Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. To clarify some of the points that my chairman made, when he referred to the States having all this TANF money that is left over, let me point out that the States are currently spending more money every year in TANF funds than they currently receive and that they have obligated almost all of their money. The 10 percent transfer authority has been approved every year. That is nothing new. So when he mentions these issues I think we need to clarify that. And on the effective dates we are following the tradition of this House under Republican leadership. There is really nothing new this year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first let me compliment the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the sponsor of this legislation, and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for reaching, I think, a fair compromise on some very controversial issues so that we really do have a chance to enact a bill this year that can help our faith-based institutions, our nonprofit institutions in carrying out their very important responsibility. Major compromises were reached along with Senator Lieberman and Senator Santorum in the Senate that would provide our sponsors in the House to eliminate from the bill a very controversial provision dealing with employment discrimination. I know that many of our Members have been concerned about that. Those provisions are not included in this legislation, and I want to compliment all involved who were responsible for the removal of that provision. I also want to compliment the architects of this legislation for working out a fair compromise as it relates to a foundation's administrative costs. We have a fair compromise on that issue that puts some Federal controls on administrative costs but also allows the foundations to be able to do their business in the most cost-effective way. In my view, this legislation is a positive help to faith-based institutions, nonprofit institutions and is consistent with the tradition of our country to maintain the church-state separation. There is help here for those who want to privately give, whether they be individuals or corporations, to our nonprofit community through the use of direct contributions or their IRAs. Mr. Speaker, let me also agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) in regards to the provisions relating to housing. I think this bill is a positive bill. I agree with the distinguished Republican whip that this bill has moved in a bipartisan way through this body and through the other body and we therefore have a good bill before us. I would urge my good friend to continue that process and let Members vote their convictions on the amendment that I will be offering a little bit later. It includes two more provisions. It builds on the underlying bill but adds two more provisions that has strong bipartisan support not only in this body but also the other body. It provides an extra $1.1 billion for the social services block grant program. In 1996, we were financing the social services block grant program at $2.8 billion a year. We cut it in the welfare bill to $2.38 billion a year but we made a commitment in that legislation that we would restore that cut in 2003. That is exactly what the Cardin amendment will do. And it has strong bipartisan support. Many Members on the Republican side of the Committee on Ways and Means support that change. I hope they will vote that way today. It is vitally important to our faith-based institutions. Let me just give my colleagues one example. Catholic Charities relies upon public programs for 62 percent of their support. The social services block grant program is a very important part of that. It provides day care for low-income families, offers counseling services to at-risk youth, provides nutritional assistance to the elderly and provides community-based care to the disabled. This is their number one priority as far as help in order to be able to carry out their very important mission. The second change is that the bill is fully paid for by closing corporate loopholes through tax shelters. I know that a document was sent out that says this is extremely controversial. If it is extremely controversial, why did 95 members of the other body vote in favor of it? It passed 95 to 3 or 4 in the Senate. It is not controversial. It is controversial to add $13 billion more to the national debt and not pay for it. So this amendment pays for the cost of the bill through a provision that is good tax policy. Our deficit this year is projected to grow by over $500 billion. That does not even include the $87 billion that the President has asked us to pass by a supplemental appropriation to prosecute the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. What my amendment will do is close tax shelters by codifying the practice of the courts that will bring in moneys from activities that have no economic value. It is what the other body did to pay for it. There is one more thing I might add. We are in the closing days of this first session of this Congress. Major differences between the House and Senate will have difficult times being reconciled in conference. The adoption of my amendment gives us a much better chance to get this bill to the President this year. I urge my colleagues not only to support the underlying bill, support the Cardin amendment so that we can get a bill to the President and that we can also accomplish two more important factors that I think are supported on a bipartisan basis. I urge support for the amendment that will be offered later and I hope that we can continue to work in a bipartisan way to get this bill to the President's desk.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this amendment adds two important provisions to the underlying legislation. As I mentioned during general debate, I support the underlying bill. I think a good compromise has been reached on some very important issues, including the elimination of the employment discrimination provisions and a compromise in regards to foundations' administrative costs. I think this bill will help nonprofit, faith- based organizations consistent with our tradition of church and State. The two additions that my amendment adds are very important to this legislation. The Republican whip pointed out that this legislation has been developed among Democrats and Republicans in a bipartisan way and in cooperation with the other body, particularly Senator Lieberman and Senator Santorum. All I ask is that the Members consider this amendment and vote on it by their convictions. Both provisions have bipartisan support. The first provision adds an additional $1.1 billion to the next fiscal year for the social services block grant, taking it from $1.7 billion to $2.8 billion. This is not a novel concept. I see the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) here who was very instrumental in the social services block grant program and in the welfare reform legislation. When we passed welfare reform in 1996, we reduced the social services block grant from $2.8 billion to $2.38 billion, but we also included in that legislation a commitment to our States that in 2003 we would reinstate the level at $2.8 billion. That is exactly what this amendment would do. Number two, this amendment is consistent with the other body. They have already put the money in their reported bill. It puts us together with the other body at $2.8 billion for next year. Now, what is the social services block grant? Why is it so relevant to the legislation that is before us? If we ask the faith-based groups as to what is the most important funding source for them to be able to do their work, they will tell us it is the social services block grant program. It provides funding for day care for low-income families, for offering counseling services to at-risk children, nutritional assistance to the elderly, and providing community-based care to the disabled. I need not tell my colleagues the fiscal restraints that our States are currently confronting, with record deficits, and they are forced to cut these very programs that the social services block grant program helps them to fund. For my own State of Maryland, this amendment will mean $20 million; for the State of California, $132 million; for the State of Texas, $81 million; New York, $73 million; Florida, $63 million. If we take a look at our major faith-based institutions such as Catholic Charities, United Jewish Community, Lutheran Services, Salvation Army, in each one of those cases they rely in large part on government assistance to fund these community-based programs. For Catholic Charities it is over 650 percent; 62 percent of their support comes from governmental grants. The social services block grant program is key. This amendment allows us to live up to our commitment that we made in 1996 to restore the level to what it was in 1996. The second part of this amendment is for fiscal responsibility. I think there is not a person in this body who has not lamented the fact that we now have over $500 billion annual deficit that we are adding to the national debt, and that does not include the $87 billion the President has requested for Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a fiscal responsibility as legislators to make sure we do not add more to that national debt. That is why the other body reached out to find a revenue offset to the bill that they reported. My amendment is not original. We have taken basically the provisions that were included in the other body to say that if you are doing a tax shelter you should not get the benefit. The courts are already doing that, and the revenues that it will generate will offset the revenues that are lost under this bill so that we do not add to the deficit. Now, I have gotten some material this morning and I have listened to the debate as to why this would not be a good idea. I have heard that there was a sheet put out that said this was extremely controversial. I then listened to why it was extremely controversial, considering it received 95 votes in the other body. The first reason that my colleague said is that it would be administratively difficult. Well, this is currently being done by the courts on a case-by-case basis. We have a responsibility as the legislature to clarify this law. We should not be doing tax policy in our courts. That is our responsibility. I have not heard one complaint against the fact that tax shelters should be outlawed and there should be penalties for tax shelters. This bill deals with it in a responsible way. The second point I have heard is that it is retroactive. Now, let me tell my colleagues, the date in this bill is what we have done by tradition in this body since I have been here and well before that. When a bill is noted by a committee, they use that as the effective date, and that is exactly what is in the bill that was reported by the other body. We incorporate that same date. Now, if that is retroactivity, the other side has been guilty of it many, many times. So let us be at least straightforward in the debate. Let people vote their convictions. We should pay for the bill and we should provide help to the faith-based organizations in our States through the social services block grant that many of us have supported in the past. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am curious why my friend from California points out that the Social Services Block Grant is not part of this legislation, even though all the faith-based nonprofit groups say it is very important to them, why the underlying bill provides transfer authority to the Social Services Block Grant from TANF if it is not relevant to this legislation. Maybe the gentleman from California will try to answer that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, first let me reiterate what I said earlier. I support the underlying bill. I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) have done an excellent job in bringing forth an excellent bill, and I compliment them for that. I noticed that many of the speakers on the opposition side of my amendment were speaking in support of the underlying bill which I support and which is incorporated in the amendment that I offer. I want to make it clear if Members support the underlying bill, they can certainly support this amendment, as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) supports this amendment. So let me deal with the points which have been made in opposition to this amendment. I hope Members will take this into consideration when voting on the amendment. First, the issue of relevancy has been waged as to why the social services block grant is included in this underlying bill. As pointed out, the underlying bill includes the TANF legislation giving authorization for the transfer of social services block grants. If it is relevant for the body of the bill, it is certainly relevant for our amendment. Secondly, if we ask the charitable groups as to what will help them the most in carrying out the social functions that we want them to do, they all support the increasing of the social services block grant. The next issue which has been raised is do the States really need this and are the funds really necessary? After all, we have TANF reserves. As I pointed out, the States are spending more every year in TANF funds than they are receiving from the Federal Government. They are running deficits right now. In regards to the multiyear authorization, almost all those funds have been committed. If you look at the deficits our States are currently confronting in their budgets, it is just intuitive that we know they need the money. Lastly, this was a commitment we made when we passed welfare reform, that we would restore the social services block grant funds in 2003. Congress should live up to its commitment. They should adopt that amendment. Then I hear criticisms about the offset. I hear that it is going to be hard to enforce. It is our responsibility to clarify the law. Currently it is being implemented by the court on a case-by-case basis. That is certainly not in the best interest of tax policy. It is our responsibility to do that. The way that we have drafted this in regards to effective dates, et cetera, is consistent with the prior policy of this body in passing tax legislation. We frequently note dates and that is exactly what the other body did. This is very consistent. Then lastly, Mr. Speaker, I have heard just about every Member lament the fact that we are adding to the national debt and we have to do something about it, that we have to exercise fiscal restraint. When are we going to do it? Here is an easy one, my colleagues. This is an easy one. Closing a loophole that if you ask any tax accountant or tax attorney, they will tell you it is the right thing to do. Shelters do not help our economy. That is why the courts are taking it on when we should be taking it on and that is why the other body passed it in their legislation. It is time for us to stand up to our responsibility, to do the right thing. This is a bipartisan bill. Both of these recommendations have been brought forward with bipartisan support, both the increase in the social services block grant and the funding mechanism. It passed the other body by a vote of 95 to 5. The last point I make, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a lot of work to do between now and adjournment. The more work we put in conference, the less likely it is going to come out of conference. Here is our chance to really make it likely that we could enact a bill that is going to help our charitable groups by moving closer to the other body consistent with the policy of this body, consistent with both Democrats and Republicans. I urge my colleagues to continue the tradition of this legislation which has moved in a bipartisan manner and look at this amendment objectively. I hope you will vote with me. Vote your conscience. Vote in support of the Cardin amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) getting time from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) to respond.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I believe I control the time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time that remains?

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just try to correct the record here. First, the gentlewoman says this program's voluntary. It is not. It affects all of our seniors because my colleagues are affecting their basic program under Medicare fee-for-service which they are changing into a voucher program. Secondly, GAO indicates one-third of our seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage will lose their coverage as a result of the passage of this bill. My colleague mentioned the fact of cost. Yet they should mention the actuaries say we do not save one dime as a result of the passage of this bill; and quoting Mr. Scully, who is the administrator of the program, you know, the bankruptcy problem is a label, largely a cash flow problem, but is the Republican Medicare bill going to save money versus the original program? The answer is no. Let us be frank about it and then we look at the Medicare trustees report which shows we have the healthiest trust fund we have had in recent histories. Let us be straight and honest with the facts. The fact of the matter is that if my colleagues would have adopted our amendment to the bill on setting price, we would have adopted the Canadian system and brought the prices down to what we are paying in Canada, but they rejected that approach.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Employee Benefit Research Institute on its twenty-fifth anniversary. Since coming to Congress, one of my ongoing legislative priorities has been to ensure that America's workers will enjoy retirement security when they end their careers. When I think of those who have helped educate me and my colleagues--and the public--about the issues and challenges facing workers, the Employee Benefit Research Institute is high on the list. Indeed, without their high quality research and analysis, few would fully comprehend the problems we face and the viable options for solving them. EBRI has provided this service for a quarter century, and it has established an impressive track record on issues ranging from Social Security to health benefits, as well as a panoply of private pension issues. EBRI's data is reliable and its analyses helpful. Their reports are uniquely useful because rather than recommend approaches, EBRI simply lays out the options for policymakers. In today's often partisan atmosphere, EBRI's focus on the facts is particularly welcome. By doing so, they often provide common ground where those with differing ideological stances can reach compromise. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating EBRI on its 25 years of service, and I look forward to relying on its counsel in the years to come.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank my good friend from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time and his generosity. In my congressional district, the Third District of Maryland, I represent 110 District of Columbia residents. They live at the Oak Hill detention center, a maximum security campus in Laurel, Maryland, approximately 30 miles from Washington. It is located on more than 600 acres of Federal land adjacent to the National Security Agency. The facility was originally constructed 50 years ago. Few renovations have been made since then, and the campus is now in a severe state of neglect and disrepair, littered with partially-boarded abandoned buildings that are frequently broken into and set afire. Roughly half the children at Oak Hill have been convicted of crimes and sentenced to a term there, and the other half are detainees awaiting trial. Their average length of stay is more than 8 months. A 2001 mayoral commission recommended closing Oak Hill and placing youth offenders in a network of residential treatment facilities, community-based group homes and other less restrictive settings. I support the commission's recommendations, including the closing of Oak Hill. Some progress has been made toward that goal, including beginning construction of a pretrial holding facility in northeast Washington that should reduce by 50 percent the number of children housed at Oak Hill. July's four-part series in the Washington Post documented a near complete breakdown of the community-based rehabilitative care system that now exists for the District's youth offenders. The District needs to develop an appropriate community-based system for its juvenile offenders. In addition, because the District of Columbia has only one residential treatment center which is plagued by alleged physical and sexual abuse, the city must send many of its children to lengthy stays out of State. Currently 400 District children are in residential treatment centers, some as far away as Arizona, at a conservative cost of $25 million a year. Mayor Williams recently acknowledged that his juvenile justice system is in a state of serious dysfunction and has pledged to take corrective measures. But he was also quoted as saying, ``There hasn't been an embrace, at the agency level, of the issue. There hasn't been the sense of urgency.'' I would tell the mayor that there is a sense of urgency for both the District of Columbia and in my district in Maryland. I recently had the opportunity to meet with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and Deputy Mayor Carolyn Graham, and I subsequently visited Oak Hill. There I met with youth services administrator Gayle Turner and her staff and I toured the facility and surrounding grounds. I was impressed by the progress we were making. As a result of our initial discussions, they were moving in the right direction: toward razing the dilapidated structures that are beyond rehabilitation and toward developing proposals to make more cost- effective and more appropriate use of the land. That is why I was disappointed that both of the individuals I met with positions were terminated and no longer are there. Today's debate is about funding the District of Columbia, but this issue involves more than appropriate funding levels. This is about the best course of treatment of these children, the best way to ensure the safety of our communities and the most appropriate use of Federal land. Mr. Chairman, as the representative of the community surrounding Oak Hill, I look forward to working to help improve the state of juvenile justice services for the District of Columbia. I might also point out that the Federal land on which Oak Hill is located is a prime site for expansion of NSA and for the State of Maryland and Anne Arundel County to develop environmental, recreational and economic opportunities. I hope to continue working with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), with the members of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and with Mayor Williams and the city council to develop the right solutions for all involved.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Dana M. Stein, executive director and cofounder of Civic Works, Inc., a non- profit youth corps that has provided critically needed services to the Baltimore area since 1993. Mr. Stein's leadership of Civic Works has transformed the organization into an outstanding AmeriCorps program-- helping the community and teaching new skills to young adults. Mr. Stein has dedicated his career to helping improve our community. He has a B.A. degree from Harvard University and a law degree from Columbia University. In 1985, he received a Masters in Public Affairs from Princeton University. He has used his knowledge and skills to reach out to others and to make a difference. Under his direction, approximately 200 Civic Works' participants help rehabilitate low-income housing, build urban parks and gardens, clean and restore urban vacant lots and tutor and mentor school-age children. While providing important services that would otherwise go undone, Civic Works' participants also receive help in their education and citizenship skills. Civic Works has been recognized for its successes. In 1999, it was awarded the PEPNet Award from the National Youth Education Coalition (NYEC). It also is a four-time YouthBuild sub-grantee and has been recognized through the 2003 National Association of Services and Conservation Corps Excellence in Corps Operations. I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Dana M. Stein on the 10th Anniversary of Civic Works. He is a committed American who understands how to build a better community.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to this body's attention that this weekend in Cooperstown, Cooperstown, New York, one of the greatest baseball players of all time will be inducted into the Hall of Fame, and that is Eddie Murray who played for the Baltimore Orioles. He played for other teams, but he is known as a Baltimore Oriole. Eddie Murray is one of only three players, the other two, Hank Aaron and Willie Mays, who hit over his lifetime 500 home runs in 3,000 hits. But what we all know about Eddie Murray, he is a model of consistency, a real team player, a person who really brought championship to Baltimore, and championship to the baseball diamond. He also gave back to the community. Particularly, I want to bring to this body's attention the Carrie Murray Nature Center that he founded in Baltimore, in honor of his mother, in Lincoln Park. He is known not only as a great baseball player, but a great person. I congratulate him on being selected for the Hall of Fame.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the words most often used to describe Eddie Murray are ``team-player,'' ``reliable,'' ``steady,'' and ``clutch- player.'' What these words fail to convey is just how much fun it was to watch Eddie play, particularly for the Orioles, particularly in Memorial Stadium where he spent his first 12 years as a professional baseball player. He helped the team excel in every way, from winning a World Series and a pair of American League Championships, to being an exciting home team to root for at the ballpark. This wonderful and often under appreciated ball player known in my hometown simply as ``Eddie'' will be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame this weekend in the first year he is eligible. The statistics are important, and they show just how steady and yet remarkable Eddie's career was: Eddie Murray is one of three players (the other two are Hank Aaron and Willie Mays) to hit over a lifetime 500 home runs and 3,000 hits. He is the only switch hitter to accomplish this feat. He homered from both sides of the plate in 11 games--a Major League record. He was the 1977 American League Rookie of the Year, an 8-time All-Star (in both Leagues), a 3-time Golden Glove winner, and shares the distinction with Cal Ripken and Pete Rose of playing at least 150 games in 16 seasons--all in a career that was 20 years long. He ranks 2nd in all-time career grand slams with 19. He ranks 8th all-time in RBIs, 17th in home runs, 12th in hits. He holds the Major League record for games played and assists by a first baseman. He batted in 1,917 RBIs--more than 75 a season in 20 consecutive seasons. He hit 996 RBIs in the 80's--the most any player hit in the decade-- and was known for being able to play his best in situations where his team needed him the most. Murray was a career .410 hitter with the bases loaded. In fact, he hit 117 game-winning RBIs, an American League record, and hit a Major League record 128 sacrifice flies. Murray was in every way the ultimate clutch player and a team player who thought of the team and the game before his own glory. In total, he hit 504 home runs, 3,255 hits, and played for the Orioles, the Dodgers, the Mets, the Indians, and the Angels. But he started his career and hit his 500th home run in Baltimore, and he will be inducted on Sunday as an Oriole. We are proud to claim him. Eddie Murray told the Baltimore Sun in January when he found out about the induction: ``The 500 home runs, to me, is the most mind- boggling, because I didn't think I was strong enough. I never thought of myself as a home-run hitter.'' He gave back to other players, on the field with his selfless play and off. When Cal Ripken broke Lou Gehrig's record, he singled his former teammate out for praise, saying ``when I got to the big leagues, there was a man--Eddie Murray--who showed me how to play this game, day in and day out. I thank him for his example and for his friendship. I was lucky to have him as my teammate for the years we were together . . .'' Murray also gave to his community, starting, with Ripken, a program giving Orioles tickets to underprivileged children. He also created an outdoor education program in the second largest urban park in the nation, Leakin Park in Baltimore, named The Carrie Murray Nature Center in honor of his late mother. Of sharing his achievement with Aaron and Mays, Murray said, ``I'm not in their class.'' Mr. Murray, your fans in Baltimore and across the Country beg to disagree.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to point out a provision that is in the bill that provides $100 million of aid to Serbia. That aid is conditioned upon certain standards being met that the Yugoslav government is cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal, including access for investigators in the surrender and transfer of indictees or the assistance in their apprehension. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their help in including this language again in this year's appropriation bill. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the Committee on Appropriations has worked with our Helsinki Commission to make sure this language is included again this year in the appropriation process. It reinforces our commitment to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. This body has played a very important role in moving forward the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. I want to point out to my colleagues that the conditional language that has been included in this appropriation bill yearly has been very helpful to the prosecutor in getting cooperation from the Government of Serbia. We have seen reform within their government, and we are all very pleased to see the reforms that are taking place. But there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. Let me just point out that there are still 18 indictees that are at large, including Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic and Army Commander General Mladic. So we still have work to be done with the International Criminal Tribunal. This language is very important. I want to thank the Committee on Appropriations and its leadership for continuing to include this conditionality. It speaks to the priority of this body. I am very pleased it is included in the bill. I certainly support it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me, if I might, first correct, I think, a couple of the factual issues. I can assure you that the Democratic Members wanted to participate in the debate on the pension legislation. In fact, when the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) was debating the issue, we were confronting the Capitol Police, and that was the reason why we are not back in the room. By the time we finished with the Capitol Police, the markup was over. Let me also point out that the police were called before the gentleman from California's (Mr. Stark) episode began. We were confronted with the Capitol Police before the unanimous consent request was brought forward. Mr. Speaker, I started this day looking forward to the committee markup on H.R. 1776. That is a bill that I have worked on with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for many months. We have worked with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. We have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle on that legislation. It is important legislation to working people of this country, and there are different views among Democrats on provisions in that legislation. Mr. Speaker, I could defend that bill on its merit, and I look forward to doing just that, but I cannot defend the manner in which our committee acted this morning. I have devoted much of my public career to process issues. I have served on the ethics committee for over 6 years, and I have served as a cochair of our ethics task force. I am a former speaker of the Maryland legislature. Process is important in what happened in the Committee on Ways and Means this morning. Mistakes were made, and it reflects badly on each one of us. We need to move forward, but to move forward we must acknowledge our mistakes. H.R. 1776 desperately needs to be considered in a fair manner before the Committee on Ways and Means for its integrity and integrity of the process. It is the committee's responsibility to guarantee to the public that a fair process is used, order is maintained, and each Member's right is protected. That is our collective responsibility. Mr. Speaker, since this morning I have talked to Members on both sides of the aisle, and I am pleased that the Speaker's on the floor listening to this debate. I think it is absolutely essential, and I know I am supported by both Democrats and Republicans, that H.R. 1776 be returned to the Committee on Ways and Means for a full markup, with opportunity of all Members to participate. As one of the principal sponsors, I hope that will be accomplished and we will be able to have a full markup on that legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, this funding bill shortchanges an important program designed to prevent child abuse, reunify families, and promote the adoption of certain children in the foster care system. Under this legislation, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program would receive only half its discretionary allocation. This inadequate funding level stands in stark contrast to President Bush's budget, which proposes full funding for the program. The bill also ignores a bipartisan plea from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the authorizing subcommittee to fully fund this important program. The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program (Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social Security Act) provides grants to states for four kinds of child welfare services: family preservation, family support, time- limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support. The program represents the most significant effort by the Federal government to support services that may prevent child abuse and neglect from occurring, and that help children move quickly from foster care to permanent homes. With over half a million children currently in foster care, and nearly one million cases of child abuse or neglect substantiated every year, funding for this program is vitally important. If we really care about helping and protecting our most vulnerable children, then we should be willing to make at least a modest investment to achieve that goal. Congress has approved nearly $3 trillion in tax cuts for mainly wealthy Americans in less than three years. Surely, we can spend a tiny, nearly imperceptible fraction of that amount on preventing child abuse and on helping struggling families. As this debate moves forward, I hope we can make progress on a goal President Bush laid out not only in his budget, but also in his 2000 campaign for the Presidency. Let's fully fund the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment that would have restated the policy of our country against the use of torture. The reason that I was going to offer that amendment is that I do represent this body in the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; and in many of our meetings, the issue of the use of torture has been raised, particularly in light of our war against terrorism. I might tell you there have also been press accounts recently that call into question the use of torture in regards to the campaign against terrorism. However, Mr. Chairman, I think the President of the United States, along with the representatives from the State Department and Defense Department, have made it very clear on the U.S. policy in this regard. Let me just point out that on June 26, the International Day in Support of the Victims of Torture, President Bush declared that ``Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere.'' He observed that ``Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right.'' The State Department also noted that ``Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right, and the prohibition of torture is a basic principle of international human rights law. This prohibition is absolute and allows no exceptions.'' Finally, as the General Counsel to the Defense Department William Haynes wrote to Senator Leahy recently, ``The United States does not permit, tolerate, or condone any such torture by its employees under any circumstances.'' Mr. Chairman, I think the record is very clear on the U.S. position in regards to the use of torture, and, therefore, I will not pursue an amendment at this time. I thank my colleagues for their patience.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the passage of this bill. The passage will make it much more difficult for Congress to enact a meaningful prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors. Let me give you five reasons why. Reason number one. There is no guaranteed benefit in this bill. Unlike seeing a doctor or going to a hospital, we cannot tell our seniors that their prescription drugs will be covered. It will be different in different parts of the country. Mr. Speaker, I tried to correct that by offering an amendment in the Committee on Ways and Means, and it was rejected by the Republicans. I tried to give this body an opportunity to vote on it, but the Committee on Rules would not make that amendment in order. Reason number two. We are set on a course to privatize Medicare. Only private insurance can participate in the prescription drug coverage. Private insurance only has to offer a 1-year commitment. Mr. Speaker, my citizens of Maryland remember when we had Medicare+Choice; 100,000 Marylanders lost their coverage when all eight HMOs left Maryland. It is irresponsible to claim that private insurance companies are eager to return to a market that they have abandoned in the past. Reason number three. This bill will jeopardize coverage for seniors who have good private retiree prescription drug coverage today. CBO has estimated that 30 percent of our seniors who currently have their own private coverage for prescription drugs through their prior employment will lose those benefits as a result of the enactment of this legislation. Reason number four. We are missing an opportunity to bring down drug prices. The legislation specifically prohibits our government from using the purchasing power of 40 million beneficiaries to lower drug prices just like the Canadians do. Reason number five. The benefits are inadequate. The Republicans project that this bill will provide for a $35 a month premium, $250 deductible, then some help up to $2,000, but then our seniors are on their own for the next $2,900. Our seniors are expected to pay a $35-a- month premium when they are not entitled to any benefit for a good part of the year. I think that is unrealistic. My Republican friends say, well, you only have $400 billion. We offered alternatives within $400 billion that would provide real benefits. I offered a substitute that said, look, if you cannot afford all drugs, let us at least cover drugs for those illnesses such as high blood pressure and coronary artery disease and diabetes and severe depression. But, no, the Committee on Rules would not allow this body to decide whether that would be a better package and a guaranteed benefit package. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a bill that provides no guaranteed benefit, relies solely on the whim of private insurance companies, causes harm to seniors who currently have adequate prescription drug coverage, will not do enough to bring down the cost of prescription drugs, and provides inadequate benefits. Therefore, I will vote ``no'' on the Republican bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). There is no Member of this body who has done more in his lifetime to fight anti-Semitism than the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I congratulate him for his effective leadership against anti-Semitism here and around the world. I also want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the chairman of our OSCE delegation. I have the honor of being the ranking Democratic member. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who will be speaking shortly, is one of the commissioners. We have made the fight against anti-Semitism a top priority of our delegation. We have been effective in making it a top priority within the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. We have done that because we have seen a rise of anti-Semitism, physical assaults on individuals solely because they are Jewish, desecration of Jewish cultural sites, propaganda in the media have all been on the rise. We must have a zero tolerance policy about anti- Semitism. The OSCE Helsinki Commission provides a unique opportunity for us to fight anti-Semitism. It not only has in its membership all of the countries of Europe, Canada and the United States, but it has the participation of our Mediterranean partners, which include Israel, Egypt and Jordan. The OSCE Helsinki Commission has had a history of effectively dealing with human rights issues, so that is why the United States leadership has been effective in bringing about the forums to deal with anti-Semitism. I know there was just a meeting in Vienna that the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) participated in. We adopted in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly last year a very strong resolution against anti- Semitism as a result of the U.S. leadership, and we have signed a letter of intent with Germany to spell out specific actions that we need to take in order to fight anti-Semitism. We can never justify anti-Semitic actions by international developments or political issues. We need to have an action plan to fight anti-Semitism. We need to have strong laws that are adopted by our member states and enforced. We need to speak out against anti- Semitism as parliamentarians. Silence is not an option. As all my colleagues have expressed, we need educational programs for our children. The resolution says we need to create educational efforts throughout the region encompassing the participating states of OSCE to counter anti-Semitic stereotypes and attitudes among younger people, increase Holocaust awareness programs, and help identify the necessary resources to accomplish this goal. Our children are our future. In many of these states, we are finding there are counterproductive programs promoting anti-Semitism. We need a proactive agenda. This resolution puts this body on record in strong support of our resolution within OSCE to continue our commitment to support action plans to stamp out anti-Semitism. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.