Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for bringing forward this bill. I strongly support H.R. 4823, the Holocaust Restitution Tax Fairness Act of 2002. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has explained the purpose of this legislation and I just want to underscore on the importance of making sure that the funds that the Holocaust survivors receive in restitution are not subject to taxes here in the United States. We know that the victims and their families have already paid a terrible price. No amount of money can compensate for their suffering, but Congress can guarantee that the survivors can keep the full amount of the money that they receive in partial restitution. Many families are depending upon those funds and they do not know now that 10 years from now what Congress will do as far as extending the tax law. It is important that we clarify it now, and I strongly support this legislation. As a member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, commonly referred to as the Helsinki Commission, I have been fortunate to help a number of my constituents reclaim their family property that has been seized by Nazi or communist regimes during and immediately after World War II. As we continue to press Europe and former Soviet Republic governments to enact nondiscriminatory property restitution laws, Congress should take this step to ensure that the United States Government does not benefit from the restitution claims. The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany is overseeing the distribution of an estimated 60,000 restitution payments to individuals residing in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I might add that there are other governments and institutions that are now participating in restitution claims for the victims of Nazi Germany. Mr. Speaker, this bill has a nominal fiscal impact on government revenues, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) who is a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to explain that there is no question, I just want to underscore the points that my colleagues have been making, that the adoption credit, the expansion of the adoption credit and now making it permanent is a bipartisan effort. We think it is extremely important to encourage families to adopt children, particularly special-needs children. So this legislation is one that we look forward to the permanent enactment. Going back though to the last year just one more time, I know my friend from Florida and I have talked about this frequently. There is no question that if the tax bill last year had not been $1.35 trillion but more affordable to the fiscal condition of this country, and I think we have now seen with the large deficits that are being projected that our concerns expressed last year have become real, there is no question that if we had a more modest bill that was before us last year we would have made those provisions permanent last year, and we would have had the support of the other body. We would not have to worry about extraordinary votes in the other body, that we could have made all these provisions permanent, and we would not have been here this year piece by piece looking at specific provisions trying to remove the 10-year sunset. When we work together as Democrats and Republicans, we usually come up with good policy. Today we are on the adoption credit. I regret that we did not do that in the past so we would not have to go through this exercise on a tax-provision-by-tax-provision basis. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, there is broad bipartisan support for assisting adoptive families in meeting their expenses. Helping families afford the cost of adopting children into loving homes is clearly a worthwhile policy, and targeted tax relief can help promote that goal. I, therefore, support this effort to eliminate the sunset provision in the current adoption tax credit. I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has explained the substance of the removal of the sunset of last year's tax bill, which only was effective for 10 years. This removes that sunset in last year's tax bill. However, let me make two general points about the majority's effort to eliminate the expiration dates for specific provisions in last year's tax bill. This is not the first, but there have been several efforts to remove the sunset provision, many of which have been supported on a bipartisan basis. My first point is that if the majority had agreed to a more modest and balanced tax bill that did not provide such a huge windfall to the wealthy, there would not have been a need for a sunset provision on such worthwhile tax changes, such as increasing the adoption tax credit. For example, by the year 2006, last year's tax bill would have spent $44 billion to reduce taxes for individuals earning over $200,000 a year while spending only $8 billion for families earning $30,000 and $40,000 a year. Second, Mr. Speaker, by bringing this bill up on the suspension calendar, the majority has prevented any Member from offering an amendment to offset the future cost of extending the adoption tax credit. There are bills now pending in Congress to stop companies and individuals from evading U.S. taxes by transferring assets to foreign countries. Such legislation could pay for the extension of the adoption tax credit and other provisions that we would like to pass to remove these sunsets in last year's tax legislation. By preventing any consideration of budget offsets for today's bills and much more expensive legislation to be considered in the future, the majority will continue the trend of forcing our children to pay for our bills. Before I conclude, I want to mention an important improvement in the adoption tax credit which I raised as an amendment in the committee consideration of the bill and was eventually included in the conference report. Starting next year, the adoption tax credit will provide a guaranteed $10,000 tax credit for the adoption of special-needs children, who are classified as being more difficult to place for adoption because of certain factors including a physical, mental or emotional impairment. This means the parents adopting special-needs children are not required to itemize qualified adoption expenses which are limited to court costs and attorneys' fees. Since State foster care programs cover most of these legal expenses, many adoptive families of special-needs children have had few qualified adoption expenses. For this reason, only 15 percent of all special-needs adoptions received any benefit from the former adoption tax credit, despite the fact that these families may have other significant adoptive-related expenses, such as homes and vehicle modifications and out-of-pocket expenses. The new enhanced adoption tax credit addresses these problems by providing a $10,000 tax credit to families adopting special-needs children without any requirement that they itemize specific expenses. Mr. Speaker, there are roughly 122,000 special-needs children now waiting to be adopted out of our Nation's foster care system. These are the children waiting in line to be adopted, whereas other healthy babies and young children have prospective parents waiting in line for them. I am glad that the adoption tax credit now recognizes that reality by providing some additional assistance to families adopting special-needs children. By passing this legislation that is before us today, we make those provisions permanent. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I was listening with interest to the discussion about U.S. Airways. I represent Baltimore, which has an interest in the direct health of U.S. Airways, and I think it is very clear that we are using accounting gimmicks again in order to satisfy budget rules because we do not have a straightforward budget, and I mention that, Mr. Chairman, because there is a lot of good things in this supplemental appropriations bill, and many of us are going to be voting for a lot of the issues that are underlining the bill itself, but we are compelled to speak about the unfair procedure and the undemocratic principles that are being used in the legislation that we are considering on the floor this evening. We are talking about provisions that were added after the bill came out of the Committee on Appropriations. I want to compliment the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Many of these issues were worked out in committee that are good provisions, and we want to move them forward, but, unfortunately, what was added by the Committee on Rules and by our last vote, we are, for example, deeming the Republican budget as being enacted for the purposes of the Committee on Appropriations work. Well, that gives approval to a budget that is just not realistic. It does not protect the priorities that many of us believe in, that the majority of this House believes in. We are not going to be able to deal with education or Medicare, prescription drug or transportation or homeland security or the airline industry in a straightforward way on the budget that was deemed by the rule that we approved a little bit earlier this evening. So now what are we going to do? We are going to go back to gimmicks. We are going to go back to waiving all these rules. No budget discipline at all. That is the concern that many of us have about the procedure that is being used tonight. We clearly are going to move to large deficits again. We are going to protect large tax cuts, but we are going to move to large deficits, and we are going to use Social Security funds. We are going to borrow those funds to cover the other obligations of the United States Government. How often have I heard the Members of this body talk about a lockbox? We are going to make sure that money is not used, and, oh, yes, we have had some unexpected expenses, but that is not the reason we have the large deficits. The large deficits are a direct result of the budget and the tax bills that were passed. My colleagues know that; I know that. We should be able to debate that issue here on this floor, but, instead, what are we doing, we are using a magic wand to do certain things rather than having a full and open debate on the budget issues and on the debt ceiling. So it will be extremely difficult for us to deal with Social Security. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the moneys that were in the surplus were used in just about every proposal that has been brought forward to deal with Social Security, including the bill that was filed in the last Congress by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and now those funds are to be borrowed and used for the general obligations. That is wrong, and we all know that we are using a stealth process so we do not have to deal with the direct debate on this floor on the debt ceiling. We should have a direct vote on that issue. We should talk about it. We should talk about how we are going to deal with the future debt. As I understand it, Republicans are going to be asked to raise the debt by $750 billion. $750 billion. Look at how much of the tax bill is going to have to be paid for by additional borrowing. I am not sure that is exactly what the American public wants us to do. We are going to go back to the red ink again. What we should be doing, we should take a little pause in the action, we should sit together and work out a bipartisan agreement on a budget, and if we had a bipartisan agreement on a budget, with the other body, with the administration, then we would have a supplemental appropriation bill here that could be considered in a relatively short period of time. We could have a prescription drug bill for Medicare that we could all agree upon and really get something done for our seniors at last. We could have a budget that would speak to the priorities on education and on homeland security, on the other issues, and we could really deliver for our constituents. So, Mr. Chairman, many of us are going to express the frustration tonight that the process that the majority is using is unfair; not unfair to the Democratic Members, it is unfair to the American people. We deserve better. The American public deserve better, and I would urge my colleagues to use the time to get together so that we can produce a bipartisan budget so we can produce results for the people of this Nation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Honorable Kathleen O'Ferrall Friedman whose legal career and civic works have made life better and safer for all Marylanders. A 1962 graduate of the College of Notre Dame of Maryland, Judge Friedman received her LLB from the University of Maryland School of Law and was awarded an MSW from the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work. She began her legal career in January 1971 as a staff attorney at the Legal Aid Bureau. For the next six years, she specialized in domestic law, becoming the Managing Attorney of the Domestic Law Unit. In private practice from 1977-1985, she specialized in domestic law, and was named in the Seaview/Putnam Book The Best Lawyers in America. Active in professional and civic organizations, Judge Friedman is a founding member of both The House of Ruth, Inc. Baltimore, and the Women's Law Center. As a member of the Women's Law Center she wrote the first manual for battered women and her work on domestic violence became the foundation for Baltimore's House of Ruth. From 1975-1978, Judge Friedman was the Chair of the Governor's Commission to Study Implementation of the Equal Rights Amendment in Maryland. As Chair, she led and organized effort to improve the legal status of both men and women with the enactment of major legislation in criminal law, domestic law, employment, education, insurance, credit and house. March 1, 2001, marked Judge Friedman's 16th year as an Associate Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. For nine years between 1987 and 1996, she served as the Judge in Charge of the Domestic Dockets. During this period, Judge Friedman sought to continue efforts to create a Family Court in Maryland. As Judge in Charge, she instituted a variety of innovative projects, including a Domestic Violence Project, Parenting Seminars, and Differential Case Management. Judge Friedman's visions of a family court was realized on Oct. 18, 2001 with the dedication of the Circuit Court Family Division. I hope that my colleagues will join me in wishing Judge Friedman a well deserved retirement and thanking her for her commitment to justice and to public service.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I just wanted to correct the gentleman in that the caseload has actually gone up significantly. More people are now receiving noncash assistance than cash assistance, and that is good; and therefore the amount of money being spent is being spent on purposes such as job training and child care, which I believe your party supports.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am one of those who supported the welfare reform bill in 1996, and I think we made the right decision in 1996. I am proud of the progress that we have made for people who are on welfare to try to get them out of the need of cash assistance and get them to real jobs. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised as I was listening to the Republican leadership talk about the legislation before us. I was somewhat surprised because I heard, on one hand, the Republican leadership talk with pride of what we have accomplished during the past 6 years, but then I look at the bill that they have recommended, the underlying bill before us, and I see that they scrap and dismantle the system that we have put in place in 1996. They ignore the lessons learned over the past 6 years. Over the past 6 years we have learned that if we give the States flexibility and if we give the States the resources, they can get the job done. Instead, the bill before us is a Washington one-size-fits- all, Washington-knows-best mandate on the States. Every welfare recipient is not the same. In some cases a welfare recipient should go to work immediately, a traditional job. In other cases an individual needs to have English proficiency. And in another case one may need to deal with the overcoming of disabilities. The States need the ability of flexibility to determine what is best. This bill does not do it. Instead, listen to what our States are saying. The new requirements would require States to take resources away from job training programs and child care programs into workfare programs. The underlying Republican bill will require States to develop workfare programs denying people real jobs and the opportunity to move up in the workplace. The New York Times said the House bill would almost certainly force States to make jobs in order to meet the new Federal requirements. Most disturbingly, the Republican bill takes away the flexibility of the States to provide educational services to the people on welfare. They remove education as one of the core ways of meeting the work requirements. Mr. Speaker, it is surprising to me that all of us in this body talk about education being our top priority. We want for our own children, we want for our own family maximum educational opportunities. We want it to be the top priority for everybody in this country except the people on welfare. For them education cannot be a high priority. That is a mistake. Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends talk about the fact that we should not be placing unfunded mandates on our States. This is clearly an unfunded mandate. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that complying with the new requirements in the Republican bill will cost the States anywhere between $15 to $18 billion. Republicans have provided in their bill $1 billion more in child care and a promise of $1 billion in addition to that over the next 5 years. The Congressional Budget Office indicates that we need $8 to $11 billion alone in child care to meet these new requirements. It does not add up. For the people of Maryland, the passage of this bill will be an unfunded mandate of $144 million. For the people of my chairman's State of California, it will be a $2.5 billion unfunded mandate. Mr. Speaker, we can do better. Later in this debate, I will offer a substitute that will correct these shortcomings; and I hope that I will have support as we move forward to the next level of welfare reform. The underlying bill does not do it. We can do better. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means and on the Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just point out to the gentlewoman from New Mexico that voting for this bill will cost the citizens of her State an extra $100 million. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out to the gentlewoman from West Virginia that by voting for this bill her State will actually have $78 million less in resources to deal with the problems of child care. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and one of the individuals who helped us craft the substitute.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out to my colleagues that less than 20 percent of the children who are federally eligible for child care assistance are now being served under the Republican bill. That number will even get smaller. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), one of the leaders for working people in this country.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the gentleman from California that I am glad to see that he agrees with the fundamental thrust which his bill would not try to fundamentally change a program which I believe has been successful. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who is not only a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, but is also one of the key architects of many of the provisions in the Democratic substitute. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about State flexibility; but if the majority is really interested in State flexibility, why do they take away the ability of States to provide educational services for people on welfare? Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I point out to the gentleman from Michigan that the popular 10-10-10 program in Michigan would not satisfy the requirements of this bill. It would be an unfunded mandate of $377 million to a State. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa). (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), one of the real leaders on welfare reform, the architect of the Democratic substitute. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleagues talk on the other side of the aisle about this bill. Let me at least try to set the record straight. Our chairman the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said the fundamental thrust of welfare is where we need to continue. Yet the underlying bill changes that. I do not understand it. We trusted the States in 1996. Now we do not trust the States. Now we have to be prescriptive. We have to tell them how to do it. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) said, well, they are going to have plenty of money to do it. The truth is the States are spending $2 billion more a year than they are currently getting from the Federal Government for their TANF programs. The reason, quite frankly, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) did not tell the whole factual truth, there are a lot more people receiving TANF services than those in cash assistance, and we should be proud of that. We want people off of cash assistance. We think the programs that lift people out of poverty is where we should go. They do not have the resources. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) talks about flexibility in resources. The States have far less flexibility on providing educational services for the people on welfare under the Republican bill than current law. They do not move ahead. They take away the ability to have vocational education for 1 year towards the work requirements in the Republican bill. Gone. Is that giving States additional flexibility? No. That is why the Congressional Budget Office, our scorekeepers, tell us that implementing this bill will cost our States an extra $18 billion, $11 billion in direct cost. That is the unfunded mandate, whatever we want to call it. It is going to cost our States more money to implement the requirements. We are being prescriptive. We are not using the formula that worked 6 years ago that I voted for, flexibility in resources to States so they can work with the people in their State to not only get them off cash assistance but to lift them out of poverty. We can do better and we are going to have a chance to do it when we offer the Democratic substitute. I urge my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, look at the substitute. Support it. It is what we need in order to live up to our commitment to the people of our Nation.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, normally the gentleman from Ohio's math is a little better than it was today. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic whip, formerly from Maryland.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the delegate from Guam (Mr. Underwood). (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)