Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, if I understand the objection, it is based upon the fact that, as I understand it, the bill before us has a waiver on the Budget Act from the Committee on Rules, but that because there is no waiver of the Budget Act provided in the rules, the minority will not have a chance to offer a similar type of a motion to recommit. I would ask the chairman, is that the basis that we were not protected in the rule, whereas the underlying bill did not get a waiver in the rule?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to pass legislation today, so I support legislation. I think it is important that we deal with the people who lost their benefits in December because we failed to extend the law. I think it is important that we pass legislation that will provide the additional weeks of benefits for those who exhaust their regular unemployment insurance, and the underlying legislation does that and it is worthy of support. The problem is, as we have heard during the course of this debate, that the legislation does not go far enough. There will be a million people during the next several months who will exhaust their extended benefits, and the gentleman's motion to commit urges us to deal with that group of unemployed who have lost their unemployment insurance benefits through no fault of their own; and if we do not take action immediately, these individuals will not have any unemployment insurance benefits. Now, Mr. Speaker, the motion before us will not delay the issue. I know I will hear that from my friends. The conference could be appointed today. It could act today. This is not a controversial issue. This is unfinished business from the last Congress. The funds are there. The funds are in the Federal unemployment trust account to pay for these benefits. In 1990, the last recession we had, we extended benefits for 26 additional weeks. This tells us to do at least as well for the unemployed today as we did in the 1990s so we can get this done. We can get it done quickly, and we can get it done before we adjourn this week, and that is the essence of the gentleman's motion. So I support the underlying bill, but we need to do better now on the unfinished business of the last Congress. Then, Mr. Speaker, let me urge my chairman who is on the floor that we look at reforming the unemployment insurance and we do it quickly, that we deal with the part-time employees who pay into the unemployment insurance funds and do not get unemployment benefits. And we deal with the people, many of whom left the welfare system for work only to find that their jobs have been lost and we deal with the most recent quarter of their earnings so they can qualify for unemployment insurance. As we look at a stimulus package, let us also look at increasing the benefits for those people who are unemployed. That would certainly stimulate our economy and is far less costly than the tax legislation that the President brought forward yesterday. So I would urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from Washington's motion to commit. It urges us to do more. It allows us to move forward with the underlying bill but to do more; and we can get it done today, make no mistake about it. The conference report could be back to us before we leave this evening. There is no question about that in anyone's mind. We know exactly what needs to be done, and I would urge my colleagues to support the motion to commit.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. As the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has said, this is a modest bill that moves forward in three areas in a very modest way. It is the last train out of the station, and I would urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, it does deal, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources said, with a 3-month extension of TANF. That is better than what was in the continuing resolution. It guarantees that our States will receive at least their first quarter payments. That is important. But I know we are all disappointed that we were unable in this Congress to reauthorize the program for 5 years. Certainly we wanted to reauthorize it for more than 3 months. Secondly, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has already commented on the Medicare provisions. We hope that the provisions here will help the physician reimbursement system. But we are all disappointed that we were unable to complete the structure changes for skilled nursing facilities, rehabilitation therapists, hospitals, home health. There were provisions in here that were noncontroversial for our military. None of that was able to get accomplished in this Congress, and I think we are all very disappointed that we were unable to do that. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the third area, unemployment insurance. Yes, there is a modest improvement in the underlying legislation, but I think we should be very disappointed that we have done nothing at all to help the 1.8 million Americans who will have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits before we will have an opportunity to revisit this program again next year. That is particularly disappointing when you recognize the fact that in every prior recession, in a bipartisan way, we have extended Federal unemployment insurance benefits as a safety net to those who are hurt through the recession through no fault of their own. We have $25 billion in the Federal unemployment trust account. The money is there. The number of people suffering from long-term unemployment has doubled over the last year. We know that if we provide assistance that money will get back into the economy quickly and help us in the recovery. That is why in every prior recession, we have been very clear in providing additional help through the Federal unemployment insurance system. Yet in this recession we have failed. I think that is extremely disappointing, and I would hope that we could have done better.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Iraq's President, Saddam Hussein, is a dangerous individual. Under his control Iraq has violated United Nations resolutions on the development of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq possesses significant quantities of chemical and biological weapons and is attempting to develop nuclear and radiological weapons all in contravention of the U.N. resolutions. Iraq has shown a disposition to use weapons of mass destruction when the regime used chemical weapons against its own citizens. Iraq has had 4 years to rebuild its weapons of mass destruction program without U.N. oversight or inspection. The current regime has also supported terrorism. It is in the interest of the United States to take action against Iraq to enforce the U.N. resolutions, mandating that Iraq destroy its weapons of mass destruction. The preferred course for the United States is to pursue that action through the United Nations. The use of force should be a matter of last resort if all other diplomatic means prove ineffective. I support President Bush's efforts to secure a resolution in the United Nations Security Council along with a time schedule for enforcement. I also support President Bush's stated intent that force should only be used as a matter of last resort and that it is in the best interest of our Nation to avoid the use of force. The question before Congress is how we should best address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein as he seeks to strengthen his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. We all agree that the United States must exercise leadership at this critical time in world history. It is unfortunate that H.J. Res. 114 goes well beyond the President's statements. Under the resolution the President could take unilateral military action against Iraq without seeking the support of the United Nations. The President could also take unilateral military action against Iraq to enforce U.N. resolutions unrelated to weapons of mass destruction. The President has indicated that he will use his authority more narrowly but that it is useful to have broader legislative authority. However, the Congress has the responsibility under the War Powers Act to be very cautious on the authorization of the use of force. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and I presented a substitute resolution to the Committee on Rules. That resolution was originally proposed by Senators Biden and Lugar of the Committee on Foreign Relations. It would have limited the use of force to the specific threat against our Nation. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House refused to allow that resolution to be considered. The only other option on the use of force to the President's resolution is the substitute resolution offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). That resolution allows the President to use force if authorized by the United Nations to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. If the United Nations does not approve a resolution authorizing force, then the President could seek an immediate vote of Congress if he still believed the use of force by the United States is necessary. Mr. Speaker, I shall support the Spratt substitute resolution because when compared to the President's resolution, I believe it most closely reflects the proper authorization from Congress. It is important that we speak as a united country in our determination to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I urge the President to follow the path he has announced in seeking U.N. action, limiting our forces to the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and working with the international community. I have grave concerns about the consequences of unilateral preemptive military attack by the United States. Such a course of action could endanger our global coalition against terrorism, particularly from our moderate Arab allies. It also may increase terrorism activities around the world. The United States could also set a dangerous precedent in international law which could be invoked, for example, by India against Pakistan, Russia against Georgia, or China against Taiwan. In addition, we must not overlook the massive cost and effort that the United States would have to undertake in a post-Saddam Hussein regime. The United States will need the help of its allies as it attempts to transition Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy which has the full respect of religious freedom and minority rights of the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, by working through the United Nations we create an international coalition that will be critical in any future military campaign against Iraq or in any effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Gail Shaivitz and her 22-year career in service to Baltimore County seniors. During her career at the Pikesville Senior Center, Gail was dedicated to the well-being of her members, whom she treated as extended family. Gail is unique because she has spent 20 years with one senior center, the Pikesville Senior Center. She began her career in 1980 as a part- time regional program specialist. In October 1982, she was assigned to the Pikesville Senior Center as the center supervisor. In 1984, Gail was promoted to director. In fact, Gail has the distinction of working at one senior center, in the same position, for the longest period of time of anyone in the Baltimore County Department of Aging. As director of the Pikesville Senior Center, she was instrumental in getting it accredited by the National Council on the Aging's National Institute of Senior Centers. It was largely through Gail's efforts that the Pikesville Senior Center became one of the first centers in the county to receive accreditation status. Since then, all 18 Baltimore County senior centers have been accredited. Gail's 20-year career at the Pikesville Senior Center has been marked by significant expansion and creativity in programing. She has worked to connect the senior center to the greater Pikesville community through membership in the Pikesville Community Growth Corporation and the Pikesville Chamber of Commerce. In 1997, she received special recognition from Baltimore County Executive Dutch Ruppersberger and the Baltimore County Department of Aging Director Charles Fisher. I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Gail Shaivitz, a committed public servant who has done much to improve the lives of seniors in Baltimore County.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this resolution we are going to be spending our time working productively on in this body, but it does give us a chance to talk about the economic program that the Republicans have brought forward, an economic program that has cost this Nation 2 million jobs since March of last year, hardworking people who cannot find employment, people, through no fault of their own, who are now drawing unemployment insurance or who have exhausted their unemployment insurance, people who are trying to maintain their dignity and their mortgage, but instead of addressing their concerns and extending unemployment compensation for the millions of people who have exhausted or will exhaust their unemployment insurance, we are talking about a resolution that has no impact for a long time if it were acted upon by the other body. Two point seven people seek a job for every job that is open in this country. We do not have enough employment opportunity. We need to have a safety net for those people who are unemployed. Since we debated the resolution last week on this floor, 50,000 more Americans have exhausted their unemployment insurance, and yet this body does nothing to deal with that. 1.5 million Americans are long-term unemployed. 8.1 million Americans are unemployed today. That is as high as it was in March of this year when we acted on an unemployment extended benefit program. The problem is that if we do not act again, the next time we will have a chance to do this will be 5 months from now, and in that 5-month period, 3 million Americans will either lose or exhaust their unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, in 1992, the last recession that we had, this body, the Congress of the United States, enacted 26 weeks of extended benefits on top of the regular unemployment insurance. In this recession, we have done only half as well, 13 weeks. In the last recession, we extended it for 2\1/2\ years. We have only done it for 9 months, 9\1/2\ months during this recession. It is just not right, Mr. Speaker. We should be using the time on this floor today to act for the people who need our help today and not on a resolution that has no impact. I think the American people should be outraged that we are not taking the time available to do what is right for this Nation and protect the people who, for no fault of their own, have lost their jobs. We have always done it in the past in a bipartisan way. Democrats and Republicans have come together through every recession in the modern history of this Nation to protect those people who are unemployed, but somehow we do not have time for that in this Congress. Shame on the Republican leadership.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me pay my respects to Johnny Unitas, what he meant as an individual and what he meant to our community. I agree with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) and his comments. I feel very privileged because I had the opportunity to witness Johnny play at just about every one of his home football games in Baltimore. During the NFL's 50th anniversary, he was voted the Greatest Quarterback of All Times, and clearly he was the greatest quarterback of all times on the field. He established just about every record during his time, and currently holds the record for throwing a touchdown pass in the most consecutive games, a record that is not likely to be challenged for a long time to come. But that is just half the story about Johnny Unitas. Members know him as a great athlete, a person during the time of football when the quarterback really controlled the game, called the plays, was responsible for the leadership of the team. Johnny Unitas represented the best that there was in that regard. He is responsible for getting the American public interested in the game of football. He probably is responsible for a lot of the high salaries today because of the interest on television for football today. But the other story is Johnny Unitas the individual, off the field. I feel privileged not only to have witnessed him as a great athlete on the field, but to see how he worked within our community. He was always there to help our community. Baltimore was his adopted home. He came to us through other towns, but Baltimore is where he lived his life and where he gave back so much to the community. He was responsible for a lot of charitable activities. He always worked with young people and never turned down a request for an autograph, not because he was honored to be asked to give an autograph, but because he did not want to disappoint anybody. That was the type of life he lived. He was a great individual. He will always be remembered as the person who led Baltimore to championships, the person who always was on the sidelines during all of our games. His number 19, of course, is known by all; but he is clearly number one in the hearts of all of the people of the Nation. I thank the gentleman for bringing this resolution before us.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support worker protection in the pension laws, but today is another wasted opportunity, another loss of an opportunity to do something positive in that direction. I strongly disagree with the partisan strategies of my Republican colleagues. We need Congress to act on pension protection. It has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) on many of these pension issues. Yes, employees should have control over their assets in the 401(k) plan. Yes, we need to give them advice on diversification and independent advice; and yes, we have to give them notice of blackout periods. All that is very important, but this rule, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has pointed out, if it passes, will allow us to consider on this floor three meaningless resolutions. They do not even reenact what we did before. These are basically political statements more than action on the floor of this body. Instead, we could have done something here today to make it more likely we would send legislation to the President accomplishing what we are talking about today. We still have that opportunity. If we defeat the previous question, then we will be able to bring forward an issue that is extremely important to the workers of this Nation, will help bring us closer to the other body and more likely that we will get legislation enacted this year. Mr. Speaker, I refer to the fact that under current pension law, there is preferential treatment for top management over the rank-and- file workers of a defunct company. No one can justify that. If a company cannot pay its workers, if a company cannot pay its creditors, it should not be paying these lucrative agreements to its top management, the deferred compensations and the unqualified pension plans that allow these payments to continue even though the company is in bankruptcy; and that is what the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) is referring to. That is what we will be able to consider in this body if we defeat the previous question; and if we do that, we will not only be enacting the right policy, treating workers equally with top management and protecting their pension rights, but we also will make it more likely that we can get legislation enacted this year. I urge my colleagues to listen to this debate. Why we continue to take up these resolutions that do absolutely nothing is beyond me. These are important issues. We all want to help workers. So why can we not use the time that is obviously available to us to do the work we have not done yet? We have not taken up the issue of protecting the rank and file versus the top management. Let us take that issue up during this time. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I regret that this resolution is before us. It is not in the spirit of how we have worked on pension legislation in this Congress earlier. I am proud of the work that the gentleman from Ohio and I have done in a bipartisan way to bring forward pension legislation. But let me remind my friend the gentleman from Ohio that the legislation that we are considering today came to this body through the Committee on Ways and Means in a bipartisan way, but the Committee on Rules adopted an Education and Workforce version which was not in keeping with the way that we proceeded in a bipartisan manner and in fact contained provisions concerning investment advice which I think is very damaging and needs to be corrected, and I think many people believe that. Let me also mention the other point that the gentleman from Ohio raised, and that is about corporate responsibility and having equal protection for the rank and file members versus the corporate executives. The gentleman from Ohio asked a very important question. How does that help people with their retirement benefits? Responsible corporate management is very important for the workers of a company. How much you compensate or how you try to get around the accounting rules or what you do about executive compensation speaks to the manner in which you run a company and manage a company. The employees have a vested interest in making sure that company succeeds. When it fails and we have this excessive compensation to the corporate executives, it is different than how the rank and file are treated. We should correct that. That is why I said I think we are wasting our time on this resolution and we missed an opportunity because we should have been talking about the issues that would have brought us closer together on the underlying bill and given us a better chance to get a bill to the President's desk. I do not believe this resolution helps us achieve those objectives. I regret that we are debating this resolution rather than the important issues that we should in regards to protecting workers' rights.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, normally as the ranking member of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over welfare, I would make a recommendation to my colleagues as to how they should vote on legislation affecting welfare and TANF reauthorization. I do not really have a recommendation to my colleagues on this resolution because I do not think it does anything. I really do think we are wasting time today. I would like to see TANF reauthorization done this year. We should get it done. It is extremely important. The gentlewoman is right. We need to reauthorize the program. But I have a recommendation to the Republican leadership. Use this time to pass the appropriation bills we have not passed yet. We have not even taken up appropriation bills for the first time here. We normally spend a day or two on the important appropriation bills. With 4 legislative days left, you are not going to schedule them, are you? But, instead, you are going to schedule a resolution that does nothing. We should be talking about what we are going to do with seniors on prescription medicines within the Medicare system, not rely upon private insurance which has already left my constituents in Maryland. But, no, instead we have a resolution before us that really does nothing. I have heard some of my Republican colleagues say that the other body has not done anything. I know we are not supposed to characterize, you are using that as a fact, and you are wrong. The relevant committee in the other body has in fact brought out a bipartisan bill. We should embrace it. But instead, no, our Republican friends in this body are still hanging on to what we did earlier that has no chance of being enacted. We do need to talk and work out a bipartisan bill. But that is not what is happening here today. Let me just, if I might, quote from some traditionally Republican sources. A Republican State legislator speaking on behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures talking about H.R. 4737 said, ``What troubles State legislators is not that the House bill focused on work but that it will to force States to establish community work programs at the expense of those who have left or never been on the rolls.'' Business groups have testified before our committee, ``Under these requirements, many States would have to reduce or abandon their current efforts to place welfare recipients in jobs and prepare them for employment in favor of workfare programs that generate `work' hours, however unproductive.'' Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need to reauthorize TANF in the 107th Congress. The only way that can be done to help our States is if it is done in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, the majority, the Republicans, have refused to include the Democrats in this process. They have refused to really follow the recommendations of our States, the people who manage our welfare system. As a result, we are now faced with a situation where the other body in fact has acted in a responsible, bipartisan way, and still we pretend that we cannot get together. We are going to play hard ball, to the effect that nothing is going to get done. Well, I regret that, because a lot is at stake, the people in this Nation who depend upon these programs to take care of their children, to prepare themselves for work. Yes, we should be moving people out of poverty in this Nation; we should be building upon the successes. I supported welfare reform 5 years ago. I support reauthorization of welfare this year. It is an important program, and we need to get it done. I urge my colleagues to vote any way that they want to on this resolution, because I do not think it will do anything. It does express some sentiments that are important, and I think some of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle may feel that way. But I know I am expressing the majority sentiment when I wish this time would have been used to bring forward the appropriations bills so we could have our debate on issues we have not acted upon in this body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), who is managing the time for the Committee on Education and the Workforce. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentlewoman from Connecticut. Current law allows the States to use education and training as part of the core work requirement in welfare. States have used that well and it has worked well. The bill that passed this body takes away that flexibility from the States. That is why the Governors are upset. That is why legislators are upset. That is why administrators are upset. And that is why people are upset. You take away the flexibility of the States on education and training for women trying to get off the welfare system. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is what we call filler because the majority, the Republicans, do not want to bring up legislation that is important to enact before the end of the fiscal year. If I had been told that on September 19 as one of the last bits of business before we adjourn for the week and come back on Tuesday of next week, not Monday, with not acting on in this body 8 of the 13 appropriation bills, that we would be taking up a meaningless resolution in order to kill time, I would not have believed it; but, that is what we are doing. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is right. There are 12 days left before the end of this fiscal year. The Republicans have only scheduled 4 more legislative days before the end of this fiscal year. In 4 legislative days funding for education, for veterans affairs, for environmental issues, for law enforcement, and for housing will all expire. This body has not even taken up those appropriation bills; yet we have time for this meaningless resolution. Yes, I am concerned about the end of this fiscal year and getting work done. It is important that we reauthorize the welfare reform bill, TANF reauthorization. I have been working for 2 years to try to get reauthorization of TANF. This body missed an opportunity to get that done when it chose a partisan route rather than a bipartisan route which we could have passed when the bill was originally before us, a missed opportunity, making it much more difficult for this Congress to send to the President a meaningful TANF reauthorization bill. Mr. Speaker, we should have built on the success of the current welfare reform bill. We should have built the success that provides flexibility to the States, but instead the legislation that passed this body took flexibility away from the States and made it more difficult for them to do their programs on welfare. Education and training are important, but the bill that passed this body says it is important for everyone but the mother on welfare with a child; that person does not need education. That is the wrong message. The bill that passed this body says we do not want welfare recipients to have real jobs. We want makeshift employment, even though every study has shown that will not lead to people leaving poverty. The bill that passed this body is an unfunded mandate on the States requiring them to spend billions of dollars more and not providing the necessary resources. This resolution states that changes are needed to improve the quality and availability of child care. I agree. We have not done that in this body. We need to do it. Mr. Speaker, there is still time. I urge my colleagues to join in a bipartisan effort. We introduced a proposal that I authored along with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) that builds on the current welfare system, providing the flexibility and the resources to the States. It took welfare to the next level to get families out of poverty. It had the support. We put in the proposal that the national Governors wanted and that the welfare administrators thought were necessary in order to build on the current welfare system, and it is consistent with the bipartisan effort of the other body. There is time if we are willing to work in a bipartisan way to get TANF reauthorization passed, but we cannot do it the way that the other side of the aisle did it when this bill first came before this body. Mr. Speaker, I regret that today is another missed opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the Speaker for that clarification. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to respond to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Speaker, it is just regrettable that we did not follow a bipartisan action in this body like some others have done on the other side of the aisle. I think that is regrettable because that has made it much more difficult for us to reach an agreement with so few days left in this session, and I still say this is a meaningless resolution. It does not do one thing, and I think Members can vote any way they want, and they will be surprised to learn that this is not a Special Order. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the untimely death of Johnny Unitas, whom I think everyone would agree is the greatest football quarterback of all time. Johnny, ``The Golden Arm,'' died Wednesday, September 11, 2002 of a heart attack at age 69. The Hall of Famer came to Baltimore from Pittsburgh to work for Bethlehem Steel at Sparrow's Point. He played for the Baltimore Colts from 1956 until 1973. The Baltimore Sun described Johnny's legacy perfectly: ``Baltimoreans fell in love with a plain-spoken, rough-hewn hero who epitomized their city of steelworkers and longshoremen.'' Unitas retired in 1973, holding 22 NFL records. He completed at least one touchdown pass in 47 straight games, a record that no one has even come close to matching. He did that during the years from 1956 through 1960. He led the Baltimore Colts to the NFL championship in 1958 and 1959, and the Super Bowl in 1970. Johnny Unitas was inducted into the Football Hall of Fame in 1979. On the NFL's 50th anniversary, Johnny was voted the greatest quarterback of all times. With the aid of national television, Johnny catapulted the NFL into the public's eyes every day, driving the growing popularity of professional football. Mr. Speaker, he was responsible for developing the national phenomenon of enjoying football the way we do today. Johnny's trademark hunched shoulders, crew cut, black high-top cleats and stern look found a home in the heart of every Baltimorean. I was a teenager when Johnny Unitas played for the Colts. I remember fondly the days of his 18-year NFL career. More than a football player, Johnny touched the community with his devoted service to charitable causes; he was kind, warmhearted and affable. This past week I had the opportunity to be with him at Towson University. He was continuing his community service. He never denied a person an autograph, not because he thought he was a star, but he knew that he would disappoint the youngster, or even an older person, if he would not give that person his autograph. He was always available to help in our community for charitable events. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering Johnny Unitas, a legacy not only in Baltimore, but across the Nation. On the field, he will always be known as No. 19, but he will surely remain number one in our hearts. We offer our condolences to his family. We will always remember what he has meant to professional football, and what he has meant to Baltimore.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time. And I thank all of our colleagues for bringing forward this resolution. None of us will ever forget where we were on September 11, 2001, when we first learned about the 8:46 attack on our Nation. It was a defining moment for our Nation like November 22, 1963, and December 7, 1941. Now we commemorate the first anniversary of September 11 and, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we are not sure what we should say or what we should do, but we want to join together as a community to show our solidarity. Today we honor our heroes. These are not our Presidents or our sports figures. These are ordinary Americans who performed extraordinary acts. Heroes by chance and heroes by choice. Like Todd Beamer on Flight 93 who gave up his life to save many others. We now know that it was likely that that plane was headed here towards the Capitol. He may in fact have saved our lives. Heroes such as John Fischer, a New York City firefighter, who went into harm's way in order to save lives and lost his life on September 11. Heroes such as Lieutenant Darin Pontell, a naval officer, a young man that I had the honor to appoint to the U.S. Naval Academy. He understood the risks of serving in our armed services, but he thought he would be safe in the Pentagon. He lost his life. Over 3,000 of our fellow citizens lost their lives, casualties to our continuing effort as a Nation to maintain liberty, safety, and freedom for all of its citizens. Each of us was personally affected by September 11. We may not have known anyone personally who died, but we still grieve for them, and we hold the members of their families close to our hearts. We shall never forget September 11. Shortly after September 11, the Congress passed a law calling on the President to designate September 11 as Patriot Day in honor of the individuals who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist attacks against the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001. Throughout America we join together as a community in solidarity to make it clear to the world that our Nation is united and resolved to defend freedom against all enemies, any enemies. We may be Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals. We may differ in religion or ethnicity, but we are united as Americans. Terrorists destroyed the New York World Trade Center buildings, but they can never destroy the character, strength and values of the American people. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was an important day in Maryland. It was primary election day. Marylanders chose their leaders and representatives by the ballot box. Our enemies rule by fear, intimidation, and force. Because of America's leadership, freedom and democracy are winning in all corners of the world. As President Bush has said, ``We are a people dedicated to the triumph of freedom and democracy over evil and tyranny.'' Today we thank millions of Americans who responded to the Nation's calls, our soldiers, our firemen, our police, our postal workers, and so many more who have been on the front line for the defense of our country. Ever since September 11, ``God Bless America,'' our hymn, has had a special meaning. One year ago this evening, we sang it on the steps of the Capitol to make it clear to the world that we would triumph. Tonight we will sing ``God Bless America'' on the steps of the Capitol to make it clear to the world that we will never forget September 11. Mr. Speaker, may God bless those who mourn, may God bless those who serve, and may God bless America and bring us peace.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, regrettably, I cannot support this bill because of the budget implications it would create. The Bush Administration has failed to produce a budget proposal that is fiscally responsible, it has failed to protect the Social Security surplus, and this bill will dip even further into that surplus. We cannot raid the Social Security surplus to reward private schools while we are in the middle of a budget crunch and a public school funding crunch. There are two measures in H.R. 5203 that I do support. We should extend Section 529 savings accounts so that hard-working parents can attempt to keep pace with rapidly rising higher education costs and give their children the opportunity to go to college by creating education savings accounts. We should also allow parents of military academy students with scholarships to withdraw Section 529 funds without penalty. We must give students who are attending our military academies the same treatment as students with other scholarships. I hope that we can enact a good budget bill that includes these important provisions.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I support the creation of a new Federal Cabinet Department of Homeland Security. Therefore, I shall vote for H.R. 5005, but I have major reservations about many of its provisions that I hope will be corrected in conference. It is important to let the process move forward. I agree that we need to consolidate our existing agencies that have homeland security and counter-terrorism functions by creating a new Department with the primary mission to prevent, disrupt, and respond to terrorist attacks. I believe that Congress will enhance the national security interest of the United states by creating this new Department of Homeland Security. The security and safety of the homeland and its citizens is perhaps our greatest responsibility. I am very disappointed that the House rejected several amendments that could have strengthened this legislation--amendments that would have subjected this new agency to the Freedom of information Act (FOIA), civil service rules, whistleblower protections. The House also rejected amendments that would have stricken the delay in implementing explosives screening for baggage at our airports, as well as an amendment that would have clarified the liability immunity for homeland security contracts. In each of these areas, I am hopeful that the conference committee will modify these provisions. We also have to ensure that many of the agencies that would be included in this new department not lose sight of their original missions. An example of that is the U.S. Coast Guard, which boaters rely on in emergency situations. I support strengthening the Coast Guard to deal with border security issues, but I do not want the result to be that Maryland boaters in the Chesapeake Bay are at greater risk because the Coast Guard focus has changed. The new Department of Homeland Security should not jeopardize those functions of different departments and agencies that are not specifically related to security. In order for me to support this legislation on final passage, it is important that we not only establish the consolidated agency for homeland security, but that it is constituted in a manner that protects the civil liberties of its workforce and the people of this country. I am hopeful that when the legislation returns from conference the legislation will accomplish these goals.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to recognize the accomplishments of Nathan Weinberg and thank him for his service to his country and his community as he retires as a trustee of the Harry and Jeannette Weinberg Foundation and his appointment as Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army. After his family emigrated from Eastern Europe, Nathan Weinberg, the sixth of seven children, was born in America in 1917. In 1941, he was inducted into the U.S. Army and on December 25, 1945, Mr. Weinberg was discharged as a 2nd Lieutenant after service in Texas, Australia, New Guinea and the Philippines. After returning home to Baltimore, Mr. Weinberg worked in real estate and lived briefly in Texas and Pennsylvania working on business interests of his brother, Harry Weinberg. He remained a member of the standby reserve until October 1995 when he was honorably discharged. In 1960, Mr. Weinberg became an active officer and trustee of the Harry and Jeannette Weinberg Foundation. Since his brother Harry's death in 1990, Mr. Weinberg has remained one of five trustees to the Foundation, which is one of the largest private foundations in the United States. His leadership on the board has included projects supported by his brother, particularly housing and amenities for the elderly from Coney Island to Tel Aviv to Hawaii. Mr. Weinberg was appointed Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army in 2000. His military experience and his dedication to the Maryland Army National Guard has provided leadership, friendship and financial support for community outreach. Mr. Weinberg has a strong sense of family and a firmly held belief in equality and equitable treatment for all people. At ground breakings and ribbon cuttings, he is not shy about expressing his concern for the welfare of the audience, unhappy that the dignitaries receive special treatment while the audience is left to stand, swelter in the heat or freeze in the cold. His sense of justice guides his dealings with others and he expects others to pass along that philosophy as well. He is a leader by example and deeds. I would ask my colleagues to please join me in congratulating Mr. Weinberg on a life well lived and in thanking him for his service to his country. Our appreciation extends to his family, his wife Lillian and his three sons, Donn, Glenn and Joseph their wives and children.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this amendment that alters that at all. I really did listen very carefully to the majority leader and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) because I want to make sure what we do for the Customs Service is consistent with what is in the Customs Service's best interest, and in the best interest of homeland security. Let me explain the dilemma we have because I think there is a drafting problem without this amendment. We have cut out 25 percent of the Customs Service, calling it the U.S. Customs Service, but it only performs the revenue and trade functions. There is now the other 75 percent which is sort of in no man's land because the U.S. Customs Service is now only revenue and trade. This amendment says that there will be an entity that deals with the other aspects of the U.S. Customs Service that is not trade and revenue-related. It is totally consistent with how other agencies that are being transferred into homeland security are handled as far as flexibility within the executive branch and oversight within the congressional branch. It does not provide the same protections as we provide for the revenue and trade functions, so it is not at all inconsistent with what was worked out as far as the trade and revenue functions of the Customs Service. Without this amendment, we have, I think, a void in the legislation. I do not think that it is, quite frankly, properly drafted without this. I really look at this almost as a technical amendment in order to say to the 75 percent of the agency that is being transferred over that they do exist. Otherwise, we have the United States Customs Service, which is really only 25 percent of the whole. This makes it clear that 100 percent is being transferred over to the new agency, and 25 percent is protected as far as the revenue and the trade function. The other 75 percent is treated as we have treated other agencies which are being transferred over, which is not as great. I urge Members to accept my amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me assure the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) that this amendment does not affect at all the underlying provisions concerning trade and revenue functions within the Customs Service. They actually have much greater protection than is provided in this amendment for the rest of the agency. I would just encourage the majority leader to please look at page 50 of the underlying bill where the language is identical to where it says the Coast Guard in the Department of Transportation, which shall be maintained as a distinct entity within the department. I believe this is using the identical language for the remainder of the Customs Service. It is the remainder, not that which is included with the arrangements worked out between the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the White House on the revenue functions and on the trade functions. We are dealing here with the other functions of the agency. It provides for appropriate congressional oversight without interfering with the trade and revenue functions of the Customs Service. The Customs Service is one of the oldest agencies in the Federal Government. It has a tremendously important function to perform, and it preserves the appropriate congressional oversight. I would urge the majority leader to take a look at it. Without this, the drafting is somewhat suspect. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is consistent with the underlying legislation. It would treat the U.S. Customs Service in a similar way that the Secret Service and the Coast Guard are treated under the bill. All three of these agencies have critical homeland security functions as well as non-homeland security functions. It does not affect the provisions in the bill that deal with the trade and revenue functions of the Customs Service that was included in the bill. That actually has a greater protection than would be for the nontrade and revenue services within the Customs Agency. This affects about 75 percent of the agency, and 25 percent is already covered under the trade and revenue functions. Basically this provides for congressional oversight on reorganizations that may occur in the Customs Service. This is particularly important because it deals with such a large part of the agency involved. The Secretary, the administration, would have the ability to reorganize the Customs Service upon giving notice to Congress, and we would be preserving congressional oversight in regards to the functions of the Customs Service. I think this is an amendment that is totally consistent with the way that we have treated other agencies that are going into this new Department. I would encourage Members to accept this amendment.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it has been three years since Congress began in earnest to address the issue of prescription drug coverage in the Medicare program. The problems we have faced in creating a drug benefit demonstrate that the solution will be both complex and expensive. America's seniors will be closely watching the House of Representatives between now and the end of this Congress. They will be looking for bipartisanship, for cooperation, for a good faith effort to provide them with the lifesaving medicines they need. The lack of prescription drug coverage is one of the most pressing problems facing America's older and disabled citizens today. Because Medicare does not include a drug benefit, its promise--access to comprehensive medical care for the elderly and disabled--is unfulfilled. I rise today to introduce the Essential Medicines for Medicare Act, legislation that will move us one step closer toward keeping that promise of comprehensive coverage. Medicare, the federal health insurance program for the elderly and disabled, covers a large number of medical services--inpatient hospitalization care, physician services, physical and occupational therapy, and skilled nursing facility, home health and hospice care are all covered by the Medicare program. Despite Medicare's success in eliminating illness as a potential cause of financial ruin for elderly Americans, the burden of high prescription drug costs remains a source of hardship for many beneficiaries. When Congress created Medicare in 1965, prescription drugs were not a standard feature of most private insurance policies. But health care in the United States has evolved considerably in the last 34 years. Now most private health plans cover drugs because they are an essential component of modern health care. They are viewed as integral in the treatment and prevention of diseases. But Medicare, for all its achievements, has not kept pace with America's health care system. It is time for Medicare to modernize. Because Medicare does not pay for prescription drugs, its beneficiaries, 80 percent of whom use a prescription drug each and every day, must either rely on Medicaid if they qualify, purchase private supplemental coverage, join a Medicare HMO that offers drug benefits, or pay for them from their fixed incomes. These costs can be extraordinarily burdensome for the elderly, who already have the highest out-of-pocket costs of any age group and who take, on average, eighteen prescriptions each year. There is no question that Congress should enact a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit without further delay. I support a benefit package that covers all necessary drugs for seniors as a part of basic Medicare. However, I am concerned that the 107th Congress appears to be headed down a previously traveled road. Two years ago, this House debated legislation that would require seniors to contract with private insurance companies for prescription drug coverage. It passed narrowly along party lines. As predicted, the Senate never considered that legislation, and no drug bill was signed into law. At the time, most seniors deemed the House Republican plan unworkable; another program based on the same premise--relying on the participation of private insurance plans--had failed to provide for Medicare beneficiaries. Since the June 2000 vote, that concept, the Medicare+ Choice program, has abandoned a million more seniors. Other once reliable sources of coverage have dissipated. Nearly 60 percent of Medicare beneficiaries with incomes below the federal poverty level were not enrolled in Medicaid as recently as 1997. And even Medicaid enrollees with drug benefits must forgo some of their medications. With the recent economic downturns, more and more state Medicaid programs are reducing their benefits. The high cost of these Medigap policies puts them out of reach for most low-to-moderate income Medicare enrollees. Finally, employer-sponsored plans no longer offer reliable prescription drug coverage. Although between 60 and 70 percent of large employers offered retiree health benefits in the 1980s, fewer than 40 percent do so today. Of these, nearly one-third offer no drug benefits. Finally, as members across the country can attest to, the benefits offered by Medicare+Choice plans are neither guaranteed nor permanent. Because they are not part of the basic Medicare benefit package, which by law must be included in all Medicare+Choice plans, drug benefits are considered ``extra'' and as such can change from year to year. This means that even in those counties where plans remain in the Medicare market, there is no certainty that they will continue to offer drug benefits or that they will not severely reduce the benefits. These statistics combine to make us painfully aware of the gaping hole in Medicare's safety net, This Congress can move this session to provide a benefit before more elderly and disabled citizens fall through. My bill, the Essential Medicines for Medicare Act, recognizes the importance of preventive care and provides coverage for drugs that have been determined to show progress in treating chronic diseases. Why chronic diseases? Because the average drug expenditures for elderly persons with just one chronic disease are more than twice as high than for those without any. And because we know from years of advanced medical research that treating these conditions will reduce costly inpatient hospitalizations and expensive follow-up care. Furthermore, this bill addresses those beneficiaries who have the greatest need for assistance with purchasing their medications: a review of the Medicare+ Choice program reveals that seniors who join HMOs are younger and healthier than those in fee-for-service Medicare. This tells us that it is the older, sicker seniors, precisely the ones who need prescriptions the most, who have reduced access to drug benefits. Our bill addresses their needs. It begins with five chronic diseases--diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart disease, major depression, and rheumatoid arthritis--that have high prevalence among seniors and whose treatment will show improvement in beneficiaries' quality of life and reduce Medicare's overall expenditures, The Medicare costs associated with inpatient treatment of these diseases are exorbitant. I have attached for the record fact sheets that illustrate the enormous price tags that borne by the Medicare Part A Trust Fund when these chronic conditions remain untreated. The bill I have introduced provides coverage for certain medications after an annual $250 deductible is met, with no copayment for generics and a 20 percent copayment for brand-name drugs. Lower-income beneficiaries will be exempt from deductibles and copays. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality will review available data on the effectiveness of drugs in treating these conditions, and based on AHRQ's review, the Department of Health and Human Services will determine the drugs to be covered. Pharmacy Benefit Managers, PBM, under contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers to purchase these drugs and will administer the benefit. This bill covers five major chronic conditions, but I recognize that there are others that should be covered as well. The legislation provides a process for the Institute of Medicine to determine the effectiveness of this benefit and the Medicare savings it produces, and to recommend additional diagnoses and medications that should be considered for coverage. Mr. Speaker, modern medicine has the capability of doing extraordinary things. But no medical breakthrough, no matter how remarkable, can benefit patients if they can't get access to it. This cost-effective, economically sound approach to prescription drug coverage is a matter of common sense: if Medicare beneficiaries can secure the medications they need, they will be able to manage their conditions, and will be much less likely to require extended and costly inpatient care. This legislation is a first step, a major step, toward making this happen. I urge the House to consider this approach to providing a solid package of prescription drug benefits, an approach that will modernize Medicare for the 21st century for the millions of elderly and disabled Americans who depend on it.