Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. CARDIN. I am in the present form.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the motion is very straightforward. It increases child care by $11 billion, which is the cost, the extra cost, to the States. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell), a new member of the House.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the majority will say that they have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office saying that this is not an unfunded mandate, but what the majority will not mention is that they have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office that says that this bill will significantly change the way the States have to spend their money on TANF; that it will cost them an additional $11 billion in order to comply with the mandates that are included in this bill. Now, my definition of an unfunded mandate is telling the States they have to do something and not giving them the extra money to do it with. That is exactly what the bill does. It mandates the States to develop workfare programs, it requires the States to spend more money on child care in order to deal with the new work requirements, and the States do not have the money and resources to do it. Mr. Speaker, I have heard my colleagues on both sides of the aisle say they are for child care, that children should not be penalized, that we have to have safe and affordable child care. Our States are telling us they need the money. This motion does one thing and one thing only: It increases the amount of child care by $11 billion to equal what our Congressional Budget Office is telling us is the increased burden on the States. That is all it does. I would urge my colleagues to listen to our governors. Listen to what we have said in the past about unfunded mandates. Listen to what we have said about protecting our children and support the motion to recommit.

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the exemplary career of Letty L. Carpenter of Jefferson, Maryland, on the occasion of her retirement from the Centers for Medicaid & Medicaid Services (CMS) after 30 years of Federal service. At a time when the need for dedicated public service to our nation is more critical than ever, it gives me great pleasure to honor the commitment Letty has demonstrated to such service, particularly for the low-income and vulnerable populations served by the Medicaid program. Her commitment is even more impressive when you realize that Letty regularly has arisen at 4:00 am to make the long commute from her home in lovely, rural western Maryland to her position with CMS in Washington, DC. Letty was born and raised in Chicago, Illinois. She received a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Illinois in Urbana, Illinois, and a Masters of Arts in Geography, as well as a Masters of Public Health from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Letty entered Federal service as a volunteer and later a recruiter for the Peace Corps, serving from July 1965 to May 1968. As a volunteer in Senegal, she introduced aural-oral techniques of language instruction to local schools to replace traditional rote teaching methods, wrote instructional materials, and also participated in laying the groundwork for a maternal and child health outreach program through the local hospital. As a recruiter in the United States, she conducted advertising and advance work for the Peace Corps recruitment drives at 40 midwestern universities and colleges. From 1970 to 1974, she worked for the University of Michigan, first as a Community Coordinator then later as a Research Assistant. Letty continued her Federal career in Washington, DC, in 1974 when she was selected for the Management Intern Program with the Department of Health and Human Services (then HEW). Through this program, she had several rotational assignments to different agencies throughout the Department. From 1977 to 1979, she was a program analyst in the Medical Services Administration of the Social and Rehabilitation Services agency in HEW. Letty started in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration) in the Medicaid Bureau in January 1979 and has worked for CMS until the present time. She has worked in the Office of Legislation for the last 23 years, where she has played a critical role in the passage of legislation through her assistance to senior managers in HHS, OMB and the White House, as well as Members and staff of Congress and their support agencies. During her tenure in CMS, Letty has served nine agency Administrators and ten Department Secretaries all of whom have recognized her contributions with numerous awards, including Administrator's Achievement Awards and the Secretary's Award for Distinguished Service. Letty is recognized nationally, within and outside the government, as a renowned expert in the intricacies of Medicaid law, regulations and policies, particularly those related to the extremely complex area of Medicaid eligibility requirements. She possesses exceptional abilities to skillfully analyze complex situations, focus attention on the key issues, develop practical options to address them, and explain it all in clear, concise and understandable language. Letty has also skillfully trained numerous current and former colleagues in the complexities of Medicaid policy and part of her legacy in CMS will continue through the knowledge she has imparted to the current employees of the Office of Legislation and other parts of the Agency. Many people call her from around the country, from Federal, State, and local government agencies, as well as the private sector, for assistance because of her expertise in the Medicaid program. All of Letty's colleagues in CMS and HHS will sorely miss her knowledge, insight, and can-do attitude, as well as her encouragement and lively sense of humor. Letty always has taken her responsibilities to the low-income and other vulnerable beneficiaries of the Medicaid program very seriously, but not herself. I join her colleagues and friends in congratulating her on her impressive achievements and wishing her well as she retires from Federal service. We expect that she will continue to be a valued participant in many important issues, as well as an even more active member of the Jefferson, Maryland, community, where she and her husband, Jim, have long resided.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time on this side.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), one of the distinguished members of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), a first-term Member of this body, but a person who is very experienced in developing domestic policy.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just like to say to the gentleman, I compliment the gentleman for the role he played in 1996. I think our side is trying to protect the product that my colleagues developed in 1996. This bill that is before us dramatically alters it. The gentleman is right, it was a great success. Why are we now being so prescriptive at the national level?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip on the Democratic side.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the time division?

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

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill at the wrong time. I supported the 1996 welfare reform legislation. I thought it was the right thing to do. In 1996, we gave the States flexibility. This legislation takes it back. In 1996, we gave the States the resources they needed. This bill does not give them the dollars in order to do the job. The legislation before us is remarkably different from the 1996 bill. That is why so many of our Nation's governors have said to us in a letter dated today that we will take a significant step backwards in reforming welfare. This is not the time to replace State flexibility with unfunded mandates. My chairman says this is not an unfunded mandate. The Congressional Budget Office says it will cost $8 to $11 billion extra money for the States to comply with the requirements in this legislation. The Republican bill gives the States $1 billion more and $1 billion on a promise. That is an unfunded mandate. Maybe technically it is not, because you can transfer monies from other accounts. Let me tell you a story of my own State of Maryland. Our States have record deficits. In 50 years they have not been this bad. We see that deficits are between $70 to $85 billion in our States. In Maryland, our governor is recommending a 23 percent reduction in child care because of the deficits. And what do we do? Mandate they spend more money by a prescriptive Federal law. That is not what I voted for in 1996. I voted to give the States flexibility and the resources, and this legislation is taking it away. It is going to hurt our children, it is going to hurt our States, and it is wrong. We should have done better, and had we gone through a normal process, we would have had a chance to explore what happened during this past year, correct the mistakes in this body and not rely on a conference. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. We will offer an alternative, a substitute, later on in the debate so we can correct these mistakes. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of H. Con. Res. 27, which condemns the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The international community has long known that Libya has a deplorable record on human rights and is a sponsor of terrorism. For that reason, it is shocking that Libya is now the chair of a body charged with the responsibility of promoting universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for the world's citizens. The United Nations' decision to elect Libya as the Chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is alarming for several reasons. First, it is remarkable that United Nations would even consider Libya's candidacy for the position, given the fact that Libya has not accepted responsibility for its role in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed hundreds of innocent people over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Until Libya takes responsibility for its actions and complies with particular Security Council mandates, Libya cannot have any credibility in being the chair of a United Nations commission that promotes human rights. In today's world, where we seek to defeat the threat posed by international terrorism, it is irresponsible for a state like Libya to be elected to such a leadership position. Second, Libya's selection to be chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights reflects a disturbing trend in international institutions. It has become highly prevalent that states which violate human rights laws seek to secure positions in global bodies that espouse such laws so they can protect their reputations and those of similar regimes. Members of the international community must speak out against such practices lest these institutions become a mockery of international law and human rights. I urge the House to pass this resolution, which states in the strongest possible terms the outrage of Congress at the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Resolution clearly states that: (1) Libya is a gross violator of human rights; (2) it is a state sponsor of terrorism; (3) several countries as well as international organizations have condemned Libya's selection as chair of the Commission; (4) the United States is appalled by the European Union's common position of abstention on the critical vote over Libya's selection as chair of the commission; (5) the Secretary of State should engage member countries to support the United States efforts to ensure that states that are gross violators of human rights or sponsors of terrorism not ascend to leadership positions in the United Nations. Libya has a horrific human rights record. Citizens do not choose their leaders in free and fair elections, nor are they able to petition their government for redress of grievances. It uses summary judicial proceedings to suppress domestic opposition. Security forces torture prisoners during interrogations and as punishment. Security forces arbitrarily arrest and detain persons, and many prisoners are held incommunicado. Many political detainees are held for years without charge. There is not an independent judiciary that enforces legal rights of citizens, and citizens do not have the right to a fair public trial or to be represented by legal counsel. The government infringes on citizens' privacy rights, and citizens do not have the right to be secure in their homes or persons, or to own private property. Libya restricts freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion. Is this the type of country that should be charged with being the chair of a commission that promotes human rights? I think not. Libya is one of seven countries on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror. As I have said in the past, Libya has continued to acquire weapons of mass destruction and promote state- sponsored terrorism. Last year, our Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security said that there was no doubt that Libya seeks nuclear weapons. Furthermore, he said that Libya has produced at least 100 tons of different kinds of chemical weapons. It is antithetical to the United Nations' mission for peace that a state engaged in creating global havoc be in charge of one of its most important committees. It is imperative that members of the international community do not retreat from their responsibility to ensure that those charged with monitoring human rights are not, in fact, grave violators themselves. We must not give credibility to countries which violate human rights and support terrorism. To do otherwise is to legitimize their practices. Congress has recently made its policy clear with respect to Libya's alarming behavior. In 2001, Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 2001, which President Bush signed into law in August 2001. I was an original co-sponsor of the bill, and in the Ways and Means Committee I argued in favor of extending the current sanctions in place against Iran and Libya for an additional five years. ILSA threatens the imposition of economic sanctions against foreign entities investing in Iran and Libya's energy sectors. ILSA combines deterrence (the possibility of sanctions) with presidential discretion (through broad waiver authority). ILSA has been very effective so far, the Congress overwhelmingly approved the reauthorization of legislation to keep the pressure on Libya and Iran to stop their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and ballistics missile technology. Libya also remains hostile to the State of Israel and may support terrorist activities against Israel. Mr. Speaker, it is this great nation's hope that it can one day live in a world where it is not threatened by international terrorism and that human rights for all will be respected. The selection of Libya as chair to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights undermines these goals. I, therefore, urge the House to pass this resolution by a strong bipartisan vote.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, in supporting this resolution, each of us expresses our deepest condolences to the families of our seven explorers, our seven astronauts, who lost their life this past Saturday. Each of us feels a connection to this tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of representing Annapolis, where the Naval Academy is located. Commander McCool graduated from the Naval Academy. The Naval Academy family misses their comrade. This morning I was with a health care group talking about health care issues. The Columbia mission was life sciences trying to find the answers to dread diseases here in the United States. Each of us was affected by this tragedy. Six Americans, one Israeli lost their lives. America and Israel share in the loss of our heroes. In their honor, in their memory, we will continue our commitment to space and our commitment to understand what went wrong with the Columbia so that we can continue space travel for the benefit of future generations.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, may I yield on my reservation or argument?

Mr. CARDIN. Let me just complete my argument, and then I would welcome the chairman's response. Mr. Speaker, I think that there needs to be some discretion here as far as fairness in the rules. I know that yesterday we adopted the rules of the House. It seems to me that the minority needs to be protected to be able to offer a motion to recommit. I understand the chairman's point, but it would seem to me that the rules should permit the minority to offer a motion to recommit if we are going to have an open and full debate in the House.