Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Barry Rascovar, one of the most well-respected journalists in Maryland who recently retired from the The Baltimore Sun. For more than 20 years, Barry's strong editorial voice has reverberated throughout Maryland. His insights and knowledge of Maryland politics and politicians has made his twice-a-week column a ``must read'' for anyone who cares about Maryland. Barry graduated with honors from Dickinson College and holds an M.S., with honors, from Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He also holds a Doctor of Humane Letters degree from both Towson University and Villa Julie College. Barry started out as a reporter on The Baltimore Sun's city desk in 1969. He quickly moved to covering the Maryland General Assembly in Annapolis and to news editor of The Baltimore Sun's Washington bureau. Since 1979, Barry has been deputy editorial page editor of The Baltimore Sun, shaping the voice of Maryland's largest daily newspaper. We are fortunate that Barry has many talents. He is the respected author of ``The Great Game of Maryland Politics,'' and he edited and authored ``Marylanders of the Century''. He also has helped the younger generation understand the intricacies of government as an adjunct professor for the Department of Government and Public Administration at the University of Baltimore. I hope that my colleagues will join me in saluting Barry Rascovar, an award winning journalist who has the respect of those he worked with and those he covered. His 32-year career in journalism helped make The Baltimore Sun a respected and knowledgeable voice in our region. His retirement is a tremendous loss to all those who admire and respect his intelligence and integrity.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank my friend from New York and my friend from California for bringing this legislation up so quickly. Every Member of this body will support and should support this legislation. On September 11, there was an attack against our country. It was an act of war. It was unprovoked, and we have lost life; and there have been many victims of that attack on our country. They lost their lives, and the families now are suffering. All of us are suffering as a result of those attacks. They are heroes, make no mistake about it. We know many individual episodes of people who lost their lives in trying to save life on September 11. But each of those who have lost their life as a result of these terrorist attacks, each are heroes in our Nation. This legislation is one additional step for us to collectively recognize that the victims are truly those who have made sacrifices for freedom in this Nation. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation, but, most importantly, to continue to show compassion for those families that are suffering in all of our communities.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, a Marylander I think expressed the sentiment of all of the people in my district when she said, ``I am thinking about all of the people who died. I don't know the people in New York or the District of Columbia or Pittsburgh, but I feel like they are family.'' Mr. Speaker, they are family; and in times of tragedy, a family grows closer together. We are going to come together. We are going to show our compassion for the victims, rescue who we can, make sure our country is safe, and we are going to find out what happened. We are going to find out who is responsible for these actions; and then as a family united, we are going to take the appropriate steps to bring these people to justice. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the Third Congressional District of Maryland, we stand united with the victims' families and with all Americans in our resolve to make sure that what happened yesterday brings us together and we respond and hold those responsible accountable for their actions.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it was 187 years ago this very evening that in Baltimore, Maryland, at Fort McHenry, this Nation, this young Nation, won its second war of independence. It was the beginning of the end of the War of 1812. Francis Scott Key on this very evening 187 years ago wrote his inspirational poem that became our National Anthem. In that third verse, he wrote some words that are helpful for us this evening: From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave. And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph doth wave. We survived the attack by a hostile power and became the strongest Nation in the world, and we will survive this attack on our democratic principles, and we will grow even stronger. Marylanders have once again shown their patriotism. Mr. Speaker, the calls to our office from doctors, from firefighters, from ordinary citizens offering their help has been heartwarming. Let me just conclude by the words that were included on a page of one of our major papers in the editorial section, where it wrote: Lady Liberty still stands tall, shrouded in smoke, covered in dust and blood. She is crying, she is afraid, she is angry, but she will not yield.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am joining my colleague, Representative Wally Herger, the Chairman of Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, in introducing legislation today to reauthorize and increase funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program. This legislation would raise the funding level for this important child welfare program from $305 million to $505 million per year. In addition, the measure would provide new educational assistance for children who have aged out of foster care, and establish a new mentoring program for the children of prisoners. I commend Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson for providing us with detailed legislative language on the President's proposals in this area, although I was disappointed to see the Administration's recent mid- session review of its budget proposal backtrack on the President's prior commitment to fully implementing these much-needed policies. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the bill would have outlays of $38 million in FY 2002, meaning that it would not dip into the Social Security Trust Funds (CBO projects a $2 billion non-Social Security budget surplus in FY 2002). However, we do need to carefully evaluate the impact of this new spending on Social Security funds in future years. We must maintain a responsible budget framework that does not use Social Security funding to finance spending or tax policies. I am prepared to make sufficient budgetary changes to ensure this new legislation meets that test. As a Nation, we rightfully provide temporary foster homes to children when they are victims of abuse and neglect. However, we do not currently do enough to prevent abuse from occurring in the first place, or to avert it from re-occurring once a problem is identified. This is exactly the purpose of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, which serves families in, or at-risk of becoming involved in, the child welfare system. States have broad discretion in spending funds from this program for services designed to support at-risk families, to reunify families in an environment safe for children, and to promote adoption when children cannot safely return home. More specifically, States can provide counseling, parenting skills classes, respite services, mental health care, comprehensive caseworker oversight, referral services to other programs, post-adoption assistance and substance abuse treatment. On this last issue, I believe we should establish a separate program with a dedicated funding stream to address to the pervasive connection between parents abusing drugs and alcohol and the incidence of child abuse. Hopefully, that will be our next step after the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, with nearly I million confirmed cases of child abuse and neglect every year, we must increase our Nation's commitment to helping at-risk families and to ensuring safe and nurturing homes for defenseless children. This legislation is not a magic wand that will singlehandedly eradicate child abuse, but it is an important step in our continuing effort to keep children safe and to help families succeed. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I was listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about what this bill does. The Ganske- Dingell bill provides real patient protection, whether it is access to emergency care, specialists, whether it is primary care. The Norwood amendment takes away those rights because there is no enforcement. There is no reason why HMOs will provide these particular protections. It is the opponents of the Ganske-Dingell bill that are telling Members that this Norwood amendment will perfect it. What it does is take away the protections in the underlying bill. We should reject the Norwood amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, as the sponsor of the amendment pointed out, this amendment deals with two points: one is medical savings accounts, the other is association health plans. I want to deal with the second issue, because I think it will have the unintended consequence of actually increasing the number of uninsured, not increasing the number of insured. Let me just give you an example. In my State of Maryland, we have already had small market reform. Small companies can already join a state-regulated plan that is much less expensive than on the open market. If we are to adopt the associated health plan that is in this amendment, it will be the death knell for the small market reform in the State of Maryland. Maryland is not alone. Other States have done the same thing. The reason quite frankly is the success of the Maryland small market reform is based upon all small employers coming into the Maryland plan, not picking and choosing between different plans. If we allow the associated health plans, that means there will be less companies insured in the State of Maryland. Do not take my word for it; take the word of Steve Larsen, the insurance commissioner for the State of Maryland, who is urging us not to pass this amendment and points out that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners oppose this amendment. I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment because it will increase the number of uninsured and reduce the opportunity for small companies in this country.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, first I would like all the Members to join me in congratulating the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for becoming a father with twins born to Deborah. We know that August will be a very busy month for him. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond very briefly to the points of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher). Most of the protections in the Patients' Bill of Rights, many of our States have passed laws that provide that to state-regulated plans. There is no evidence that employers have dropped coverage. The enactment of good medical policy will not reduce the number of people insured in this Nation. Mr. Chairman, let me point out, many people have said that the Bush- Norwood agreement is a compromise. It is not a compromise; it is a complete victory for those who oppose a Patients' Bill of Rights. We will take a look at some votes later today, and I think that will be borne out by the people who will be supporting the amendments and those who will be opposing them. This really is a victory for people who want to see us do nothing. Let me just give one example. Mr. Chairman, I have been working many years with colleagues on the other side of the aisle for access to emergency care protection so that people who go into the emergency room, who have emergency symptoms, find out later that their bills will in fact be paid. We have, in many cases, people going to the emergency room with chest pains, only to find out that they did not have a heart attack, but they have a heart attack later on when their HMOs refuse to pay the bill. We provide protection in this legislation to deal with that, in the underlying bill. But when we look at the amendment that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) will be offering, we give with one hand and take away with the other. We say we give protection, but we offer no enforcement, so the HMOs can continue to deny reimbursement without any fear of any repercussion from their actions. That is not providing patient protection. That is not doing what we should be doing here in this body. It is even worse than that, Mr. Chairman, because there are certain protections that have been afforded by our States. Forty-one States have passed an external review. That is where people can go to their insurance company, to their HMO, and have a review done by an independent body. Forty-one States have now enacted an external review that is now providing help to those plans that are regulated under State law. So what does the Norwood amendment do? It preempts our 41 States. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about federalism and protecting the rights of States. The Norwood amendment will preempt the State laws in those areas, and take away protection that the States at least have had the courage to provide to its citizens that are regulated under State plans. That is not what we should be doing. A Patients' Bill of Rights protects patients. The Norwood amendment will take it away. Vote down the Norwood amendment.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with conditional support for the Boehlert-Markey Amendment. The provisions in H.R. 4 on CAFE standards are not strong enough to adequately address the need to improve vehicle fuel efficiency. But, this amendment does not provide a sensible way to help U.S. manufacturers deal with the energy problems in this nation with out jeopardizing U.S. jobs. We can do better for U.S. manufacturers and energy savings in this country. As this amendment makes its way through the legislative process, my support is conditioned on the following concerns being addressed. To begin with, the structure of the CAFE standards creates a competitive imbalance among the automobile manufacturers. I am uncomfortable with this regulatory impact and will work to see it minimized. By using a fleet average calculation, manufacturers who have product lines of smaller vehicles are better able to meet the CAFE standards than those for whom larger cars and trucks make up larger portions of their inventory. Thus it is much easier for some manufacturers to meet any increase in CAFE standards than it is for others. While the legislation and amendments before this chamber do not address this issue, I am hopeful that there will be an effort in the Senate or in conference to better level the playing field for manufacturers, so that we will have improvements to this when the bill comes back before the House. Also, I believe that the time frame outlined in this amendment for implementation of the CAFE standards is too short. We should be taking a long term view on energy policy issues. By placing such tight time lines, you cause the manufacturers to resort to shortcuts in design and production to meet these requirements. These shortcuts will create negative long term impacts. These include, among others, negative consequences on the industries that supply the materials for the vehicles, such as steel manufacturers, and the safety of these vehicles for the consumer. The first chance for the auto manufacturers to make changes in their vehicle designs comes with the 2004 model, leaving only 1 year to meet new standards. While I think it is possible for them to achieve these goals, I am concerned that there may be unnecessary negative consequences. Again, energy is a long term challenge. In spite of these reservations, I believe it is time for action to be taken to improve vehicle fuel economy standards given the energy situation in this country. In addition to the increase in CAFE, I think incentives in this bill for consumers to purchase alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles will go a long way to better fuel economy and lower oil consumption. Broadly, I believe H.R. 4 is unfairly skewed toward increased production and is not focused enough on conservation and renewables. Supporting the Boehlert-Markey amendment, with the adjustments that are necessary, will help steer this bill back on the right track toward better conservation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the agreement that is before us. Jordan is a friend of the United States in the Middle East. They are moving forward in opening direct trade between their country and Israel, and they are truly our ally in seeking peace in the Middle East and in fighting terrorist activities. I also support this agreement because it is a good agreement. It is a good agreement from the point of view of the United States. We already have a Free Trade Agreement with Israel. This Free Trade Agreement will open up opportunities for American producers and manufacturers. And we have made progress, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has pointed out, on labor and environment; that is, removing barriers to fair trade because of the standards of other countries being far below the standards here in the United States. That works to the disadvantage of U.S. manufacturers and producers. We made progress in this agreement because Jordan agreed to enforce its own laws in the trade agreement. What is wrong with that? Now, Mr. Speaker, I must tell my colleagues, I am concerned about the letters that were exchanged between Jordan and the United States that the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means put in the Record. These letters were requested by the United States. Make no mistake about it, this was not Jordan's idea, this was the United States' idea. It was because we were concerned that we were painting new territory in allowing us to have in the core agreement labor and the environmental standards. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to enforce labor and environmental standards, they have to be in the core agreement. We have seen that every time we have tried to put them in side agreements, it has been ineffective in enforcing the standards that we told the American public that we were fighting for. This letter puts labor and environment as a second tier issue. That is wrong. It should not be a second tier issue. Most of the other provisions in the Jordanian agreement can be enforced through WTO since they are in the multinational agreement. Mr. Speaker, this letter, I hope, will not be precedent for the future, because we can make progress in bilateral agreements on increasing world standards for labor and environment; we can make progress so that American producers and manufacturers and farmers can effectively compete internationally by raising international standards in labor and environment. We make progress in the bilateral agreement such as with Jordan so that we can move the WTO, the multinational agreements, so that they can move forward in these areas. Mr. Speaker, this is a good agreement. It should be supported. We made a mistake by requesting the exchange of letters.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Wayne DeFrancesco, an assistant professional at the Woodholme Country Club in Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. DeFrancesco has just won the 34th annual PGA Club Professional Championship and has done so in dramatic style. He won the Club Professional Championship with an amazing three stroke victory, overcoming a double bogey on the fourth and a bogey on the fifth hole. He solidified his win with a 17 foot, par-saving putt on the twelfth hole and a 15 foot uphill birdie on the sixteenth hole. Mr. DeFrancesco became just the third person ever to win this championship wire-to-wire, but the first in tournament history to have sole possession of first place in all four rounds. This great victory is of little surprise considering that Mr. DeFrancesco has devoted a lifetime to the sport. He started his career as a Washington D.C. area high school champion and as letterman for Wake Forest University. Over the last twenty five years, Mr. DeFrancesco has won countless numbers of regional tournaments while at the same time working as an instructor in clubs along the East Coast. He has served as an editor to the Washington Golf Monthly Magazine and as a guest instructor on the Golf Channel. In 2000, he was recognized for his expert instruction as #42 among golf's greatest teachers, by Golf Digest. We are living in a time when golf has a renewed excitement. Tiger Woods and Annika Sorenstam have captured the imaginations of people from all across the country. They have done so with skill, perseverance, and a strong work ethic that have brought this great game to new heights of popularity. In that same spirit Wayne DeFrancesco has mastered his craft. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate this fine athlete on a terrific accomplishment and I wish him the best of luck when he competes for the PGA Championship at the Atlanta Athletic Club in August.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this bill includes $146 million for the Internal Revenue Service to continue the Earned Income Tax Credit Compliance Initiative. I share the concern of the committee that the IRS have adequate resources for expanded customer service and public outreach programs, and strengthened enforcement programs to ensure the highest possible level of taxpayer compliance. The EITC, which was created in 1970s and was significantly expanded by President Reagan and then again by President Clinton, serves to reward low-income Americans for the work they do. Millions of American families receive much-needed assistance in the form of tax credits that are based on the amount of income they earn. There is a reason why President Reagan once referred to the EITC as the best anti-poverty and the best pro-family, the best pro-job creation measure, to come out of Congress. Recent studies have found that more than 60 percent of the increase in employment of single mothers has been due to the expansion of the EITC. The EITC has complemented and supported Congress' efforts to end welfare dependency by helping millions of poor women make the transition from welfare to work and remain self-sufficient. As a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I have taken a strong interest in the implementation of the effectiveness of the EITC. For all its success, the EITC has come under strong criticism for its complexity. Groups such as the American Institute of CPAs and the Tax Section of the ABA have commented on the extraordinary complexity of the EITC and have recommended simplification of the credit to assist taxpayers complying with the credit requirements. The tax bill signed into law earlier this year by President Bush contained among its lesser known provisions important simplification of the EITC. Those changes were made on a bipartisan basis to eliminate disparities between regular income and the EITC and make it easier for low-income working Americans to understand the law and enjoy the benefits of the EITC. The EITC taxpayer will now be able to base their credit on adjusted gross income, rather than having to do it on additional calculation of modified adjusted gross income. They will also be able to use the same definition of earned income that is used elsewhere in the Tax Code. Under the new law, the IRS is directed to study and eventually implement use of ``math error authority'' to deny EITC taxpayers who do not reside with the children they claim. Perhaps the most important change is the bill simplifies the AGI tie breaker by giving the parent of a qualifying child clear primacy in claiming the credit. These changes, which will begin to take effect next year, will have a significant impact on removing complexity from the Tax Code and making it easier for taxpayers to comply with the law in claiming the EITC. They will spare taxpayers from filling out pages of complicated work sheets and hunting down information not required on any other tax form. EITC compliance has received a great deal of attention and study. Of course, we must work to ensure the integrity of this program, just as we must ensure the integrity of our income tax system. Efforts to further examine and improve the EITC compliance should accurately reflect the recent changes in the credit and IRS's growing list of tools to promote compliance. Finally, such efforts must focus on IRS management of the program, its outreach and education strategy for taxpayers and tax preparers, and whether it is efficiently allocating its resources to achieve maximum reduction of EITC overpayments. I am committed to working to streamline and improve the EITC, so that millions of low-income working families receive the assistance that this Congress has intended. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), in their continuing efforts to improve the effectiveness of the IRS management of this very important and worthwhile provision of our tax system.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for their leadership on this issue not just in bringing the extension bill to the floor but also in their work on the original bill in passing the Sanctions Act. It has been an extremely important tool that we have had available to us, and it has helped us enforce the sanctions against these two terrorist countries. There is no mistaking that Iran and Libya both are countries that harbor terrorists and terrorist activities and have been involved in the production of arms of mass destruction. I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that on the Committee on Ways and Means, on which I have the honor of serving, we were able to also agree to a 5-year extension. I think the 5-year extension is a very important part of this legislation. It gives us the continuity of foreign policy against terrorist countries that extends beyond any one administration, that it is clear that this is not a matter that is of one administration's concern but this is our concern, our Nation's concern, and one policy that we want to be able to continue. It is a tool that is available to the administration. It is a tool where the administration has plenty of flexibility under this statute, as we want the administration to have. But we want to make it clear that if one does business with terrorist states we do not want them doing business with us. We do not want our people supporting terrorist activities. That is what this legislation does. It speaks to our priorities. It speaks to what we believe in as a nation. I am very proud to have joined my colleagues in this effort. It is a very important bill. It is one that I am sure will enjoy strong support in this body and has enjoyed strong support in both the committees that considered it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a bipartisan amendment, on behalf of three members of the Helsinki Commission, which expresses the sense of Congress that all governments should cooperate fully and unreservedly with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. My amendment congratulates the governments of Serbia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Croatia and Bosnia for their cooperation to date with the Tribunal. I particularly want to commend those authorities in Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that were responsible for the transfer of Slobodan Milosevic to the Hague. My amendment also states that much work remains to be done in cooperation with the Tribunal. At least 30 persons who have been indicted by the Tribunal remain at large, especially in the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, including but not limited to Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. The amendment also calls on all governments, entities, and municipalities in the region to cooperate fully and unreservedly with the Tribunal, including, but not limited to: (1) the immediate arrest, surrender, and transfer of all persons who have been indicted by the Tribunal but remain at large in the territory which they control; and (2) full and direct access to Tribunal investigators to requested documents, archives, witnesses, mass grave sites, and any officials where necessary for the investigation and prosecution of crimes under the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In our deliberation over the years, including here in the House of Representatives, we have repeatedly focused on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in the former Yugoslavia, as well as the need to bring those responsible for these crimes to justice. The presence of Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague is the most significant development in this ongoing effort. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia and local Serbian officials for their courageous leadership in making this possible. We have also recently seen steps taken by the governments of Croatia and Bosnia to turn over military indictees. These are all very positive developments. It is, however, not the end of the story. Trials still need to take place, and there are still at least 30 persons, perhaps more, who have been indicted by the international tribunal but remain at large, especially in the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia-Herzegovina. These indictees need to be apprehended and transferred to the Hague. Just as importantly, access to archives and officials, particularly in Belgrade, still need to be granted so that the whole story can be told. We must be relentless in pursuing these objectives, for three basic reasons. First, there must be justice for the sake of justice. Debates in this House and in other capitals around the world too often focus on the prosecution of these crimes as a foreign policy tool while the criminal acts themselves become distant memories if not forgotten events. Let me give you just two examples. In Croatia during the second half of November 1991--almost ten years ago--about 260 men were removed from the Vukovar hospital after the city's surrender, driven to the nearby Ovcara farm, beaten, executed and buried in a mass grave. These were real people, and this was an abomination. Six years ago this July, the UN safe haven of Srebrenica in Bosnia was over-run. Thousands were captured or tracked down, again real people who were executed in groups and buried in mass graves. Anybody who argues for greater flexibility on cooperation with the Tribunal or that enough has been done to sideline the likes of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic and other indicated persons need to read the specifics of cases like these, and many others, and put themselves in the place of the victims before doing so. Second, the truth will facilitate democracy. I am convinced that those in Serbia who have advocated cooperation with the Tribunal, like their counterparts in Croatia and Bosnia, are not only doing a right and courageous thing for the victims of crimes being prosecuted by The Hague; they are also doing the right and patriotic thing for their own societies. These atrocities were the product not of history but primarily of a cruel and highly nationalistic leader named Milosevic and his murderous minions. When collective guilt is wrongly assumed, therefore, it can be countered by cooperation with the Tribunal. Third, these crimes could happen again. I believe we all need to keep in mind that what has happened in the Balkans in the 1990s--in our time--is not unique to the Balkans or Africa, and it is wrong and chauvinistic to think otherwise. Sixty years ago, other societies found themselves wrapped up in hatred against others, leading to the Holocaust. Can we not finally say, as we begin this new century, ``Never Again''? None of us know with certainty the answer to that question. But we do know that by supporting the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia the United States Congress has played an important role in protecting the national minorities around the world from such atrocities. Our voice was not silent--it was heard--and we have the right to demand ``never again.'' Let me also add that I am very pleased that earlier this month the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe adopted a resolution which calls on all member states to cooperate fully with the Tribunal. Recently I met with ICTY Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte, and I am convinced that the U.S. Congress can play a vital role in encouraging governments in the region to cooperate with the Tribunal. Indeed, U.S. leadership is seen by European governments.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution to disapprove MFN status for the People's Republic of China. I recognize this is largely a symbolic action. The die was cast last year when Congress approved PNTR for the People's Republic. I voted to support normal trade status as it was an essential step towards inclusion of China in the WTO and mainstream of international trade. As a part of the bilateral agreement between China and the United States, once China joins the WTO we will have achieved significant concessions from China in our trade arrangements. We will also have a permanent human rights monitoring of China. But to date, China has not become part of the WTO and standing on its own, using human rights as the test, particularly reviewing China's record during the past 12 months, China is not entitled to MFN status. I view this vote as a signal to the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party that their actions in numerous areas, but most particularly in the area of human rights, are unacceptable internationally. Mr. Speaker, let me just quote from the report of our own State Department on human rights practices in China: ``The government's poor human rights record worsened, and it continued to commit numerous serious abuses. ``The government's respect for religious freedom deteriorated markedly during the year, as the government conducted crackdowns against Christian groups, et cetera. ``Abuses included instances of extrajudicial killings, the use of torture, forced confessions. ``The government severely restricted freedom of assembly and continued to restrict freedom of association. ``Violence against women, including coercive family planning practices which sometimes includes forced abortion and forced sterilization.'' Mr. Speaker, the report goes on and on and on on the human rights violations of China. Jackson-Vanik speaks to our Nation that we believe that human rights are an important part of normal trade with our Nation. Based upon the record during the past 12 months, China does not deserve normal trade relations; and we should approve the resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has said we should fund the good work of the faithful but not the faith itself. I agree. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line the administration's proposal as reflected in the bill before us lost track of the goal of providing additional funds for faith and community groups to help needy families. Instead, the bill promotes government-funded religious discrimination, turning the President's campaign proposal on its head. President Bush and the authors of H.R. 7 have continually failed to acknowledge that religious charities can and already do receive government funding to address poverty and other social problems. For example, Catholic Charities receives two-thirds of its budget from Federal, State and local government. The armies of compassion are already marching with the Federal government's thanks, blessing and money. The bill before us does not provide a single dime in new money for these programs, no new resources for child care, social services, substance abuse treatment, housing or any other pressing need that the community and faith-based organizations are working to meet. I asked the Committee on Rules to make an amendment in order that would have backed up our bold talk with badly-need funds. My amendment would have increased resources for the child care and the social services block grant, two programs that are underfunded and have a long and successful record of supporting faith-based organizations. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules rejected my amendment along with a number of other amendments that would strengthen this bill. Rather than providing real assistance to religious charities to serve needy families, the President's initiative focuses on allowing groups receiving government money to discriminate in their hiring practices. In fact, the proposal goes so far as to preempt State and local laws on prohibiting employment discrimination. Proponents of the H.R. 7 have said they are simply continuing a current exemption to the Civil Rights Act, as the gentleman from Cincinnati (Mr. Portman) just said, for the hiring practices of religious organizations. This exemption is a common sense provision that ensures a synagogue is not required to hire a Catholic as a rabbi and a Christian church is not required to hire a Jew as a priest. However, the bill before us today is talking about something very different, allowing discrimination in secular jobs which are directly supported with government dollars. Such discrimination is not only wrong, it is unconstitutional. In its decision on this specific issue, Dodge v. Salvation Army, a U.S. District Court ruled, and I quote, ``The effect of government substantially, if not exclusively, funding a position and then allowing an organization to choose the person to fill or maintain that position based on religious preference clearly has the effect of advancing religion and is unconstitutional.'' Mr. Speaker, there is no disagreement in this Chamber about the important role that religious charities play in addressing our Nation's problems. However, many of us are concerned about the proposal that it attempts to bypass constitutional protections while simultaneously failing to provide the necessary resources to achieve its stated purpose. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the substitute that provides the protections and to reject the underlying bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to know Rabbi Mitchell Wohlberg. Since 1978, he has been the spiritual leader of Beth Tfiloh congregation, the largest Orthodox Jewish congregation in Baltimore, the congregation of which I am a member. Let me tell the Members a little bit about Rabbi Wohlberg. I have known Rabbi Wohlberg for many years and have often sought his guidance and counsel. He is a spellbinding speaker, and is famous for his thoughtful sermons that are able to clarify complicated issues. Rabbi Wohlberg is also known for his involvement in the Jewish communal life. He has been a board member at The Associated Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore; a member of the executive committee of the Rabinnical Council of America, and is a recipient of the humanitarian award for the Louis Z. Brandeis District of the ZOA. He comes from a committed and unique family where his father (of blessed memory) was and his two brothers were and also are Rabbis, all ordained by the Yeshiva University. Rabbi Wohlberg is a driving force behind the Beth Tfiloh School, an outstanding Jewish day school in Baltimore. I know all my colleagues will join me in thanking Rabbi Wohlberg for offering this morning's opening prayer.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today was the day that we were supposed to debate at long last campaign finance reform. The public understands that if we are to pass campaign finance reform, it will be embodied in the principles of McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan. But, unfortunately, the Committee on Rules is recommending a rule that will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for this body to have an up-or- down vote on the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform proposal. That is not right. Those of us who favor reform, unfortunately, will have to oppose this rule so that we can, in fact, have an honest debate and vote up or down campaign finance reform.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that is vital to the future of our nation's health care system. America's academic medical centers and their affiliated hospitals are essential to the nation's health. These centers do much more than train each new generation of health professionals. Every American benefits from advances in medical research and well-trained providers. Medical advances have dramatically improved the quality of life for millions of Americans, and our academic medical centers are at the heart of the new era of biotechnology, which holds the promise of effective treatments for so many diseases. Although academic medical centers constitute only two percent of our nation's nonfederal community hospital beds, they conduct 42% of all health research and development in the United States, they contain 33% of all trauma units and 31% of all AIDS units, and they treat a disproportionate share of the country's indigent patients. However, funding for these critical tasks is at risk in the new competitive health care marketplace. Commercial insurers are displaying increasing reluctance to pay academic medical centers adequately to support their educational and research missions, and managed care companies steer patients away from these centers as well. Generally, managed care companies cut costs by seeking the lowest cost hospitals and physicians. An academic medical center cannot compete if forced to cover part of its teaching costs through the rates that it charges for medical services. Without a separate funding source for academic costs, these centers run the risk of being non-competitive for managed care contracts through no fault of their own. Two years ago, The National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare studied graduate medical education funding and proposed eliminating Medicare's funding role and moving GME into the general appropriations process. It was an approach that would have seriously undermined not only academic medical centers, but also the future of the medical profession. Fortunately, this recommendation was not enacted. There is a better way, a much fairer way, to provide for graduate medical education, while ensuring the health of the Medicare Trust Fund. To ensure stability of funding for GME in the increasingly turbulent health economic climate, continued predictable support from Medicare is essential. But even Medicare's contribution does not fully cover the costs of residents' salaries, and more importantly, our current funding system fails to recognize that a well-trained physician workforce benefits all segments of society, not just Medicare beneficiaries. Today, I am introducing the All-Payer Graduate Medical Education Act of 2001 to create a fair and rational system for the support of graduate medical education--fair in the distribution of costs to all payers of medical care, and fair in the allocation of payments to hospitals. This bill establishes a Trust funded by a 1% fee on all private health insurance premiums. Teaching hospitals will see their direct and indirect GME payments increase by $2.2 billion each year. In Many critics of federal GME support fail to recognize its vast societal benefits. They have attacked indirect GME payments, complaining that hospitals are not required to account for their use of these funds. The All-Payer Graduate Medical Education Act provides a structured mechanism for hospitals to inform Congress and the public about their contributions to improved patient care, education, clinical research, and community services. My bill also addresses the supply of physicians in the United States. Nearly every commission studying the physician workforce has recommenced reducing the number of first-year residencies to 110% of American medical school graduates, down from the current level of 138%. This bill directs the Secretary of HHS, working with the medical community, to develop and implement a plan to accomplish this goal within five years. This legislation will also ensure that hospitals are compensated fairly for the indigent patients they treat. Medicare disproportionate share (DSH) payments are particularly important to our safety-net hospitals. Many of these are in dire financial straits. This bill reallocates DSH payments, at no cost to the federal budget, to hospitals that carry the greatest burden of poor patients. Hospitals that treat Medicaid-eligible and indigent patients will be able to count these patients in applying for disproportionate share payments. This provision builds on changes made in last year's Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) to provide DSH payments equitably, regardless of the facility's location. Finally, because graduate medical education encompasses the training of other health professionals, my bill directs $300 million of the Medicare savings toward graduate training programs for nurses and other allied health professionals each year. These funds are in addition to the current support Medicare provides for the nation's diploma nursing schools. Numerous provider and patient groups have registered their support for the all-payer concept, including the Association of American Medical Colleges, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Medical Student Association, the American Osteopathic Association, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, the American Speech Language Hearing Association, the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, and the American Hospital Association. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting America's academic medical centers and the future of our physician workforce by supporting this legislation. Together, we can establish an equitable funding system for GME that ensures the continuation of the highest caliber medical workforce and patient care.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 224th birthday of the United States flag. The Stars and Stripes represents our spirit as a Nation, our unity as people, and our commitment to democracy throughout the world. Today, Americans will pause for a moment as they reflect on this great Nation. I am proud that my district includes Fort McHenry. Tonight at 7 o'clock, at this historic site, the people of Baltimore will join in the National Pause for the Pledge. It is only fitting that we honor our flag and the song that has captured its glory. Fort McHenry is the site where Francis Scott Key immortalized our flag. In writing ``The Star Spangled Banner,'' he captured the determination of this great Nation to defeat the British during the War of 1812. This morning, I was honored to have the opportunity to lead the House of Representatives in the Pledge of Allegiance. I urge every Member and all Americans to join me in paying tribute to this great symbol of liberty, justice and democracy and join the people of Baltimore by pausing at 7 o'clock this evening to honor our flag.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the 57th anniversary of the D-Day Invasion of Normandy, to introduce federal legislation that will help military retirees access the health care benefits to which they are entitled. The TRICARE Retirees Opportunity Act will help retirees fully participate in the Department of Defense's (DOD) health care program, TRICARE. Since 1995, DOD has coordinated the medical care efforts of the military branches within TRICARE. In an effort to fully meet America's promises to the military, last year Congress authorized expanding TRICARE to Medicare-eligible retirees and their dependents. Starting Oct. 1, 2001, all military retirees and their dependents who are age 65, or who are otherwise eligible for Medicare will be able to use TRICARE as a second payer. In the past, military retirees who reached the age of 65 lost their TRICARE eligibility and were required to purchase supplemental policies, which are often prohibitively expensive, to cover Medicare's deductibles and coinsurance. By expanding TRICARE to the 65 years of age and older population, Congress can ensure that these men and women who served our nation are eligible for the best health care this nation can offer. I recently became aware of an inequitable situation facing many military retirees. Under current law, seniors who failed to enroll in Medicare Part B when they first became eligible are subject to a premium penalty of 10 percent for every year they did not enroll, effectively increasing the monthly premium for a 70-year-old first-time enrollee from $50 to $75 for the rest of his or her life. Because military retirees could not have anticipated how their benefits would change, tens of thousands of retirees are now subject to these late penalties. The legislation I am introducing today would waive the penalty for military retirees who enroll between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2002. There is another barrier to full participation facing our military retirees. Current law permits late enrollees to sign up only during Medicare's annual open enrollment period--January 1 through March 31-- with benefits beginning on July 1. My legislation will create a continuous open enrollment period through the end of 2002 for military retirees so that these prospective beneficiaries may access their new coverage immediately. Mr. Speaker, this country has done a good job of meeting the health care needs of our active duty military. The Floyd A. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 was a milestone in our efforts to help the military retirees who devoted years of their lives to defend this nation. My bill takes one more important step to ensure that these retirees, their spouses, and their survivors have full access to the benefits we enacted for them last year. I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of this key legislation so that we may truly fulfill our promise to the nation's military retirees this year.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me start off by complimenting the conferees on the retirement and pension provisions that are in this conference report. As the chairman mentioned frequently, that bill had been worked in a very bipartisan way, and I think in conference that spirit was continued, and I am very pleased with the provisions that are included in the conference report as it relates to the pension and retirement provisions. However, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I will be forced to vote against a bill that I worked very hard on because of the other provisions that are included in here. The pension retirement provisions are less than 4 percent of the revenue costs of the bill; but the other provisions explode in costs, and I have spoken on this floor several times about this legislation. It does make it much more difficult for us to pay down our debt. As the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations said, I did not know we were appropriating the Social Security benefits. Maybe the Committee on Appropriations is trying to take the jurisdiction away from the Committee on Ways and Means on the Social Security system. But this bill if, in fact, we are off by 1 percent on the growth rate of our Nation, we will find that we have appropriated all of the surplus during the next 10 years for this tax cut. I would hope that during the next 10 years, we will have priorities in addition to tax cuts, that we could deal with education, that we could deal with prescription medicines. What I am concerned about is that we are putting into effect today tax relief that will jeopardize our ability to provide these other priorities for the American public. This is a reckless bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, budget reconciliation is supposed to be to reconcile this bill with the budget resolution. And our budget resolution spells out a 10-year number that is available for tax relief. Our motion to instruct basically says let us be honest about that. Let us be sure that the tax provisions are phased in in a way that it is not backloaded. By backloaded, we mean estate tax relief when it does not take effect for 10 years and then explodes in cost at the same time we have problems in funding the Social Security system and the Medicare system because of the baby-boom generation reaching the age of 65. Mr. Speaker, this motion is basically truth in advertising. Let us put the provisions in and not backload it and have to pay later. The second thing is that this reconciliation bill ought to speak to our priorities; and I do not think that our priorities ought to be tax cuts today and tax cuts tomorrow and nothing else. We should speak to the fact that we want to pay down the national debt, that we want to preserve Social Security and Medicare and yes, put more money into education like the overwhelming majority of this body voted to do. Yet if we do not pass this motion, I am afraid that the reconciliation bill will do what the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, said. That is, he wants to put 15 pounds of sugar in a 10-pound bag. It is going to be 30 pounds of sugar in a 10-pound bag. It will squeeze out our ability to do anything else. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct.

Mr. CARDIN. My recollection is the gentleman is referring to the provisions concerning the estate tax relief. The other provisions were all phased in within the 5-year window, and the dollar amounts in the estate tax in the last few years was a minor amount in the overall effect of the bill.

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