiners at age 26. While in his early 30's he was elected to be president of the National Barber Examiners. He also served as secretary treasurer of all union- affiliated barber schools in America. He is currently president and founder of the Maryland Hair Designer's Association. Avara sees his profession as a way to open doors for people from all walks of life. He believes that with some basic reading and writing skills and people skills, anyone can have a solid future in his field. ``You gotta like people,'' he says. ``If you don't like people, don't even enroll in my school.'' Students in his school quickly gain hands-on learning experience. He says by the end of the first week, every student has gotten over the fear of cutting that first head of hair. As for his students' future job security, Avara has no worries, even as technology continues to take over and take away jobs in other industries. ``We never have to worry that there's a machine that could take our place. You're never going to put your head in a machine and dial the cut.'' Today, three of Avara's four adult children are trained in the trade. His youngest son runs his Dundalk School. Avara makes it a point to tell his students that the leading hair stylists out there are all former barbers. ``We really teach them how to cut hair, layer hair, and to do it freehand. If you want to see a good man's haircut, look at Cary Grant,'' says Avara. Retirement is nowhere in this barber's immediate plans. He plans to continue to pass on his profession to aspiring barbers. Perhaps that is because Avara's job is not just his profession; it is his life's passion. It's what he does for recreation and relaxation. ``I love it,'' he says. ``I have no hobbies. I have a set of golf clubs in the garage. I'm not saying that I'll work every day like I do now, but I can't sit around and visualize working the boob tube. To be healthy, you have to be active and think young.'' For Avara, that translates to continuing to hold a pair of shears in hand. He estimates so far, he's cut a hundred thousand heads of hair or more, and he's not planning to stop anytime soon.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, if Congress was subject to the truth-in- advertising law, we would be held accountable for the title of this bill, American Jobs Creation Act, as misleading the American people. My colleagues can call it what they want, this bill will not create jobs or save jobs in this country. It will cost us jobs, and we know that. This bill costs $34 billion, according to the Joint Tax Committee, over the next 10 years. It will add to the deficit of the country. That is certainly not going to help our economy, but the truth is it costs a lot more than $34 billion. Because of all the sunsets and the phasing in, this bill costs a lot more than that, hundreds of billions of dollars, which is just going to add to the national debt and cost us jobs. Mr. Speaker, the tragedy is that we do have a problem with the World Trade Organization that we should correct. Legislation has been offered to do that on a revenue neutral basis, without adding to the deficit and helping U.S. manufacturers so we keep jobs here in America. That has been rejected. So what do we have? We have a bill that is laden with special interest provisions, hundreds of special interest provisions, that have been given out, that have nothing to do with job creation, have nothing to with the underlying problem with the World Trade Organization and has everything to do with trying to pass a bill to help special interests. Then we have provisions in here that actually harm our country, such as the private contracting of tax collection functions. I cannot think of anything more basic to our government than collection of taxes, and now we want to have private collection agencies dealing with our constituents? I do not want to see that happen. Mr. Speaker, this bill will not help create jobs. It will hurt us in keeping jobs in America. We should have done better. We should have corrected the problem. Let us go back and do that. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are considering this bill for the second time does not make it any better. On behalf of the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means, we would like to point out that this bill will cost $23.5 billion over the next 10 years and add to the deficit of this Nation. Every dollar of relief provided in this bill will have to be borrowed; and we are going to have to pay interest on it, adding to the irresponsible economic program that the majority has thrust upon us. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to look at the evolution of this bill. The President had requested that an energy bill be passed that cost $8 billion. When we passed the bill originally in this body, it cost $17.8 billion. In the other body, they passed a bill that was $15.8 billion, but with set-offs, with revenue provisions. Now we have a bill that has grown to $23.5 billion. The reason, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill contains numerous special interest provisions to provide breaks for different corporate interests. It is not an energy policy. It is a corporate giveaway in many respects. It does not reduce our dependency on imported oil. We should be doing a much more aggressive program on renewables and alternative fuels, but we are not. This bill does very little to make us energy self-sufficient. It does nothing. It is actually counterproductive. It does not deal with the electricity blackouts that we have suffered. It certainly is not environmental friendly; in fact, it hurts our environment. This is why this bill has been labeled by many of the editorial writers, USA Today: ``Costly local giveaways overload energy plan.'' The Detroit Free Press: ``Wrong direction on national energy strategy. This country would be better off if they shelve this effort.'' Philadelphia Inquirer: ``Leaders are using the blackout as an excuse to try to ram through a bill that has been wrong-headed since the day it emerged.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill was not worthy of our support before; it is not worthy of our support today. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be yielded to and controlled by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Flag Day, June 14. Flag Day has a particularly special meaning this year, as many of our troops are serving overseas as part of the global war against terrorism. I stand behind our brave men and women who have performed admirably in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe. They have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf of their country and have served longer deployments than expected. The Flag of the United States continues to stand for democracy and freedom throughout the world. The Continental Congress approved the design of a national flag 227 years ago today. The American flag, in its current form, first flew over the Capitol in 1818. The flag has been altered twenty-seven times over the years. The current version dates to July 4, 1960, when Hawaii became the 50th state. Our flag symbolizes the union between the states and federal government, as we the people of the United States seek to form a more perfect union, as envisioned in our Constitution. Since 1916, when President Woodrow Wilson issued a presidential proclamation declaring June 14 Flag Day, Americans have commemorated the adoption of the Stars and Stripes by celebrating this special day in our Nation's history. Flag Day also holds a special place in the history of Baltimore, Maryland, which I am privileged to represent in the House of Representatives. In 1814 in Baltimore at Fort McHenry, this Nation, this young Nation, won its second war of independence. It was the beginning of the end of the War of 1812. Francis Scott Key 190 years ago wrote his inspirational poem that became our National Anthem. As we continue our global war on terrorism, and face a continuing threat on our shores, Francis Scott Key wrote some words that are helpful for us on this Flag Day: ``From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave. And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph doth wave.'' We survived the attack by a hostile power and became the strongest Nation in the world, and we will survive this attack on our democratic principles, and we will grow even stronger. Let us remember on this Flag Day the values we hold dear, and that we are willing to fight for--and even die for--these values of liberty, democracy and justice. Our flag will continue to symbolize this eternal struggle, as we seek to secure the blessings of liberty for our fellow Americans and for all humankind.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people I represent in the Third Congressional District to express my sincere condolences to the Reagan family and to memorialize our 40th President, Ronald Wilson Reagan. I had the opportunity to serve for 2 years in the Congress when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States, and I also had the opportunity when I was Speaker of the State legislature to work with President Reagan on behalf of the National Conference of State Legislators. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan was one of the most effective Presidents in the history of our Nation. He brought an agenda of change to Washington, and he developed public support for that change and then congressional support for that change. He did it using the process, to bring about a change of policy and expectation of our country. He also established America as a world leader, proud of our commitment to democracy and willing to get involved in international events to bring about change for the good. He laid the foundation for the end of the Cold War. As I said, Mr. Speaker, he was a remarkable President and will be missed by all. On January 20, 1981, President Reagan spoke of his abiding commitment to a special interest group that has too long been neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and our factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we are sick; professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, in short, ``we the people,'' this breed called Americans. Mr. Speaker, he will be missed by all.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in enthusiastic support of the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act of 2003, and I want to thank my distinguished colleagues from Maryland, Senator Barbara Mikulski and Representative Elijah Cummings, for their leadership on this legislation. The bill before the House, S. 1233, provides key funding for an important Baltimore institution. The National Great Blacks in Wax Museum will help preserve our nation's history. Located in East Baltimore, the Museum features nearly 200 exhibits and commemorates Black Americans in the fields of government, law, military service, science and religion. More than 300,000 visitors each year view its exhibits and participate in its programs. I have visited the museum several times, most recently for the unveiling of the image of our friend and former House colleague, Kweisi Mfume. In the words of noted historian Carter G. Woodson, ``If a race has no history, if it has no worthwhile tradition, it becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the world, and it stands in danger of being exterminated.'' If Dr. Woodson were alive today, he would applaud the work of Drs. Elmer and Joanne Martin. Back in 1983, these two pioneers recognized the importance of going beyond textbooks to expand the horizons of young minds, to stimulate their imaginations, to bring historical figures to life. The National Great Blacks in Wax Museum has helped preserve and celebrate the legacy of Black America, which I would emphasize is important for all Americans, including nascent immigrant communities. Enactment of this bill will also expand the educational opportunities provided by the Museum, which works in coordination with religious and art groups to offer after-school and community activities in East Baltimore. This bill also authorizes $15 million for expansion of the Museum's existing facilities through a grant from the Department of Justice, and it will establish the Justice Learning Center. This bill has passed the Senate unanimously and I look forward to its passage in the House and enactment. I urge my colleagues to visit the Great Blacks in Wax Museum, to recommend it to their constituents, and to vote in favor of S. 1233.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for his leadership on this issue and helping working people in our country; and, Mr. Speaker, let me say I wish that the comments of the last speaker, my colleague, were true in regards to the economy, but the facts speak to something quite different. If we take a look at the jobs that have been created within the last several months, we find we have traded very good jobs, jobs in this country, for jobs that are paying much lower wages. When we look at the total record over the last 3 years, we find we have lost millions of jobs. When we look at the unemployment rate in this Nation, we find that many people have just given up hope, and that is why the unemployment rate may appear to be higher than it really is, but many people in this Nation who are looking for jobs cannot find jobs and have literally left the labor field altogether. Mr. Speaker, we have a problem in our economy, and the problem can first be summed by saying we do not have enough jobs. We need an economic program that will create more jobs for Americans. Number two, Mr. Speaker, we have millions of Americans who cannot find employment, and they need help called unemployment insurance, which in every prior recession and downturn Democrats and Republicans have come together to extend unemployment benefits. We have a fund to do this. There are millions of dollars in that fund, but yet the majority refuses to allow us to vote on the unemployment compensation. So the first issue is the issue of jobs, and we need an economic plan that will create jobs. Unfortunately, the administration has pursued a fiscally reckless economic plan that has added trillions of dollars to our national debt and is killing jobs rather than creating jobs because of government debt. The record over the last 3 years, millions of fewer jobs here in this Nation. People are hurting, Mr. Speaker. We need to do something about it. Eight million Americans are unemployed today; 1.8 million of them have been without a job for 6 months or longer. We have record numbers of people who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits. Since we allowed last year the expiration of the Federal unemployment insurance benefits, we have found 1.5 million workers have exhausted their State benefits without the benefit of the Federal unemployment insurance; yet, the Republican leadership has refused us a vote on this floor of an extension of the Federal unemployment insurance benefits. They know that a majority of the Members of this body would vote in favor of that legislation, and yet they deny us a vote on the extension of unemployment benefits. Nineteen billion dollars is sitting in the Federal unemployment trust account, $19 billion which is accumulated exactly for this purpose, to help the unemployed worker; and the majority of Republicans refuse to allow us a vote on extending those benefits to those who need it. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem. We have a problem with the wrong economic program, and we have a problem of not helping those people that are unemployed. This bill does nothing in that regard. We should be debating programs to create new job opportunities in America, and we should be extending unemployment benefits to those who do not have the employment. I regret that we are not doing that today. I would urge my colleagues to listen to the motion to recommit, because that is the only opportunity we are going to have that will be offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) that at least will give us a chance to help us do something to help American workers.