Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we are being asked today to approve a tax cut so blatantly irresponsible that the authors have had, in effect, to white out the costs. Those are not my words. That is the words of the Washington Post in their lead editorial today, and I agree with the editors of the Washington Post. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) pointed out, if this bill was fully implemented immediately, the cost would be much, much higher than the $200 billion that has been put on this bill by the Joint Committee on Taxation. In fact, when it is fully phased in, it is about $70 billion of loss of revenue under the estate tax revenues, plus additional losses under the income tax; for when the estate tax is repealed, it is very difficult to figure out the base of property that is later sold, and there is transfer of property during life under the gift tax exclusions that would also lose revenue. We have a choice, Mr. Speaker. We can have the Republican bill that tells our constituents in 2011 that we will not have an estate tax, or we can support the Democratic substitute which tells our constituents immediately that they can have a $4 million exclusion per family. That will take care of 99.4 percent of all of the estates that will be exempt from Federal estate tax. Then we can take care of almost all of the problems of family farmers or family-owned businesses. We can do that by supporting the Democratic substitute. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker. I have had a large number of my constituents lobbying me on this issue. They came to my office to ask my support for the Republican bill. I showed them the Republican bill, and I told them they have a choice. They can believe that in the next five elections of Congress we will allow a repeal bill to take effect through three more administrations, or we can give them an immediate $4 million exemption. What would they prefer, $4 million today or take a bet on what is going to happen 10 years from now when the repeal would go into effect? By the way, during the next 10 years, if they fall into the estate tax, they still need their life insurance; they still need their estate planning. I must say the people who have come to my office to support the repeal tell me, give me the $4 million; I will take that. I will take the Democratic substitute because it is fairer; it is immediate and we know that we can count on that relief as we plan how to deal with our family business or we plan how to deal with our personal estates. Let us reform the estate tax. We can do that in a bipartisan way. We can do that in a fiscally responsible way. By the way, we can also pay down the national debt. We can protect Social Security and Medicare. We can deal with high-priority programs, such as education, because it fits within the revenues that are available. We do not try to do more than we promise. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute, reject the Republican bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), my friend, for yielding this time to me and for his leadership in moving this legislation, and also the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), my colleague, in working together to bring forward this very important reauthorization legislation that will help continue the Federal partnership in restoring the Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in our Nation. In 1991, original authorizations for NOAA's participation was passed by this Congress, and since that time, NOAA has been an instrumental partner in our efforts that involve not only the State of Maryland, but our surrounding States; not just State government, but local governments; not just government, but the private sector. We have worked together in partnership and have made tremendous progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. This legislation not only reauthorizes NOAA's participation, but establishes small grant programs to local governments, community organizations, educational institutions to restore fisheries and habitats. Madam Speaker, I say personally I know the groups that qualify for these funds. They are out there every day helping us restoring the waters and stirring the banks, cleaning up the waters, helping us in a major way. This legislation will mean that there will be additional resources available to these local groups to help them. The legislation also provides for a 5-year study, which I think is extremely important on the multispecies management plan. For too long, we have been looking at individual species. This legislation will allow us to look at all the species within the bay as to how they interact with each other. We increase the authorization to $6 million through fiscal year 2006; and in combination, this legislation will increase NOAA's participation in partnership to restore the bay. Madam Speaker, I congratulate all for moving this legislation so early. It will help us in our efforts not only in Maryland, not only in the communities that surround the Chesapeake Bay, but as a model for our Nation as to the right way to clean up a major body, a multijurisdictional body of water. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, and I would also say to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), who will mention, I hope, the number of people in my district who will benefit from the marriage penalty relief, I would hope that our substitute would also be supported because our substitute will provide more relief to those who have a marriage penalty problem until the year 2004. The Republican bill that is on the floor does not provide any help in regards to the rate problems until the year 2004. That is one of the problems that I have with the Republican bill, and why I am going to vote against it because it is back-loaded. That means in order to get everything to fit together, most of the relief is provided in the second 5 years, not in the first 5 years. In the first 5 years, under the Republican bill, only 28 percent of the relief is provided. The rest is in the outyears. Because they phase it in over such a long period of time in order to provide all of their promises that cannot possibly be lived up to, they back-load the cost of the bill. In fact, when this bill is put in with the rest of the bills that are being offered, and I have a little chart here, it shows how impossible it is for everything to fit together. We have already passed the first bill here and now we are doing the second one, and there is hardly any money left over for the estate tax relief and the health care and the debt service. Remember yesterday we had a $1.6 trillion budget for tax relief. Well, when all of this is added up, if debt service is counted, it is going to be $3 trillion. That is why those of us, particularly on this side of the aisle, are concerned that all of this cannot be done and still protect Social Security and still protect Medicare and be able to expand Medicare to include prescription medicines and pay down our national debt, which should be our first priority, and to invest in education, which both Democrats and Republicans have been talking about. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) is correct. We missed an opportunity today to have a bipartisan bill that could have enjoyed, I think, very broad support, to fix the marriage penalty problem, because there is a legitimate need to fix the marriage penalty problem. For those who are worried about that, as I am, and want to do something about it to the number of people that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) will mention in my district, I urge support for the substitute that will be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) very shortly. Once again, that will provide more relief, more relief to those people who have a marriage penalty until the year 2004, because the Republican bill, the underlying bill, because they are trying to put, as my chairman likes to say, 15 pounds of sugar into a 10-pound bag, they had to cut back on how they implement the bill. So let us be fiscally responsible. Let us be able to pay down the national debt. Let us be able to deal with Social Security and Medicare and the other priorities. Support the Democratic substitute. Oppose the Republican bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to vote against this bill. First, the numbers do not add up. The bill is much more expensive than advertised. I hear my colleagues say that all taxpayers will benefit. We know unless we fix the alternative minimum tax, that is not true, the bill is going to cost more money. It is based upon 10-year projected surpluses. CBO has never been able to project a surplus 2 years accurately let alone 10 years accurately. The surplus could be $2.5 trillion less than we are advertising. We know that the passage of this bill will make it much more difficult for us to deal with Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, paying down our national debt and investing in education. This bill violates our own budget rules. Section 303 of the Budget Act says we are supposed to have a budget before we bring up any revenue bill. The Committee on Rules waived that budget violation. Section 311 of the Budget Act says all tax bills have to be within the existing budget. This violates that budget rule. Then we are trying to work in a bipartisan way. I heard the President over and over again say let us work together. One would think the first thing we would want to do is work out a bipartisan budget instead of bringing forward piecemeal tax bills. This is not a good sign for us working together in a productive way. This bill is reckless. This bill is wrong, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, unemployed part-time workers who meet monetary eligibility requirements are precluded from receiving Unemployment Insurance (UI) in at least 31 States merely because they seek part-time, rather than full-time employment. This means that a laid-off parent who wants to continue to work part-time to care for a child is denied UI benefits while looking for employment, despite having earned sufficient past wages to be eligible for such assistance. For this reason, I am reintroducing the Parity for Part-time Workers Act. This legislation would prohibit the denial of UI based solely on the fact that an individual is seeking part-time work, if the individual: (1) Otherwise qualifies for unemployment compensation based wholly or mostly on part-time work; and (2) seeks at least 20 hours of work a week. In short, this family-friendly legislation will help level the playing field for part-time workers. In 1995, the non-partisan Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation recommended prohibiting discrimination against part-time workers. More recently, a working group on UI issues with members representing businesses, workers and the State and Federal UI agencies also recommended that part-time workers be treated more fairly. And finally, a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report released last month clearly illustrates the inequitable barriers standing between part-time and other low-wage workers and UI benefits. I do not think we need any additional evidence that this problem demands an immediate solution. I urge my colleagues to support this effort to prevent discrimination against unemployed part-time workers.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, many States have decided to increase the amount of money welfare recipients can earn before their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefit is reduced. This strategy produces two very beneficial effects: It rewards and promotes employment and it helps working families escape poverty. Unfortunately, the primary Federal program that helps low-income disabled and elderly Americans has not pursued a similar strategy. In fact, the income exclusions for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program have been frozen in time for nearly thirty years. In 1972, a general income exclusion (GIE) for SSI was set at $20 a month, meaning the first $20 of outside income did not count dollar for dollar against the SSI benefit amount, which is currently $530 a month for an individual. This GIE is usually applied to Social Security income, which of course is based on past employment. In addition, an earned income exclusion was also established in 1972 to allow a disregard of the first $65 a month, plus half of the remaining earnings. Neither of these provisions, which reward past and current work efforts, have been increased in the past three decades. If they had kept pace with inflation over that time period, the GIE would be worth $80 a month and the earned income exclusion would be set at $260 a month. I am introducing the SSI Modernization Act to reduce these work disincentives, as well as to decrease obstacles to saving and pursuing an education. The bill would increase the GIE to $40 a month and the earned income exclusion to $130 a month, and then index those amounts to inflation in future years. To encourage individuals to save for their future, the bill also would increase the SSI asset limit from $2,000 for an individual and $3,000 for a couple to $3,000 for an individual and $4,500 for a couple. Furthermore, the legislation would increase the disregard level for small amounts of income received on an irregular basis, and it would simplify the treatment of educational grants and scholarships under SSI income and asset rules. Finally, the bill would postpone eligibility redeterminations for SSI recipients turning 18 years of age, if they are attending a secondary school and are under the age of 21. This last provision recognizes that applying a work-based eligibility standard (under which adults are considered) is not appropriate for a disabled youth still attending high school. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this effort to update the SSI program and to increase incentives for working, saving and pursuing an education. Having waited almost thirty years to address many of these issues, we cannot afford to wait any longer to reward work and to improve the quality of life for our Nation's disabled and elderly.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I honor the public service of Susan McCahan, Executive Assistant to the Speaker of the House of Maryland. Susan served as Executive Assistant to five Maryland Speakers of the House, myself included. Her behind the scenes work created an efficient and productive work environment. Thanks in large part to Susan's extraordinary talents the Maryland Legislature was transformed into one of the most productive, respected, and effective legislative bodies in the nation. Speakers came and moved on, but Susan McCahan was the stable influence that permitted continuous improvement in the Maryland House of Delegates. Under her supervision, the first House Office Building was constructed. She helped institute professional management within the legislative branch of government. Budget discipline was instituted. Her interest in the legislative page program enabled hundreds of high school students from throughout Maryland to participate in the democratic process. In addition to her legislative duties, Susan also served as chair of the Leadership Staff Section to the National Conference of State Legislators. Her leadership in the Speaker's Society--the organization for former members of the House of Delegates--gave her the distinction of serving as the Executive Director of that organization. On a personal note, during eight years as Speaker, Susan's professional management skills allowed me the opportunity to concentrate on policy development. In 1967 when Susan McCahan started her public service, the legislative branch of Maryland government was dominated by the Executive branch. Today, thanks in large part to Susan, the Maryland Legislature is an independent and strong voice in developing and overseeing state policy. I would ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Susan McCahan for her service and contributions to the legislative process and the State of Maryland and wishing her well in her retirement.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, in the 1958 NFL championship game, Baltimore's beloved Colts defeated the New York Giants in the greatest game ever played, the game that created the modern-day NFL. This past Sunday, Baltimore's beloved Ravens wrote the latest chapter in Baltimore's glorious football history, again defeating the New York Giants in Super Bowl XXXV, in a 34 to 7 blowout. The Ravens' victory was keyed by a swarming, stifling defensive unit that now ranks as the greatest of all time. Led by Ray Lewis, the NFL's Defensive Player of the Year and Super Bowl MVP, the Ravens' defense cut the Giants down to size, leaving the team from the Big Apple as so much applesauce. While the defense deserves the headlines it has received, the game was truly a team effort, with the offense and the special teams making big plays. In addition to Ray Lewis, the Ravens got major contributions from the other Lewises as well. Jamal Lewis pounded out 102 yards in rushing offense, and Jermaine Lewis scored on a kickoff return that broke the Giants' backs. Today the City of Baltimore is the site of a victory parade, as the people of America's greatest city honor America's greatest football team. To all the Ravens, to owner Art Modell, I extend my heartfelt congratulations on a great season and a great Super Bowl championship.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the 107th Congress is barely 3 hours old, and I must tell you, I am very disappointed by the first action we are being asked to vote on. The rules package does not reflect the ground rules to bringing about a bipartisan Congress. I listened very carefully to the Speaker's comments just an hour ago where he called upon all of us to listen to each other and to work together in a bipartisan way. I am prepared to continue to work with my Republican colleagues in an effort to deal with the important issues of this Congress. But I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, it starts with fairness. It starts with fairness in the process, fairness in the rules. The rules package being presented by the Republicans does not represent fairness. First, there was no consultation with the Democrats. That is wrong. One cannot justify that. Secondly, the committee ratios are unfair. We have one of the smallest majority margins in the history of this Congress, less than 51 percent of the membership are Republicans, and yet when you look at the number of Republicans on the committees, the Democrats should have almost 60 more seats in order to equal their number. That is wrong. Mr. Speaker, I remember the first day that I was on the Committee on Ways and Means and how proud I was to be appointed to that committee. The chairman welcomed both the Democratic and Republican members and said that we now have a seat at the table. Well, the Committee on Ways and Means in the 107th Congress will be 60 percent membership on the Republican side of the aisle. Three Democrats should be more on that committee. Three of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle are being denied their fair opportunity to represent the views of their constituents. That is wrong. That needs to be corrected. It starts with fairness in the committees. The Committee on Ways and Means will be considering tax legislation, Social Security reform, Medicare reform. I listened very carefully as the President-elect called upon bipartisan cooperation on each of these issues, yet the committee that will consider it in this body will not be fairly represented by the views of this House. That is wrong, and needs to be corrected. Mr. Speaker, there is still time to correct this injustice. The Speaker said to us just an hour ago we should be judged by our actions, and I agree. Now is the time to be judged by our actions. The Republicans control the vote on the rules of the House. We on the Democratic side understand that. But we call upon the Republicans to understand what they have done on committee ratios is just wrong and cannot be defended. There is still time to correct this injustice. The American people are watching our actions. Let us start off on the right path, not the wrong one. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute, the Democratic motion to instruct, for it provides for the basic fairness, so we all can work together in a truly bipartisan way.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) for his leadership on this issue, for yielding me this time and in helping us make sure that we get this change indeed enacted before the Congress adjourns for this session. Mr. Speaker, this is an example of unintended consequence of legislation that was previously passed by this body and was enacted into law. Sometimes we look to try to get revenue raisers attached to bills in order to pay for them and we do not really realize the consequences of that action. This is an example of that. The changes that we made to the Installment Sales Act of 1999 will have and has had adverse consequence on small businesses in our country. Let me try to explain why. The reason why we put the installment sales provisions in the Tax Code was very logical. If you sell a business and you get part of the proceeds and you get the proceeds over a number of years, it is almost impossible for the person who sells the business to be able to pay all the taxes up front. If you do that, you do not have enough cash to pay all the taxes up front. That is the reason why we developed the installment sales provisions within our tax code. What we did in 1999 for many of the installment sales is require the business owner who sold the business to pay 100 percent of the taxes up front. That did not make any sense. I do not think we really intended that to be the consequence because we were dealing with the differences between accrual accounting and cash accounting, not realizing the fact that we have mandated that most small businesses must use accrual accounting procedures. Therefore, on one section of the code, we require them to use an accounting method that would require them to pay 100 percent of the taxes up front. This legislation corrects it. I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for bringing it forward. It makes sense. It will help small businesses in our country. It is the right tax policy. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we are not going to have a more comprehensive tax bill this year, because I think there are many provisions that Republicans and Democrats have worked out and we had hoped to have had a broader bill. But I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) for at least making it possible to correct this mistake this year to get it enacted. It is the right thing to do. I fully support it. I hope that we will pass it with broad support on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, we are at gridlock. We are 3 weeks plus the date that we are supposed to adjourn this Congress, and we still have not really sat down to negotiate the differences between the White House and the Congress. And the Members on my side of the aisle, the Democratic side of the aisle, have been left out of most of the negotiations. Mr. Speaker, the Baltimore Sun papers got it right, and let me quote if I might, Mr. Speaker, Republicans gridlock again in Congress. GOP leaders cannot strong-arm Clinton to get their way on tax cuts and budgets. Whatever happened to the fine art of compromise? It seems to have vanished within the lexicon of Republicans on Capitol Hill. The result is more gridlock in Washington as Republicans try to force their political agenda down President Clinton's throat. This tactic has repeatedly backfired on the GOP. The editorial goes on to say Republicans seem determined to send Mr. Clinton a take-it-or-leave-it tax cut plan that tilts benefits in favor of the well-to-do at a cost of $240 billion over 10 years. It would, for instance, give 58 billion in tax breaks to those able to buy long- term health care insurance, but it would not do what the President seeks to provide, care for 4 million uninsured parents at a fraction of the costs. Similarly, the Republican bill heavily favors HMOs, which have the political muscle over hospitals and nursing homes and restoring money cut by Congress in 1997. That is not fair, especially because nursing homes were devastated by the prior budget cuts. There is room for compromise, but the GOP hard-liners will not budge. They want a partisan agenda enacted. Other Republicans think they can influence voters if they force the President to veto their tax cut bill. That is a poor way to run government. And I agree. We should be sitting down and working together to try to resolve these differences. We should have done that 3 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago. Now we are surprised that it is getting political when we are a little over a week before a national election? The reason why we are here day in and day out is because we need to break this gridlock by honest negotiations between all parties. And I urge my colleagues to do that.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, It was with great sadness that we learned of the passing of our friend and colleague Sid Yates on October 5, 2000. I remember when I first met Sid when I was first elected to Congress in 1987. Sid was very helpful in my transition as a new member. He had a deep respect for the traditions of the House of Representatives and impressed upon all of us what a privilege it was to serve in the ``People's House.'' There was no greater fighter for the causes that he believed in than Sid Yates. He was the strongest supporter of the arts; he was always there in support of Israel; and he was a constant defender of our constitutional rights. Sid Yates was my mentor. I have the privilege to serve in an office of public trust. Each day I am confronted by many challenges. I know that I am better prepared to meet these challenges because of Sid. Congress and the nation lost a patriot and a good person on the passing of Sid Yates. He will be missed by us all.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, this conference report underscores the importance of working together, Democrats and Republicans, to get things done. I listened to the distinguished Speaker. There are some good things in this bill where we worked together. The problem is that the Republican leadership has used the fatally flawed partisan process in order to bring this bill to the floor. When you only work with half the Members, half the Nation is left out on the bill that is before us. The problem is, there is too much that is not in this bill or is wrong in this bill. It is inadequate on school construction. We could do a lot better on that. You spend too much money on health insurance breaks for those who already have health insurance and not enough on those who do not have health insurance. We can do better than that. You have left out the vaccine research credit which is so important to the health of our Nation. And you have left out the Lou Gehrig's disease, modernizing it so people who suffer from that disease can qualify for Medicare benefits. We go on and on and on. If you would have brought the Democrats into the process, we could have a bill we all could be proud of and support. Unfortunately, we should follow the President's advice. He is going to veto it. I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 426, concerning the recent disturbing violence in the Middle East. The resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the success of the Middle East peace process depends on the leadership of the Palestinians abandoning the use of violence and joining with the Prime Minister Barak of Israel in a true search for peace. Two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I rose with a heavy heart, after learning about the latest violence in Israel. News reports at that time told us that two Israeli reserve soldiers had been killed in the West Bank town of Ramallah. The Israeli soldiers were detained by the Palestinian police after they inadvertently made a wrong turn down a street, and were taken to a police station. Apparently a mob of Palestinians broke into the police station, slaughtered the Israeli soldiers, and paraded their bodies through the streets. This horrendous incident followed on the heels of days of violence by the Palestinian people. The tragedy of the return to street violence was aggravated by the refusal of the Palestinian leadership, and Yasser Arafat in particular, to move aggressively to restore order to the troubled region. Rather than exercise its law enforcement responsibilities, the Palestinian leadership actually encouraged the violence. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today rightly condemns the Palestinian leadership for encouraging the violence and doing so little for so long to stop it, resulting in the senseless loss of life. Mr. Arafat must call upon the Palestinian leadership to refrain from any exhortations to public incitement, and Mr. Arafat must use his security forces to act immediately to stop all violence, to show respect for all holy sites, and to settle all grievances through negotiations. His total failure to take such actions necessitates our action today on this resolution. I call on Mr. Arafat to live up to his obligations under the Oslo Accords, and to maintain public order and calm in the West Bank through a vigorous use of the Palestinian police force. Let us remember that the Palestinians now fully control over 40 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, with over 95% of the Palestinian population under the civil administration of the Palestinian Authority. As the Palestinians gain greater authority and control over their domestic affairs, they also must shoulder the additional security responsibilities that come hand- in-hand with territorial control. The Palestinians must ensure the safety of both Israelis and Palestinians within their areas of control. Mr. Arafat has personally assumed responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure the maintenance of peace, law, and order in the West Bank. Just two weeks ago Mr. Arafat allowed a Palestinian mob to destroy Joseph's Tomb, a Jewish holy site in the West Bank, just hours after Israeli troops withdrew and allowed the Palestinian police to take control. Mr. Arafat has again violated his obligations under the Oslo Accords to ``ensure free, unimpeded and secure access to the relevant Jewish holy site[s]'' and to ``ensure the peaceful use of such site[s], to prevent any potential instances of disorder, and to respond to any incident.'' The statements attributed to Mr. Arafat following the recent Arab League summit only exacerbate the problem of his failure to be a leader for peace. Upon his return to Gaza on October 22, 2000, Mr. Arafat stated: ``We will continue on to Jerusalem, the capital of the independent Palestinian state. If Barak wants to, he will accept it. And if he doesn't accept it, he can go to hell.'' Those are not the words of one seeking to put the peace process back on track. Moreover, it is very troubling to see that Arab leaders legitimized the use of violence by the Palestinians as a negotiating tactic while Mr. Arafat praised those involved in violent attacks against Israelis. The Arab League also called for a downgrading of existing ties with Israel and for a halt in the establishment of any new relations with the Jewish state. Mr. Speaker, each of us prays for peace in the Middle East. The only way to achieve peace is for the Palestinian leaders not only to condemn terrorism, but to take steps to stop it. We must also unequivocally state to Mr. Arafat, and to the countries of the Arab League, that Israel will only yield territory as the result of negotiations through a legitimate peace process, and that the United States stands firmly against the continued promotion of violence and terrorism by the Palestinian leadership, and specifically Mr. Arafat.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the work she has done on this bill. This is a conference report very much worth supporting. I congratulate her and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of the subcommittee. I have had the honor of representing this body on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe with some of our other colleagues, the Helsinki Commission. I just really want to compliment the language we have in aid to Serbia, because I believe it is consistent with the position that we have taken on the Helsinki Commission. We welcome Serbia's change of leadership of Mr. Milosevic being removed from power. It is appropriate that we now participate with Serbia on foreign assistance. I support the provisions in the bill that does that. I also think it is important that we make it clear, and we do, that, for ongoing assistance, Serbia must cooperate with the international Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, that it must take steps to comply with the Dayton Accords, and it must take steps to implement the rule of law and protection for minority rights. My colleagues spelled that out in their conference report, and I applaud them for it. It is a good compromise. I support it. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on Nov. 19, 2000 the National Katyn Memorial Committee will dedicate a monument in Baltimore, Maryland to the memory of more than 15,000 Polish Army officers who were massacred by Soviet soldiers in the spring of 1940. In September, I was honored to accept an award on behalf of Congress presented by Father Zdislaw J. Peszkowski, a survivor of the massacre. The medal was presented on behalf of the Katyn families in recognition of U.S. congressional hearings conducted in 1951 and 1952 that focused world attention on this World War II massacre that occurred in the Katyn Forest. While this massacre occurred more than 50 years ago, it is important that we remember what happened. In 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland from the west and the Soviet Union invaded from the east. In 1940, more than 15,000 Polish Army officers were placed in detention, then taken in small groups, told they would be freed and then were gunned down in the Soviet Union's Katyn Forest. In 1943, the German Army discovered the mass graves, which the Russians tried to blame on the Germans. It was long suspected that the massacre was the work of the Soviets. Final proof came in 1989, after the fall of the Soviet Union, when President Gorbachev released documents that clearly proved the Soviets, with the full knowledge of Stalin, had carried out the massacre. For more than a decade, the Polish-American community has raised funds to construct a fitting memorial to honor the victims of the massacre. The 44-foot statue has been permanently installed near Baltimore's Inner Harbor at President and Aliceanna Streets. I want to commend the Polish-American community and Alfred Wisniewski, Chairman of the National Katyn Memorial Committee, and the entire committee, for their tireless efforts in making this memorial to the victims of this atrocity a reality. I urge my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the memory of these murdered Polish Army officers. The Katyn Memorial in Baltimore will be a lasting reminder to all of us that we must never tolerate evil and tyranny and that we must continue to speak out for justice and tolerance.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, after learning this morning about the latest violence in Israel. News reports indicate that two Israeli reserve soldiers were killed in the West Bank town of Ramallah. The Israeli soldiers were detained by the Palestinian police after they inadvertently made a wrong turn down a street, and were taken to a police station. Apparently a mob of Palestinians broke into the police station, slaughtered the Israeli soldiers, and paraded their bodies through the streets. I call on Mr. Arafat to live up to his obligations under the Oslo Accords, and to maintain public order and calm in the West Bank through a vigorous use of the Palestinian police force. Let us remember that the Palestinians now fully control over 40% of the West Bank and Gaza, with over 95% of the Palestinian population under the civil administration of the Palestinian Authority. As the Palestinians gain greater authority and control over their domestic affairs, they also must shoulder the additional security responsibilities that come hand- in-hand with territorial control. The Palestinians must ensure the safety of both Israelis and Palestinians within their areas of control. Mr. Arafat has personally assumed responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure the maintenance of peace, law, and order in the West Bank. Just a few days ago Mr. Arafat allowed a Palestinian mob to destroy Joseph's Tomb, a Jewish holy site in the West Bank, just hours after Israeli troops withdrew and allowed the Palestinian police to take control. Mr. Speaker, each of us prays for peace in the Middle East. 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, let me thank my friend for yielding to me and thank him for bringing this issue before this body. As he pointed out, in last night's debate, we had a little bit of a discussion about the environment, not enough of a discussion on the environment. There is a clear difference between the Vice President and the Governor on the environmental issues. The Vice President, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has pointed out, throughout his entire career has been one of the real leaders on sensible environmental policies, policies that not only help preserve our environment but also deal with economic expansion but not at the cost of destroying our woods or our airs. He understands the importance of smart growth. He understands the issues of being sensitive to our environment. I particularly appreciate the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) taking this time. Because when we contrast that to the record of Governor Bush and the State of Texas, which has one of the worst environmental records of any State in this Nation, and the Vice President mentioned some statistics yesterday as related to health care, it is very clear that the State of Texas has been at the bottom of our Nation in providing health benefits for its citizens, but it is also at the bottom of our Nation on its record on environment. They have literally destroyed much of their environment at the cost of trying to do certain types of growth when it was not necessary to do that. It is certainly not the model of leadership that we need in this nation. This issue is particularly important to the people of Maryland, important to all the States. But the quality of life in Maryland is very much dependent upon the quality of our environment. We pride ourselves on the Chesapeake Bay, the most important natural resource in our State. I must tell my colleagues, when I was speaker of our State legislature, we took on the challenge to try to reclaim the Chesapeake Bay. Because it was becoming unsafe in many areas for people to swim or for people to use for recreational purposes. If they fell into our harbor, they did not have to worry about drowning, they would worry about whether they could survive the pollution that was coming in from all sectors, from the industrial use, from the farming use, from just not paying attention to our environment. We made a commitment 25 years ago to do something about it. And we have. We have done a pretty good job in helping to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. But I must tell my colleagues, we need a clean air policy because that affects the quality of the Bay and acid rain. We need a smart growth policy because that affects the quality of the waters leading into the Chesapeake Bay. We need a national policy on environment. We need leadership in the executive branch that will be sensitive to these environmental issues. Mr. Speaker, there is such a contrast between the two candidates for President on this issue. And I hope that in the remaining 3-plus weeks, less than 4 weeks, before the election that we will focus as a Nation on the environmental issues. Look at the record of the Vice President and the Governor on the issues that we have been talking about this evening. They are very much related to the quality of life in our community, very much related to our commitment to try to improve the quality of life in each of the districts that we represent. So I hope that we will take the time to compare the candidates who want to be President of this great Nation as to where do they stand on smart growth, that is placing people near where they work and where they live so that we can put less stress on the commute times in this country, less time on our energy dependency. We are too dependent upon imported oil. We all know that. Part of the solution, as the Vice President has said, is less use of fossil fuels in our community, more smart growth in our community. That will help the quality of life for people who live in my district and every district in the Nation, and it will also help preserve the Chesapeake Bay and the other great bodies of water in our Nation and our air that we breathe. I have been disappointed by what we have done in this session not because of the administration but because we have been spending more time trying to beat down some bad action by our colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, when we should be looking at building a record that we can look back at with pride. I very much hope that as we get into the last weeks of this campaign that we will challenge the leadership of our candidates running for President as to how they stand on these issues. I think there is no comparison here between the Vice President, who in his entire career in Government has shown leadership and sensitivity to the interrelationship between all the environmental issues, and the Governor, who has a record that none of us want to emulate from the State of Texas.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on Nov. 19, 2000 the National Katyn Memorial Committee will dedicate a monument in Baltimore, Maryland to the memory of more than 15,000 Polish Army officers who were massacred by Soviet soldiers in the spring of 1940. In September, I was honored to accept an award on behalf of Congress presented by Father Zdislaw J. Peszkowski, a survivor of the massacre. The medal was presented on behalf of the Katyn families in recognition of U.S. congressional hearings conducted in 1951 and 1952 that focused world attention on this World War II massacre that occurred in the Katyn Forest. While this massacre occurred more than 50 years ago, it is important that we remember what happened. In 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland from the west and the Soviet Union invaded from the east. In 1940, more than 15,000 Polish Army officers were placed in detention, then taken in small groups, told they would be freed and then were gunned down in the Soviet Union's Katyn Forest. In 1943, the Germany Army discovered the mass graves, which the Russians tried to blame on the Germans. It was long suspected that the massacre was the work of the Soviets. Final proof came in 1989, after the fall of the Soviet Union, when President Gorbachev released documents that clearly proved the Soviets, with the full knowledge of Stalin, had carried out the massacre. For more than a decade, the Polish-American community has raised funds to construct a fitting memorial to honor the victims of the massacre. The 44-foot statue has been permanently installed near Baltimore's Inner Harbor at President and Aliceanna Streets. I want to commend the Polish-American community and Alfred Wisniewski, Chairman of the National Katyn Memorial Committee, and the entire committee, for their tireless efforts in making this memorial to the victims of this atrocity a reality. I urge my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the memory of these murdered Polish Army officers. The Katyn Memorial in Baltimore will be a lasting reminder to all of us that we must never tolerate evil and tyranny and that we must continue to speak out for justice and tolerance.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, I am particularly pleased we were able to work out an agreement allowing victims of trafficking access to certain basic assistance programs, such as Medicaid, TANF, and food stamps. I am also pleased that, in addition to the trafficking bill, we were able to include the Violence Against Women Act. It is very important legislation, and I am pleased we were able to incorporate it in the conference report before us. I must point out, though, that I am disappointed we were able to include the Child Support Distribution Act that passed overwhelmingly by this body and is now laboring in the other body. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and I had urged the conference to include that particular legislation. We were unable to convince our friends in the other body, but I would hope that before we adjourn sine die that we will be able to pass that important legislation that would send over a billion dollars of increased child support to our Nation's poorest children and families.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. First, let me thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for holding this special order. I think this is an extremely important subject. We are proud in Maryland that we believe that a good energy policy is a good environmental policy, and they go hand in hand. We are very proud of our environment. We cherish our life-style in the Chesapeake Bay and other great resources. We have great bike paths, and we have great greenways. We want to make sure that we are energy sufficient and we are not today. I was struck last night in listening to the debate of just the dramatic difference between the two candidates on energy. It could not be more dramatically different. George Bush basically says that we can go into the pristine areas of this Nation and continue to use more and more energy and oil in this country, and we do not have a problem. Whereas Al Gore made it very clear that we do have an energy problem in this country and, yes, it means trying to obtain as much energy as we can among ourselves, particularly with alternative fuels. But it also means good conservation and good energy practices and dealing with the energy problems that are out there so that we can conserve energy in this country and we can be more sensitive to our environment. During these past 6 years, we in Congress have been fighting the Republican leadership, basically trying to stop some bad things from happening. We have not had the opportunity to move forward on an energy policy, because the Republican leadership has blocked it every step of the way. They are certainly in concert with George W. Bush in that regard. In 1995, you saw the energy efficiency programs cut by 26 percent by the Republican leadership. I am sure George W. Bush would be pleased with that; the weatherization assistance cut by 50 percent. Then in 1997, the Committee on the Budget recommended the abolishing of the Department of Energy and that energy conservation be cut by another 62 percent over 5 years. Once again, I think the Republican candidate for President would be very pleased with those suggestions, because he certainly does not believe in an aggressive Department of Energy here to try to find solutions to our energy problems, to develop alternative energy sources. Then in 1999, the energy department proposed that we purchase an additional hundred million barrels of crude oil for our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We are 115 billion barrels short. Mr. Speaker, in the next few months, people in the Northeast, including in my district, are going to be very vulnerable to heating oil prices; and we have not done what we should have done in this body in order to help my constituents and those in the Northeast who are going to be suffering from the high costs of home heating oil. Quite frankly, as I listened last night to the debate, it is an important reason why I hope my constituents and the voters around the Nation are very much in tune to the energy issue as we go into this fall election. There is a major difference between the two candidates. What should we be doing? And I particularly appreciate the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) taking this special order, because he has been the leader in this Congress on livable communities. When I first came to Congress, we were working on aspects of livable communities that came to a screeching halt under this Republican leadership. The gentleman has spoken out to the fact that we want to have a better quality of life here. We do not want to sit in traffic jams all day. We do not want to waste a lot of energy and waste a lot of our useful life by sitting in a traffic jam for hours, as many times I do between Baltimore and Washington. Once we get that high-speed rail in, we do not have that problem. We need that desperately. We do need more intelligent transportation systems. Mass transit makes sense, and we should be looking at ways to improve the livable communities agenda. I am proud of Vice President Gore and his leadership on these issues to talk about how we want our communities to be. We, in Maryland, as the gentleman knows, have the smart growth policy. Governor Glendening has been the leader on that. It makes sense for us to develop smart growth and livable communities. It is good for energy, good for the environment, and also good for quality of life for our people. We should be doing that. We are not doing that. We also should be talking about being more self-sufficient in energy in this Nation, and we are not talking about that because we need a comprehensive policy. The Vice President is talking about that; the governor from Texas is not. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman taking the time here this afternoon so that we can underscore some issues that we hope this Nation will focus on as we move into the November elections. These are extremely important subjects. This Congress, this body, should be doing more on improving livable communities and improving our energy issues and hope that we can focus the Nation in on these issues as we move on to the campaign. I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) for bringing forward this legislation. I want to associate myself with the gentleman's entire statement, and I think each Member of this body concurs in the passion the gentleman has brought to this legislation. I expect and hope that it will receive unanimous support in this body. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the IRS has made tremendous progress over the last several years, thanks in large measure to the attention of this body and the leadership of Commissioner Rossotti in leading the IRS. They have made a lot of progress. But as this legislation points out, there is still more progress that we need to make collectively, in partnership, between the IRS and the legislative branch of government. The IRS has conceded the point in this bill, but the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) is correct, it is important that we pass this legislation because it is our responsibility to clarify the law. If there is any ambiguity on this point, we should speak very clearly for the taxpayer, because the taxpayer is correct in this situation, understanding that the IRS is responsible to interpret our laws. Let me make one additional point, if I might, Mr. Speaker, and that is, as I pointed out, there is joint responsibility here between the executive and the legislative branch. We assumed and clarified that in the IRS Restructuring Act. We are now debating in conference the appropriation bill that includes the IRS. And let me just make the point that the IRS needs our continued support, which includes adequate tools to do the work we expect them to do, so that we have less of the types of emotional exchanges that occurred in this case. There will always be problems, we know that; but let us provide the tools that we said we would to the IRS. Let us make sure the appropriation bill that is brought out of conference adequately finances the IRS and that we continue our oversight function. And I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) for the work they do on the Ways and Means in oversight of the IRS. They are doing a tremendous service to this Nation. This legislation should pass, but we should continue our commitment to support with adequate resources the IRS.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for those very kind remarks, and I am going to include some comment about the gentleman from Maryland in my statement. First, let me first just point out the obvious. It has been 25 years that our country has been an active participant in the Helsinki process. We are right to acknowledge that and celebrate that today. This resolution recalls the importance of the Helsinki process in promoting human rights, democracy, and the role of law within 54 countries that participate in the OSCE. I am proud to represent this body in the Helsinki Commission and this Nation. This is unusual participation because we have both the legislative and executive branches that work side by side on the Helsinki Commission, and we work together. It is unusual. We do not have too many opportunities where both the executive and legislative branches participate as equal partners in a process. So it is truly unique. It has been very effective. I want to congratulate the leadership on the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), for the roles that they have played, very supportive of this commission, and giving us the opportunity to be active participants. We thank them very much for that. To the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), our chairman, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our ranking member, I had participated with both of these individuals. Let me tell my colleagues I think either of them would make an excellent Secretary of State. They do a great job representing this Nation in some very, very difficult negotiations. I think we are very well served by the leadership of both the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) in guiding our participation in the Helsinki process. It is unique. This is very bipartisan. I do not think I ever recall a moment in my entire service on this body where there has been a partisan difference. We worked together for our Nation, and we worked together for human rights, and today we really can celebrate the successes. Sure we can say there are still many challenges in Europe, and former Yugoslavia obviously presents a tremendous challenge for us. But we celebrate our successes. We have been successful in establishing democratic principles in most of the countries that were dominated by the former Soviet Union, and the Helsinki process has been key to those achievements; and we rightly celebrate that. We also can celebrate the fact of what we did with Soviet Jews. The Helsinki process allowed many people to be able to leave the former Soviet Union. We have an acknowledgment from Europe of the rights of ethnic minorities. There is no longer question that ethnic minorities are entitled to protection in their individual states. It is the right of every other participating state to raise those issues, and we do. So, sure, there are challenges that are still remaining. We all understand that in Europe. But the Helsinki process is an unquestioned success. Today, by passing this resolution, we acknowledge that. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.