Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my friends on the other side talk about the debate we are going to be having today on welfare reform. Unfortunately, the rule that the Committee on Rules is recommending will not let us have a full debate, will not let us bring up amendments to a bill that is extremely important to our States, in not only getting people off of cash assistance welfare, but getting people real jobs. Mr. Speaker, my concern is that if we look at the Republican bill that we will be debating later, it moves backwards. If welfare has been such a success, why are we imposing new restrictions on our States? Why are we telling our States that they cannot provide education and training to the people that are on welfare today? Why is education important for everyone in this country, except for people that happen to be on cash assistance and on welfare? Mr. Speaker, we will have a debate on welfare today, and I hope that we will be able to make some changes in the bill that comes forward so that we all can agree that the next chapter of welfare reform should be getting people out of poverty.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for doing what is normal policy, to let the Democrats offer a substitute; but I asked for an amendment, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) asked for an amendment concerning a credit to the work requirements. The gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) asked for an amendment dealing with legal immigrants. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) asked for an amendment dealing with child care.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Henry A. Rosenberg, Jr., industrialist, philanthropist, civic leader, proud American and friend. Henry Rosenberg, Jr. is a Baltimore native. While college studies, business and travel have taken him out of town, he has always returned to his roots--those of his family and his business. As Chairman of the Board of Crown Central Petroleum Corporation and Rosemore, Inc., Mr. Rosenberg has guided his family business. Begun by his grandfather who sold oil from the back of a horse and cart in the streets of Baltimore, Crown Central today is a regional powerhouse operating two refineries and 329 gas stations. But it is not just corporate and financial success that drives Mr. Rosenberg. He comes from a family that believed civic involvement and philanthropy was important as the petroleum business. His business success led others to rely on Mr. Rosenberg for leadership. Mr. Rosenberg has served on the boards and/or held officer positions on the Greater Baltimore Committee, Signet Banking Corporation, The Pride of Baltimore, Inc., the National Aquarium in Baltimore, Loyola College, Johns Hopkins Health System, McDonogh School, Hobart College, the National Petroleum Council and the Refiners Association, Villa Julie College, University of Maryland Baltimore County, National Association of Manufacturers, Towson State University, Maryland Business Roundtable for Education, Signal 13 Foundation, Inc., Baltimore Area Convention and Visitors Association, Crohn's and Colitis Foundation, United Way of Central Maryland, Inc., YMCA of Greater Baltimore, Boy Scouts of America, and the University of Baltimore. Mr. Rosenberg's personal and foundation contributions have touched almost every nonprofit organization in Baltimore with primary emphasis on art and culture, education and adult self-sufficiency, health, disease and disability, youth development and community building. In addition to the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, Center Stage, Peabody Conservatory, Baltimore Chamber Music Society, Johns Hopkins University and Hospital, Sinai Hospital, The Associated Jewish Charities, the Maryland Science Center, the Baltimore Zoo, and the Boy Scouts of America. Most recently, Mr. Rosenberg and his wife Dorothy and their family foundation contributed to the Kennedy Krieger Institute to provide the lead gift to establish a unique behavioral testing laboratory that will be key in the development of new treatment and therapeutic programs. Mr. Rosenberg has been honored for his philanthropy and board leadership by being named Philanthropist of the Year by the National Society of Fund Raising Executives, receiving the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Arthritis Foundation, the Corporate Champion Award by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Silver Buffalo Award by the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America, and most recently, being inducted into the Maryland Chamber of Commerce Business Hall of Fame. It should also be noted that Mr. Rosenberg is a man of athletic talent as well and was inducted into the Hobart College Athletic Hall of Fame where he had been a standout lacrosse player for the then, Division III powerhouse in men's lacrosse. As a result of this lifelong interest, Mr. Rosenberg continues his support of the sport by serving as Director of the Lacrosse Foundation, Inc. On May 22nd, 2002 Mr. Rosenberg is being honored by The Patriots of Ft. McHenry for his outstanding contributions to the preservation and interpretation of Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine and will receive their 2nd Annual Francis Scott Key Award. He serves as Chairman of the National Flag Day Foundation and has been a long time supporter of the Patriots of Fort McHenry and is an Honorary Colonel in the Fort McHenry Guard. For more than 20 years, Mr. Rosenberg has been committed to making the birthplace of the ``Star-Spangled Banner'' a place of inspiration for all Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Mr. Henry Rosenberg, Jr. on a life well spent in service to his country and his city of Baltimore.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents for her commitment to our senior citizens. Since 1965, the John Booth Senior Center has served the folks of East Baltimore. When first opened, the center was only one of 350 senior centers in the United States. Today, thanks to the efforts of its tireless director, June Goldfield, the center not only offers a community gathering place but a support service for East Baltimore's older citizens, enabling many of them to stay in the community as active, vital participants. June began her full time employment with Baltimore City Department of Recreation and Parks almost 15 years ago and has dedicated herself to preserving and enhancing services for seniors. The center boasts unending activities and instruction as well as a close relationship with Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, which offers medical assistance to members. The ethnic food festival, prepared by center members, is among the most enjoyable activities. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating June Goldfield on her public service and wishing her well in her retirement.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to James D. Tschechtelin, who is retiring in June as president of Baltimore City Community College. As president of BCCC, Mr. Tschechtelin has worked tirelessly on behalf of BCCC students and on behalf of the greater Baltimore community. During his 12-year tenure, he helped educate and train a world-class workforce that is critical to the economic success of the entire Baltimore region. He has worked to Modernize BCCC's facilities, increase state funding, improve outreach and enhance responsiveness to businesses. His commitment and dedication to excellence has helped transform BCCC into a leading educational facility that meets the needs of businesses for talented employees. We are fortunate to have had Mr. Tschechtelin at the helm of BCCC. His vision and dedication have helped the college meet new challenges. In recognition of his success, the BCCC Foundation Board has created the James D. Tschechtelin Workforce Scholarship Endowment, a scholarship that helps working students by providing half of their educational costs. I hope that my colleagues will join me in saluting the accomplishments of James Tschechtelin as president of BCCC. His tenure has marked a turning point for the college as a respected institution that meets the educational needs of its students.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I share the frustration of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) on the procedures that are being used here; and I do not speak to the procedures, but I am going to vote to uphold the rule of law and support the resolution. We have laws that are WTO-consistent. They are here to protect our country from illegally imported products. In December 2001, the International Trade Commission, which is a nonpartisan body, unanimously found that the domestic steel industry had been harmed by the flood of foreign steel imports into the U.S. market since 1998. They found that our country became the dumping ground for illegally imported subsidized steel. As a result, our domestic steel producers were damaged. In October, Bethlehem Steel Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. We now have 33 steel companies in the United States which are in some form of bankruptcy. They are there not because they cannot produce cost-effective steel. They can compete if it was fair competition, but we do not have fair competition because we have excess capacity in the world in producing steel. The United States made it a policy to reduce its capacity in the last decade. We cannot produce enough steel to meet our domestic needs. We need to import steel. We have done what was necessary to restructure our steel industry on capacity. But it is our trading partners that still have the excess capacity that is causing U.S. steel companies to go in bankruptcy because of the dumped steel. After we get rid of this resolution, we need to turn our attention to legacy costs because U.S. steel producers need help on the retiree costs if they are going to be able to compete on a fair, level playing field. I hope today's action will not be the last action in supporting the President. It is legacy protection for our steelworkers.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the pending resolution of which I am an original co-sponsor, H. Res. 392, expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, Israel and the United States are now engaged in a common struggle against terrorism both at home and abroad. The United States must stand strongly with Israel during this most trying of times. Since 2000 Israel has witnessed a horrendous level of terrorist activity directed at the civilian population, with scores of Israelis killed by suicide bombers and attacks and hundreds injured. While I recognize that many Palestinians have also been killed or injured in this conflict, only the Palestinians are engaging a systematic and deliberate campaign of terror aimed at inflicting as many casualties as possible on the civilian Israeli population. This ongoing terror campaign is taking a devastating toll on youth and families. It is clear that such terrorist activities are perpetrated by forces under Yasir Arafat's partial or complete control, such as the al-Aqsa Martyrs Bridgades, which is part of Arafat's Fatah organization and has been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States government. Yasir Arafat and his advisers were also involved in the Palestinian Authority's thwarted attempt to obtain 50 tons of offensive weapons shipped from Iran in the Karine-A. The Palestinian Authority, in addition to other Arab governments in the region, continues to provide crucial financial support for terrorist acts, such as providing ``martyr'' payments to families of suicide bombers. Yasir Arafat and members of the Palestinian leadership have failed to abide by their commitments to non-violence made in the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles (Oslo accord) of September 1993, including their pledges: (1) To adhere strictly to ``a peaceful resolution of the conflict,'' (2) to resolve ``all outstanding issues relating to permanent status through negotiations,'' (3) to renounce ``the use of terrorism and other acts of violence,'' and (4) to ``assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance [with the commitment to non-violence], prevent violence, and discipline violators.'' In my view the continued terrorism and incitement committed, supported, and coordinated by official arms of the Palestinian Authority are a direct violation of these commitments. Israel's military operations are an effort to defend it against ongoing terrorist activities. Israel has both a legal right of self- defense and a moral obligation to protect its citizens. The military operations are aimed at dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas, an obligation Arafat himself undertook but failed to carry out. I am outraged at the ongoing Palestinian terrorist campaign, and I have joined with other members of Congress in introducing a resolution that insists that the Palestinian Authority take all necessary steps to end it. Specifically, I call upon the Palestinian Authority to: (1) renounce unequivocally, publicly, and in Arabic all forms of terrorism and violence; (2) destroy the infrastructure of Palestinian terrorist groups; (3) pursue and arrest terrorists whose incarceration has been called for by Israel; (4) either prosecute such terrorists, provide convicted terrorists with the stiffest possible punishment, and ensure that those convicted remain in custody for the full duration of their sentences; or render all arrested terrorists to the Government of Israel for prosecution. Chairman Arafat has already been put on notice that he must bring an end to these terrorists attacks against innocent Israeli civilians. The United States must make clear that terrorism and violence can never be used as a negotiating tactic. Israel must not make concessions to the Palestinians as a result of the latest terrorist attacks. And the historic and enduring relationship between the United States and Israel will only grow stronger in these times of great turmoil. Unless PA Chairman Arafat stops the violence and cracks down on terrorist cells under his control and authority, the President should seriously consider the suspension of all diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority. I have also co-sponsored H.R. 1795, the Middle East Peace Commitments Act, which would require the imposition of sanctions on the PA if Chairman Arafat fails to comply with the many commitments he has made in the past to stop terrorist activities that are planned or carried out in areas under the PA's control. I also encourage President bush to insist that all countries harboring, materially supporting, or acquiescing in the private support of Palestinian terrorist groups end all such support, dismantle the infrastructure of such groups, and bring all terrorists within their borders to justice. I commend the President for his strong leadership against international terrorism, his forthright response to this most recent outrage, and his swift action to freeze additional sources of terrorist funds. As the President stated to a joint session of Congress on September 2001: ``from this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.'' Mr. Speaker, each of us prays for peace in the Middle East, which will lead to the creation of a Palestinian state living in peace and prosperity alongside a safe and secure Israel. The only way to achieve peace is for the Palestinian leaders to not only condemn but to take steps to stop terrorism and violence.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed. I think today we have missed an opportunity to pass legislation on a bipartisan basis that would have gone a long way to helping America's workers. If the Committee on Rules would have allowed the work product of the Committee on Ways and Means to come forward, the gentlewoman from Washington was correct, we passed that by a strong bipartisan vote in our committee, and we would be here today, Democrats and Republicans, urging the passage of that legislation. That was not to be the case. Instead, the Committee on Rules brought forward the product of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and included some provisions that I believe should not be enacted. Therefore, I find it regrettable that I cannot support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, there are some very important provisions in the legislation before us that we need to make sure gets enacted into law. There are certain protections for employees to be able to diversify their investment portfolio, to be able to take company stock and to put it into a more diversified portfolio for their retirement. Particularly in these days as we are changing from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans, those changes are important. The legislation was basically worked out in a bipartisan way. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). The two of us have combined together a lot of pension legislation, including many of the provisions that were included in the Ways and Means bill but unfortunately have gotten clouded in the legislation before us. It includes notice, for example, of blackout periods and that employees should diversify their investment portfolios. It includes tax incentives so that individuals can get tax advice. It includes help for small business that was not included in last year's tax bill because of the rules in the other body. That is the good stuff that is in the bill. That is what was worked out in a bipartisan way. That is what I had hoped would have been before us. That is what I had asked the Committee on Rules to make in order. But that is not the bill before us. The bill before us includes other provisions, including a restriction on diversification that I do not think is workable, that requires employees to wait 3 years after every new contribution by an employer of company stock before they can diversify it. How many of us look at our portfolios every year and set up plans for diversification every year? I think that is asking employees to do too much. How many of us can plan how much we are going to have available for retirement if we do not have complete control over our decisions? The legislation before us does not give that to us. More importantly, the legislation before us opens up certain conflict situations on giving advice by making an exception to the prohibited transaction rules under ERISA. I supported change in that rule. I went to the Committee on Education and the Workforce and tried to work with them on sensible restrictions in opening this up so that the manager of the investment plan would at least be required to offer options and choice to the participants. But that amendment was not adopted. Instead, there is just a blanket exemption to the ERISA statute. I regret that I will not be able to support a bill that I worked very hard with with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) to bring forward today. I do hope that as this legislation works its way through the other body and through conference that we will be able to bring back a bipartisan process, one in which the Committee on Ways and Means participated in, and have a bipartisan bill that can enjoy broad support in this body and that we can send to the President and get enacted into law. That is not the legislation before us. I hope we will have that when it returns from the other body.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and thank the gentleman for his work on many of the issues that we are considering today. Madam Speaker, I want to talk about three issues in this bill that are very important. One deals with unemployment insurance, and the others deal with our welfare system. I am pleased we now have these three provisions in a package that has a good chance of not only passing this body but the other body and being signed by the President of the United States. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for bringing forward a package that can be signed into law. The provision I am referring to is the 13-week extension of unemployment insurance. We have been in recession for the last year. People, through no fault of their own, cannot find employment. It is important that we extend the unemployment insurance benefits. This 13 weeks will help 80,000 people a week who are exhausting their current unemployment insurance benefits. The other two provisions deal with our welfare system. We extend the supplemental grants to those States who depend upon the supplemental grants in order to fund their welfare programs. Maryland is not one of those States, so the people in my State do not benefit, but it is an important program, and I applaud the effort that will finally get that enacted into law. The other provides for the contingency fund within the TANF welfare program. Madam Speaker, we are in a recession. We are going to be calling upon our social safety net programs more in the coming year. It is important that we provide within the TANF program the extra resources that our States are going to need in order to deal with the people that cannot find employment during this very difficult time. Madam Speaker, for those three reasons I compliment all that are involved. These are three important provisions and are worthy of the support of this Chamber, and I thank all who are responsible for making it possible.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the growing epidemic of the uninsured threatens both the social fabric and the economic stability of our nation. If Congress fails to act, soon millions more Americans will be denied their basic right to health care. The Catholic Health Association represents facilities across this country that provide a safety net for uninsured and underinsured citizens in need of medical care. Led by the Reverend Michael D. Place, its president and chief executive officer, CHA is working actively to increase awareness of this crisis. I urge all my colleagues to heed their timely call to action. [From the Baltimore Sun, Feb. 19, 2002] Rescue the Uninsured From Sea of Uncertainty (By Michael D. Place) Washington.--In Manchester, N.H., a 6-year-old girl arrives at Catholic Medical Center unable to eat for several days because of medical complications from dental pain. Why the wait? The little girl's family did not have health insurance. This child, and so many others across the country, represent the crisis of vulnerability endured by 38 million Americans without any health insurance. While the girl in Manchester was fortunate enough to live in proximity to a Catholic health facility with high quality emergency care, there are 22 million Americans who live in rural areas that the federal government calls ``health profession shortage areas.'' Many of these citizens are without health insurance and without access to medical care of any kind. They are at the apex of this health care crisis of vulnerability. As we struggle to cope with burgeoning numbers of uninsured across the country, rural areas highlight a disturbing trend of funding ``drift''--a drift away from subsidized health care coverage for the poor, the unemployed and the disabled. Rural hospitals were hit hard by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It has been estimated that of the $118 billion that the law directed to be cut over five years, $16.8 billion was cut from Medicare funds intended for rural areas. Legislation in the past two years has restored only about $3.8 billion of this money. For skeptics who believe that rural health care may not be as vital as has been reported, a quick look at a sample state's mortality statistics may be convincing. In Illinois, rural death rates from all causes from 1992 to 1996 were 1,106.7 deaths for every 100,000 people. This figure compares with 853.8 deaths in Illinois' urban areas. Sadly, the rural patient base tends to be older, poorer and less medically privileged. For such patients, the small rural hospital is indeed a lifeline in need of preservation. Whether in rural or urban areas, our cities have no shortage of uninsured and desperate families. In Des Moines, Iowa, a single Catholic hospital--Mercy Medical Center-- operates a free clinic through its House of Mercy program. More than 600 people a month come in without insurance, many with acute illness. In the South Bronx, the Dominican Sisters Family Health Services is a safety net provider in what has been designated the nation's poorest congressional district. Hospital admission rates in that community for children with asthma and pneumonia--conditions that can be prevented with adequate primary care--are five to seven times the rates in more affluent areas of New York City. Emergency access to basic health care is a stopgap. The emergency room or free clinic is not a substitute for health insurance coverage for access to the same health-care services enjoyed by the more privileged in our society. And such access is critical not only to ensuring quality of life but also term of life. The heart or cancer patient, treated early and with our best tools, can be offered a much different prospect than the critical care patient who arrives without benefit of early therapy. During this congressional legislative session, it is increasingly important that we tackle the health care needs of our nation's uninsured. When Congress failed to adopt an economic stimulus package in February, the growing numbers of the recently unemployed and uninsured were dealt a dose of legislative paralysis. Added to the diminishing set-asides for the ``permanent'' uninsured, the health care outlook for our nation's poor, uninsured, and under-served population is truly bleak. We must and can do better. American society must ensure that each person has access to affordable health care. At a crossroads moment, let us engage in a new national conversation on systemic health care reform, a dialogue from Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue. It is time for our nation's public and private leadership, health care providers and faith-based groups to come together and to join all Americans in a search for real and meaningful solutions to this health care challenge.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America on its 90th anniversary and to pay special tribute to the largest Jewish women's membership organization in America. Hadassah was founded in 1912 by educator and visionary Henrietta Szold. It was her vision and commitment to the ideal of a Jewish homeland and to social justice that led to the creation of Hadassah, an organization dedicated to help heal a Palestine rife with poverty, filth, and disease. Today, with more than 300,000 members across the United States, Hadassah supports the Hadassah Medical Organization, the most advanced medical center in the Middle East. This medical center is comprised of two hospitals, 90 outpatient clinics, and numerous community health centers. It provides state-of-the-art health care to 600,000 patients a year--regardless of race, religion, or creed. In addition, through the congressionally funded American Schools and Hospitals Abroad Program, the medical center also stands ready to serve American military troops should the need arise. Hadassah also funds and maintains four major programs in Israel and the United States. They include: Hadassah Israel Education Services, Youth Aliya, Young Judaea, and the Jewish National Fund. Hadassah also provides relief services during international health crises, including in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda. In the United States, Hadassah members are engaged in a multitude of activities. From women's health seminars to programs about Jewish traditions and rituals, Hadassah is dedicated to improving the lives of those in our community. Hadassah's mission is to promote a prosperous and peaceful Israel, ensure Jewish continuity, pursue social justice, and provide for the health, education and well-being of American Jewish women and their families. I hope my colleagues will join me in saluting the spirit of volunteerism and service to community that has marked the 90 years of Hadassah's existence.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, this is a very easy issue for people to understand. If we concur in the Senate amendments, we send a bill to the President today extending unemployment insurance for 13 weeks for the people who have exhausted their benefits. Mr. Speaker, there are currently 8 million people who are unemployed looking for work in this country. If we pass the motion that is suggested by the chairman of the committee, we will get nothing done. Nothing will occur. It is the same old bill that we tried to do once before, twice before. The only thing certain is that we are going to go home for the Presidents' Day recess and it will be 2 weeks before we are really back here doing work again; and during that 2 weeks, there is going to be another 150,000 people in this country who will have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits and cannot find employment. That is what is going to happen. It is not about the pride of whether we accept what the Senate wants, the other body wants, or whether we have the right to add or subtract to it. That is not what is in question here. The question is whether we are going to hold the displaced workers, those who have lost their jobs, hostage to the Republican tax agenda to cut business taxes. During the last five recessions, we have been able to work on a bipartisan basis to extend unemployment compensation benefits. We did that without holding it hostage to other agendas in this body. We should do that again. There are more than 1 million jobless workers who have had their unemployment insurance expire since September 11. The number of workers who have exhausted their regular UI benefits is expected to be 750,000 higher in the first half of 2002 than it was in the first half of 2001. The FUTA taxes, money we have set aside, equal $40 billion for this purpose, so the money is there. Make no mistake about it, we have an option to do something today; and if we do not, the responsibility rests solely with the Republican leadership in this body.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I was listening to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), explain the reasons why he submitted the amendment or substitute, and I think it is a good reason to vote against it. We are in agreement. Let me try to simplify it. If my colleagues are for reform, if they want to try to start down the path to restore confidence in our system, where the public will believe that special interest dollars are not going to have more influence but less influence on what we do in this body, if my colleagues want to move down that path, then they have to put some of their own personal views aside. There is only one opportunity in this Congress to get it done and that is to vote against the Ney substitute, to vote for the Shays-Meehan bill and McCain- Feingold. That is going to be the only opportunity we are going to have. So, yes, each of us could try to craft a bill that we think is best, or we could try to understand the explanation of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) as to why he is offering his amendment, which I have a hard time following; or we can vote for the only bill that is going to have a chance of being signed that will reduce special interest dollars, soft money, that will close loopholes in the law. I urge my colleagues to reject Ney and support the Shays-Meehan bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, sponsored by Mr. Shays and Mr. Meehan, and by Senator McCain and Senator Feingold. I am an original co-sponsor of this important legislation, and I urge members of the House to defeat the proposed substitutes to Shays-Meehan, as well as those amendments designed to derail the bill and prevent meaningful campaign finance reform legislation from being enacted into law. Special interest campaign contributions represent a serious threat to public confidence in our government. The amount of money contributed to candidates for Congress and President calls into question the independence of our elected officials to make judgments in the public interest. As the level of spending in campaigns has continued to rise, those concerns have grown more serious. As members of Congress, we have a responsibility to strengthen our democracy by significantly reducing the influence of money. Recent scandals have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that corporate wrongdoers can buy access and influence in Washington at the expense of regular working men and women. The bill would close two large loopholes in the law that contribute to the corruption of our political system. One loophole is so-called ``soft money'' contributions, which are unregulated and unlimited contributions from wealthy special interest groups. Another major loophole deals with ``independent'' issue advertisements, which allow special interests to seek to influence the outcome of an election campaign by spending large sums of money on advertising campaigns. Currently, these ads which are clearly aimed at influencing an election can be worded in a way that they are deemed issue advocacy and are not subject to campaign spending limits or disclosure requirements. Other major changes to our campaign financing system proposed in the bill would require Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports on candidate fund-raising and expenditures to be filed electronically, and provide Internet posting of this and other disclosure data. The FEC would be required to post such information within 48 hours of filing. The bill would also change from quarterly to monthly the filing requirements for candidates in election years, ensuring more timely information for the voting public on their candidates for election. In addition, the bill would provide for expedited and more effective FEC procedures, which would give the FEC greater enforcement authority and ability to crack down on violators of our campaign finance laws. The FEC, under the bill, would also serve as an information clearinghouse that would provide easy access to citizens and the media to lobbying reports, reports filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Congressional witness lists and gift disclosures. Mr. Chairman, the time has come for us to start to restore the confidence of the American people in our democratic system by reducing the influence of special interest money. We have the opportunity to do just that today by supporting the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Lansdowne Volunteer Fire Association #1, Inc. on their 100th anniversary. In response to several local fires that needlessly consumed area homes, citizens of Lansdowne gathered together on February 14, 1902 and resolved to create their own fire department that would protect and preserve the safety and well-being of the entire community. And so, began the history of the Lansdowne Volunteer Fire Association--a history rich with examples of determination, courage, and above all, selflessness. The Association's members have responded to the call of duty whenever their community, their neighboring community, or their nation needed them. They exemplify the virtues of citizenship. No blizzard, no hurricane, no disaster was ever too great to hinder the members from serving their neighbors. To this day, the spirit of community that sparked its founders burns relentlessly among the members of the Lansdowne Volunteer Fire Association. I hope my colleagues will join me in saluting the bravery and fortitude that is the essence of the Lansdowne Volunteer Fire Association's service.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Colon Cancer Screen for Life Act of 2002. Colorectal cancer is the number two cancer killer in the United States. This year, an estimated 135,400 new cases will be diagnosed and 56,700 Americans will die from the disease. My home state of Maryland ranks 7th in the nation in the number of new cases and in the number of deaths. Our nation's capital, Washington, D.C., ranks first in the nation. Colorectal cancer disproportionately impacts the elderly. The risk of colorectal cancer begins to increases after the age of 40 and rises sharply at the ages of 50 to 55, when the risk doubles with each succeeding decade. Despite advances in surgical techniques and adjuvant therapy, there has been only a modest improvement in survival for patients who present with advanced cancers. The good news is that colorectal cancer can be prevented, and is highly treatable when discovered early. Most cases of the disease begin an non-cancerous polyps which can be detected and removed during routine screenings--preventing the development of colorectal cancer. Screening tests also save lives even when they detect polyps that have become cancerous by catching the disease in its earliest, most curable stages. The cure rate is up to 93 percent when colorectal cancer is discovered early. Recognizing the importance of early detection in preventing colorectal cancer deaths, Congress in 1997 enacted a Medicare colorectal cancer screening benefit. Medicare currently covers either a screening colonoscopy every ten years or a flexible sigmoidoscopy every four years for average-risk individuals. Beneficiaries identified as high risk are entitled to a colonoscopy every two years. Despite the availability of this benefit, very few seniors are actually being screened for colorectal cancer. Since its implementation in 1998, the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries receiving either a screening or diagnostic colonoscopy has increased by only one percent. Why aren't more seniors being screened? I believe the problem is due, in part, to rapidly declining colorectal screening reimbursement levels. By 2002, Medicare reimbursement for diagnostic colonoscopies performed in an outpatient setting will have declined 36% from initial 1998 levels. For flexible sigmoidoscopies, payment in 2002 will be 54% less. Colorectal cancer screening will not be effective if it is a ``loss leader'' for doctors. While reimbursement has dropped across the board, cuts have been particularly harsh for screenings provided in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). In 1997, a colonoscopy performed in one of these settings was reimbursed at approximately $301. Now in 2002, the rate has fallen to about $213. The facility-specific cuts provide incentives for physicians to perform screenings in their offices, where reimbursement rates have remained between 68% and 108% higher. As you know, Medicare has established its own criteria for both ASCs and HOPDs to ensure high quality of care and patient safety. While there are office facilities where endoscopy is safely performed, physicians' offices are, for the most part, unregulated environments. The site-of-service differential could interfere with the clinical decision-making process, at the expense of patient safety. In addition, Medicare currently pays for a consultation prior to a diagnostic colonoscopy, but not for a screening colonoscopy. Since colonoscopy involves conscious sedation, physicians generally do not perform them without a pre-procedure office visit to ascertain a patient's medical history and to educate patients as to the required preparatory steps. In fact, several states now require physicians to consult with patients prior to procedures involving conscious sedation. Because Medicare will not pay for pre-screening consultations, many physicians must provide them for free. And, unlike screening mammography, colorectal cancer screening tests are subject to the Medicare Part B deductible, which discourages beneficiaries from seeking screening. My colleague, Representative Phil English, joins me today to introduce this important legislation. This bill is supported by the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Society for Gastrointesinal Endosopy, and the American Gastroenterological Association. It would improve beneficiary utilization and help ensure the safety of colorectal cancer screening by doing three things. First, it would increase reimbursement for colorectal cancer related procedures to ensure that physicians are able to cover the costs of providing these valuable services. Second, our bill will provide Medicare coverage for a pre-screening office visit. If Medicare will pay for a consultation prior to diagnostic colonoscopy, it also should pay for a consultation before a screening colonoscopy. Third, the bill would exempt colorectal cancer screening procedures from the customary Medicare deductible requirement. By reducing the financial requirements on the beneficiary, this law will encourage increased access to colorectal screening services. The preventive benefits we authorized in 1997 were an important step toward fighting this deadly disease. But the colorectal cancer screening program is in danger of failing without our intervention. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this critical legsilation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, our work in helping people move from welfare to employment, and from poverty to a better way of life, is far from done. We must continue the progress States have made in promoting employment among welfare recipients, while also increasing our focus on job advancement and poverty reduction. To achieve these goals, I am introducing the Next Step in Reforming Welfare Act to reauthorize and improve the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and to enhance several related programs. I am proud to be joined by my Democratic colleagues on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, Representatives Stark, Levin, McDermott and Doggett, in sponsoring this important legislation. As we approach the reauthorization of TANF, it is important to acknowledge the progress our Nation has made over the last six or seven years in reducing poverty and other critical social problems. For example, the percentage of children living in poverty in the United States has dropped to its lowest level since 1979. Unfortunately, even with that improvement, one out of every six children still lives in poverty. Three developments are primarily responsible for these positive changes in the poverty rate. First, until recently, we have seen nearly unprecedented economic growth. Second, the work supports put in place by Congress, particularly the 1993 increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit, are now paying important dividends. And third, welfare reform has encouraged more low-income mothers to enter the workforce. As impressive as these poverty reductions have been over the last few years, they pale in comparison to the decline in the welfare rolls over the same time period. This raises some troubling issues, not the least of which is the fact that many families are not leaving poverty when they leave welfare for work. Additionally, some families at the very bottom of the income scale may have lost ground over the last 5 years because of a reduction in various forms of public assistance. This should raise a basic question for every Member of this body: is caseload reduction a goal unto itself, or is it a means to an end? I believe it must be the latter. In other words, we want people to leave welfare so they can lift their families out of poverty. To achieve that objective, we must continue the expectation that welfare recipients move toward employment. But at the same time, we must do more to help them escape poverty and move up the economic ladder. Both of these goals will undoubted be made more difficult by a slowing economy that is now shedding more jobs than it is creating. In fact, the current recession raises the stakes on our efforts since many recent welfare leavers may lose ground in their fight to escape poverty and current welfare recipients may find it even harder to leave the rolls for work unless we make some necessary improvements to TANF. At its core, the Next Step in Reforming Welfare Act is driven by a philosophy that we should help people escape poverty through hard work. The TANF program is not, nor should it be, our only weapon to achieve this goal, but it must be an important part of our arsenal. Here are the eight steps our legislation would pursue to improve TANF and several other important poverty-related programs. First, the legislation would maintain our financial commitment to the TANF program by increasing the current annual $16.5 billion allocation by an inflation adjustment in coming years. Such an increase is necessary to stop the continual erosion in the real value of the States' TANF grants (which will be worth 22 percent less in FY 2007 compared to FY 1997 unless adjustments are made). Of course, some may suggest we should cut funding because of declines in TANF's cash caseload. However, three facts are in conflict with such a suggestion: (1) there are still many unmet needs that demand significant resources; (2) an increasing amount of TANF funds are spent on work supports, rather than on direct cash assistance; and (3) the current recession will present new challenges to our welfare system. In addition to prospectively increasing the TANF grant for inflation, the bill would improve and extend the current supplemental grants for States with low Federal funding per poor child, the annual work-based performance bonuses and the contingency fund, which would be redesigned to provide real assistance to State TANF programs during economic downturns. Second, the bill would include poverty reduction as an explicit goal in the welfare reform law, and States should be given financial bonuses if they reduce child poverty. Broadening the goals of TANF and providing financial bonuses would encourage States to consider developing new approaches and providing additional assistance to help struggling families. Furthermore, under the bill, a conciliation process would be required before a TANF recipient's benefit can be sanctioned, funding for the Social Services Block Grant would be restored to $2.8 billion a year, and the current caseload reduction credit would be replaced with an employment credit, which would reward States for moving people from welfare to work, rather than for people simply exiting welfare. Third, the current requirement that TANF recipients be working or enrolled in related employment activities would be continued. However, additional incentives and rewards for work would be established, including not counting TANF payments to recipients' with earnings towards the five-year time limit (such payments would be considered wage subsidies). The legislation also would make a dramatic new investment in the Child Care and Development Block Grant (an additional $11.25 billion over 5 years) to ensure that both welfare leavers and the working poor have access to quality and affordable day care. Fourth, State TANF plans would have to include goals for improving earnings for TANF recipients and leavers, and new demonstration projects ($150 million per year) would be established to increase wages for low-wage workers and to improve employment outcomes for welfare recipients with multiple barriers. Additionally, to promote the skills needed for employment advancement, the legislation would eliminate the current cap on the number of TANF recipients who can be enrolled in vocational education and still count towards the participation requirement. Fifth, the bill would take a series of step to encourage family formation and responsible parenting. For example, the measure would create a new fund ($100 million a year) to promote the best practices on promoting the formation of two-parent families, reducing teenage pregnancy, and helping low-income, non-custodial parents support their children. Furthermore, the legislation would encourage States to pass through more child support to families, rather than retaining those collections to recoup past welfare costs. Sixth, the legislation would revise the harsh immigrant provisions in the 1996 law by restoring TANF and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) eligibility to non-citizens who are legally residing in the country (with a requirement that their sponsor's income be deemed available to them for a certain period of time). Seventh, the bill would maintain State accountability under TANF by extending the current maintenance-of-effort requirement (plus an inflation increase), and by requiring States to generally use Federal funds to supplement, rather than replace, State funding in various low- income programs. Eight and finally, the measure would call for increased information about State TANF programs and about the status of welfare leavers. Mr. Speaker, I believe we can pursue these eight goals while maintaining the State general discretion to tailor their own TANF policies. Furthermore, I am hopeful these suggestions can attract bipartisan support on the basis that promoting work and reducing poverty are goals that hopefully draw near universal approval. I look forward to working with the Administration and with all of my colleagues on a TANF reauthorization bill designed to reward work, reduce poverty, and increase self-sufficiency.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the legislation that is before us should be judged on two bases: first, does it really stimulate our economy; and second, what does it do for unemployed workers? I would suggest that on both of these standards, the legislation fails and should be rejected. First, it will not stimulate our economy. Two-thirds of the relief provided in this bill will not occur during the critical first year of this legislation, the year in which we are trying to stimulate the economy. We run the real risk of further deficits hurting our economy. This bill also fails because it will not help the unemployed worker. It falls grossly short on the changes on the unemployment insurance. Currently, only one-third to 40 percent of the people who are unemployed in this Nation get any unemployment insurance benefits, any at all. The legislation before us will do nothing to correct that. We had suggested that we take the stakeholders of the unemployment insurance system's recommendation and include part-time workers, and include the most recent wage quarter, so those people who have left welfare, who are now working and who may lose their jobs can collect unemployment insurance. But no, the legislation before us does not incorporate those suggestions. Instead, we make early Reed Act distributions. That is Federal unemployment funds going to our States. Yet, the Congressional Budget Office says only 5 percent of those funds would be used by the State legislatures to improve benefits. So it does not provide any help for the unemployed, or very little help for the unemployed. We had suggested, why not increase the benefits? That would stimulate the economy and be the right thing to do. But no, the legislation before us does not do that. Instead, it was supposed to include tax relief for unemployment insurance benefits, but now even that has been removed from the bill. That would at least have provided some help. That has now been taken out of the legislation. We told the people who have lost their jobs that we were going to help them. We told them when we passed the airline bill, and we did not act. We told them when we passed the insurance bill that we would help the unemployed worker, and we have not taken any action. We told them when we passed the trade bill that we would help the unemployed worker, and still no action. Now we all understand that this bill has no chance of being enacted, another broken promise to millions of unemployed workers. Mr. Speaker, let us reject the bill that is before us, and let us come together as a united body so we can really help those who have lost their jobs with the benefits they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I have two primary objections to this bill as it relates to unemployed Americans. First, it does not do enough to help the jobless. And second, the legislation holds displaced workers hostage to an additional round of huge tax breaks. The bill before us would not improve unemployment coverage for low- wage and part-time workers, despite findings from the General Accounting Office that low-wage workers are only half as likely to receive unemployment assistance compared to workers with higher earnings. The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has suggested the Reed Act distributions in the bill would address that concern. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 5 percent of the Reed Act money provided by this legislation would be used to expand coverage or increase benefits in FY 2002. In addition, a recent survey of State UI directors indicates that the vast majority of them do not believe their States would expand UI coverage with the bill's Reed Act distributions. I am not opposed to providing Federal assistance to State unemployment trust funds, but it is simply not accurate to suggest that such a step will dramatically expand unemployment coverage. There are few simple and relatively modest steps we could take to improve coverage, such as counting a displaced worker's most recent wages when determining UI eligibility, but this bill does not include such reforms. The measure also fails to increase unemployment benefits--a step that would provide immediate stimulus to our economy by sending more money to families who need it and who will spend it quickly. At one point, Chairman Thomas suggested temporarily suspending income taxes on UI benefits. While I believe an increase in the unemployment benefit level is a better approach (because it would provide benefits more quickly and more inclusively than suspending taxes on UI), the original Thomas plan at least acknowledged the need to boost the value of unemployment benefits. However, even the proposed suspension of taxes on UI benefits has been dropped from this legislation. Beyond the specific limitations of this bill, I have a more general concern about a process that will doom assistance to unemployed workers unless Congress also passes a new round of budget-busting tax breaks. How many times have we heard promises that the unemployed would be helped--after the airline bill--after the insurance bill--and mostly recently during the consideration of the trade bill. But today the House is going to pass provisions on displaced workers as part of a larger tax bill that we all know cannot pass the other body in its current form. The final result will be one more broken promise to millions of unemployed Americans. At a time when cynicism of government is actually declining, let us not break the faith with the Americans who need us the most. If we cannot come together on a larger stimulus package, then we should agree on a package of assistance for displaced workers. The unemployed have been promised help again and again. It is now time to deliver. And it is time to choose responsible governing over political posturing.

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker. Let me point out, they can only use the money if they are in session and they pass legislation improving the unemployment system. There are limitations as to how the States can use it, the Reed money. Let me point out to my friend, the gentleman from California, we said that when we passed the airline bill that we would help the airline workers. The day after we passed the bill, we saw massive layoffs of airline workers. We have not done one thing to help them with their unemployment benefits. I agree that we should do something, so let us separate out the unemployment insurance provisions. Let us separate that out and not put it in with the controversial provisions. Let us at least get something done for the unemployed worker. But instead, they want to put it all together, knowing nothing is going to happen.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), could they use it to increase benefits without the State legislature meeting?

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first, I congratulate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for the manner in which they have brought forward this legislation. Along with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and other Members of this body, I serve as a representative on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. That group monitors human rights and democratic issues in the European countries, the United States, and Canada. We have the responsibility at times to monitor elections in developing countries. My point, Mr. Speaker, is that if our 2000 election was monitored by that body, it would not have passed international standards. I congratulate all that are responsible for bringing forward this legislation because it is an appropriate Federal response to start us down the road to guarantee to the American people that our State election process will, in fact, count every vote. It is the way that we should begin. It is good legislation, I urge my colleagues to support it, but let us not lose sight of the fact that we have a long way to go. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act. I want to commend the House Administration Committee for working in a bipartisan manner to bring this legislation to the floor. I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of this very important legislation. It has been a full year since the contested presidential election of 2000 which tested our democratic institutions. Last year the American people understood that our democratic process is more important than the victor, and the Americans accepted the outcome as final. That said, we must ensure that we as a nation never have to go through such an experience again. There must never be a question as to whether every vote was counted. We are the strongest democracy in the world and every American must be secure in knowing that his or her vote counts. Mr. Speaker, this landmark legislation authorizes $2.25 billion for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 for payments to states for specified activities related to administering elections. In order to receive federal funding under this program, states must provide at least a 25% match of the federal funds. The bill authorizes the use of funds for states to replace punch card voting systems with more reliable voting systems, or to upgrade their existing voting equipment. Specifically, the bill authorizes $400 million for one-time payments to states or counties to replace current punch card voting machines with more reliable systems in time for the November 2002 elections. The bill also establishes an Election Assistance Commission, with a $10 million annual budget, that would serve as a clearinghouse for information on federal elections, oversee the development of voluntary election standards, and provide funds to states to improve election administration. The bill also includes provisions intended to facilitate absentee voting by military and other overseas voters. The bill requires states to adopt minimum election standards, and to make several important changes in their voting systems, including: a statewide voter registration system linked to local jurisdictions; in- precinct provisional voting when questions arise about a voter's eligibility; a system for maintaining the accuracy of voter registration records; uniform standards defining what constitutes a vote on different types of voting equipment; assurances that military and overseas voters will have their votes counted; assurances that voters have the opportunity to correct errors; and practical and effective means for voters with disabilities to cast secret ballots. Mr. Speaker, I am also aware that for some civil rights organizations that this legislation does not go far enough to ensure every American's right to vote and to have every vote counted. I sympathize with this view, and would like to note that I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 1170, the Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act, introduced by the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers. H.R. 1170 seeks to strengthen federal Voting Rights Act protections for citizens pursuant to the guidelines set down by the United States Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. In some respects H.R. 1170 goes farther to strengthen voting rights protections than H.R. 3295, and I would therefore urge the Judiciary Committee to mark up and report this legislation to the full House during the second session of the 107th Congress. However, Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The Help America Vote Act provides unprecedented federal resources to the states to modernize and upgrade their voting systems. The bill also requires states to adopt minimum election standards that will ensure that every vote is counted. There are other very important provisions in H.R. 3295 that I would like to address. For example, the bill strengthens existing civil rights protections. The bill is the first legislation to be reported by a house Committee that specifically requires state compliance ``with the existing applicable requirements'' of the ADA in the administration of elections. By expressly linking the ADA to elections, H.R. 3295 will give courts solid legislative foundation to apply ADA protections to the voting process. Moreover, one of the eligibility requirements for election assistance funding under H.R. 3295 is that there be at least one voting system available in each precinct or polling place that is fully accessible to voters with disabilities. Furthermore, it must be noted that the Help America Vote Act requires states to certify that they are in compliance with the ADA, the Voting Rights Act, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, and the National Voter Registration Act. In addition, the legislation addresses the second-chance voting requirement. The bill clearly prescribes that states must adopt an election standards that assures that voters have the opportunity to correct errors. Furthermore, H.R. 3295 requires jurisdictions that currently have voting machines that can detect errors to use that error-detection capability, and that all new voting machines purchased must be capable of detecting errors so that voters may correct possible errors. The legislation also provides for voter education. Part of the $2.25 billion provided for states authorizes that states to ``educate voters about their rights and responsibilities.'' In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Congress and the states have a lot of work to do before the next Presidential election in 2004. Voting is our most basic right, and Congress must take a role to ensure that all states have modern voting equipment that will count every vote accurately and fairly. Anything less than that weakens our democracy. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3295 as a critical first step in strengthening our democratic process.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have talked about before we go home, we must pass a stimulus package. I agree that we cannot go home without doing something for the people who have lost their jobs as a result of the recession and the attack on our country. And we must do something for the steelworkers so they do not become part of the people collecting unemployment insurance in our community. We have to protect the retirees for the health benefits that they are currently receiving. We need to do this because the price of steel in this country is below cost, international cost, because our trade policies have allowed dumped, subsidized steel to come into the United States. Our own trade policy has reduced capacity so we have what is known as legacy cost, high cost for the steel industry for retirees. This House, this body, must pass legislation helping the steel industry before we leave town. It is our responsibility to do it. We must create a level playing field. If we do, steel in the United States can compete with steel produced anywhere in the world on quality and cost. Yes, we must pass legislation before we go home.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I support granting the President Trade Promotion Authority, but I oppose the bill we are considering today. I have supported fast track authority for NAFTA, for GATT, I supported PNTR, but I oppose this bill. The reason I oppose it is that the landscape for trade legislation has changed, yet our delegation of authority to our President has not. Let me just cite one example. We talk about putting in our authority that we expect to make progress on labor standards by enforcing one's own laws. Yet when we accomplished that for Jordan, the first thing we did was to weaken our ability to enforce those standards. Let us take a look at antidumping laws. We passed legislation in this body that said we would not weaken our antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Yet in Doha we put that on the table for negotiations. So at least we would think that this underlying bill would make a principal objective of trade that we do not weaken our own laws in this regard. But, no, we put it as a third priority. What message is that to our trading partners? We can do better. Support the motion to recommit with the Rangel bill, then we really will give the right authority to the President. I urge rejecting the underlying bill and supporting the motion to recommit.