Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first, let me acknowledge that when we work together, Democrats and Republicans, we can get a lot accomplished. I commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, for her steadfast willingness to make sure that this legislation was considered and negotiated and marked up in a very bipartisan way. I also want to compliment her on the hearings that we held on this bill. I thought they were very helpful. We heard from a lot of different groups, and they made many suggestions which are incorporated in the final legislation that was brought forward. The system worked. The process worked. As a result, the Fathers Count Act, H.R. 3073, is a bill that will help low-income parents in carrying out their responsibility, both custodial and noncustodial, both mothers and fathers. It is a good bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It does not include every provision that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) or I would like to have seen in the legislation. It is a product of compromise, and it is a good bill that moves us forward in helping low-income parents. This endeavor is important for three reasons. First, it is simply unfair to expect low-income mothers to bear all the responsibility for raising their children. It is a moral and legal obligation of both parents to provide care for their sons and daughters. Second, some noncustodial fathers want to help their families, but they lack regular employment, and it prevents them from meeting their commitments. These are dead-broke dads, not deadbeat dads. They need assistance in finding and retaining employment, and they need encouragement to cooperate with their child support system, which they view in many cases as being very hostile. Third, and most importantly, children are simply better off when both of their parents have a committed and caring relationship with them, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has pointed out. This is in the best interest of a child to have both parents involved in their upbringing. Under the Fathers Count Act, $140 million dollars in competitive grants will be made available for communities to encourage fathers to become a consistent and productive presence in the lives of their children, whether through marriage or through increased visitation and the payment of child support. These new grant funds can be used for a wide array of specific services, including counseling, vocational education, job search, and retention services, and even subsidized employment. The legislation includes resources to carefully evaluate the impact of these grants on marriage, parenting, employment, earnings, and the payment of child support. Mr. Chairman, in addition, the grant program would encourage States and communities to implement innovative policies to assist and encourage noncustodial parents to pay child support. For example, preference would be given to grant applications which contain an agreement from the State to pass through more child support payments to low-income families rather than recoup the money for prior welfare costs. Mr. Chairman, I can tell my colleagues that will encourage more involvement financially by noncustodial parents with their child. It is a good provision. Some States have done it, but not enough States have done this. This bill will encourage that action. The legislation would make one very important change to help both custodial and noncustodial parents support their children. It would expand eligibility for the current Welfare to Work program. This initiative was originally passed as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It has proven to be a useful tool to help long-term welfare recipients and noncustodial parents of children on public assistance gain employment. However, the criteria to access these funds are too restrictive. We know that. We are not able to get the money out where it is desperately needed. Therefore, the Fathers Count Act would broaden eligibility and local flexibility under the Welfare to Work program, an improvement, I might add, that has been requested by our National Governors' Association and by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Department of Labor. I hope that the House will build on this effort by passing a broader reauthorization of the Welfare to Work program. The Clinton administration has submitted such a request, and I hope that this will be the first step in reauthorizing that program. Finally, I should point out that H.R. 3073 contains three provisions that would improve the administration of several different human resource programs. First, the bill would establish a more realistic penalty for the States that have failed to establish a State Disbursement Unit for their child support enforcement system. Second, the legislation would provide Federal reimbursement for State and local efforts to train judges and other court personnel involved in child abuse cases. Lastly, the measure would provide additional funding to improve ongoing effort by the Census Bureau to study the impact of welfare reform on low-income families. Mr. Chairman, the underlying premise of the Fathers Count Act is children are better off emotionally and financially when both of their parents are productive parts of their life. We achieve these goals by promoting marriage, particularly among recent parents. However, we recognize that marriage is not always possible or even desirable, especially when there is an obvious threat of domestic violence. In those circumstances, we still expect fathers to accept financial responsibility for their children. This bill, therefore, seeks to help low-income fathers gain employment needed to pay child support. Without such an effort, we are condemning custodial mothers near the poverty level to bear the entire burden of raising their children. In conclusion, let me say that we are going to have some debates on some of the amendments, and we will talk about that a little bit later, but the underlying bill is a good bill. It is supported by the administration. It is supported by many of the advocates and groups on behalf of our children. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), who has been a strong supporter of the fatherhood initiatives.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York and the gentlewoman from Ohio for bringing forward this rule that I support. In response to the comments of the gentlewoman from California about job training, I agree with her. I am sorry that was not made in order. But without this rule, without bringing this bill forward, we are going to be with current law that does not allow any opportunity for independent job training. The bill provides for a new 6-month period, and I would hope that we would have her support so we could move this important bill forward. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to compliment the Committee on Rules for allowing us to debate this issue fully today. I want to thank my colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, for the bipartisan way in which the Fathers Count Act of 1999 has been brought forward. And let me just also, if I might, read from the statement of the administration's policy that we received today: ``The administration supports House passage of H.R. 3073. The President is deeply committed to helping parents of low-income children work and honor their responsibilities to support their children. H.R. 3073 is an important step in this direction.'' And we received last week a letter from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Center for Law and Social Policy, and the Children's Defense Fund, writing in support of H.R. 3073, the Fathers Count Act of 1999. The letter goes on to point out how important this is to help low-income custodial and noncustodial parents facilitate the payment of child support; and it assists parents in meeting their parental responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I would encourage my colleagues to support the rule and to support the legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I am not sure about the last comment, Mr. Speaker, but let me thank my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for his work on this legislation and all that is involved in bringing forward the sweepstake legislation. I know in my district I have heard from many of my seniors who have been victimized by believing that they have won a sweepstake, only to send back information, and the only thing that they found out is that it cost them money to buy magazine subscriptions. They have spent thousands of dollars in hopes of winning the sweepstake that they never won. The Attorney General in my State, Joe Curran, has documented many, many abuses by many, many sweepstake operators. This is true around the Nation. This is an important bill. I am glad we are able to move it forward. It is going to affect thousands of our constituents in each one of our districts. Hopefully it is going to change the practice of magazine owners or magazine companies in the way that they sell their subscriptions. They have to be more direct with our constituents and let them know that they have not won a sweepstake.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3196, the second Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 2000. It is in our national interest. We can be proud of the role that our nation has played in facilitating peace around the world. Nowhere has that been more evident than in the Middle East. The United States played a key role in the successful implementation of the Wye River Accord between Israel and the Palestinians. The Young amendment will help the United States fulfill its crucial obligations to Wye River implementation. By providing $1.8 billion in funding for the Wye River Accord, including $1.2 billion in security assistance for Israel, $400 million in economic support for Gaza and the West Bank, $200 million for Jordan and $25 million in military support for Egypt, this legislation ensures the continued progress of peace in the Middle East. This bill is not perfect. Our foreign aid budget is only half of what it was just 10 years ago and represents less than 1 percent of our federal budget today. We must do more to provide broad-based, adequate funding to promote our interests around the world. But this legislation represents an appropriate balance that maintains U.S. leadership abroad, so that our efforts in crucial regions like the Middle East and the Balkans will not be wasted. I am pleased that this legislation provides increased funding for debt relief to help some of the world's poorest nations reduce manageable debt and start down the road of economic recovery. This legislation also funds efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and deadly nuclear materials. Finally, the bill provides increased funds to support the hard-won peace in Kosovo, where U.S. leadership helped stop ethnic cleansing. By including these measures, this legislation takes important steps toward crafting a foreign aid budget that makes sense and promotes U.S. leadership around the world. I support this bill and applaud the bipartisan work which brought this agreement before the House.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make certain adjustments to the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. I applaud the chairman of the subcommittee for bringing out a bill that deals with that. We have projected Medicare savings in 1997 over 5 years of $115 billion. In reality, it is going to be closer to $200 billion. This bill contains some very important improvements in the Medicare system that will deal with the $1,500 therapy cap right now which is denying many of our seniors necessary rehabilitative care. It will extend the municipal health demonstration project that affects thousands of seniors. It will provide help for frail elderly and those high acuity nursing home patients. It will help us deal with the Medicare Plus choice problems particularly in rural areas of getting more HMO participation. But, Mr. Speaker, let me say that this is a very important bill that I hope will pass overwhelmingly on the floor, but there is more that we need to do. As has been pointed out, we need Medicare reform, including prescription drug benefits. We need to deal with a stable funding source for graduate medical education in inflation. I know many people share that thought. We need to take a look at high acuity patients, particularly from long-term care and the special needs of psychiatric hospitals. I congratulate all those who are responsible for bringing forward this bill. Let us pass it, and then let us work on the other reforms that are necessary in order to provide the best possible care to our seniors. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the important Medicare bill before us today. In taking the important step of refining many of the Balanced Budget Act's Medicare provisions, Congress is acknowledging what so many seniors and health care providers have known for a long time now: that the 105th Congress made several mistakes in crafting Medicare reforms back in 1997. Some of the changes we made restructured the risk contracting program, others were designed to reduce provider reimbursement levels in several areas. In both categories, the consequences have been far different from what we in this body intended or expected. In 1997, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the Medicare reductions at $115 billion over five years. Since that time, we have seen evidence that the reductions are closer to $200 billion. The effect of this difference on the accessibility and quality of care for our seniors transcends budget numbers, however. This bill, the Balanced Budget Refinement Act, makes important restorations in several key areas that will help our seniors secure the medical care they need. It adjusts payments for skilled nursing facilities so that the most frail nursing home patients can receive additional payments for the ancillary services they require; it helps alleviate the arbitrary caps placed on outpatient therapy services, which now prevent one of six patients from receiving the care they need; it extends the Municipal Health Services Project for one year, and it provides very important relief for seniors who rely on home health services. I am also very pleased that this bill extends coverage of immunosuppresive drugs for transplant patients who are now subject to a three-year limit for these life-saving therapies. This bill also provides incentives for Medicare+Choice plans to participate in lower-cost areas. The Medicare+Choice program was designed to expand the private health plan options available to our seniors. But two years after BBA's passage, seniors' options have diminished rather than increased as many rural areas have lost their Medicare HMOs and even in higher cost urban areas, plans are reducing benefits and raising premium charges. In some states, there has never been a managed care option for seniors. Most health plans cite low payment rates as the reason for their lack of participation. This bill offers bonus payments to plans that are willing to enter markets where there is no Medicare HMO option today. There are additional areas that still must be addressed. I support the creation of an all-payer graduate medical education trust fund that will save Medicare more than $1 billion annually, while providing a steady funding source for the training of our Nation's medical professionals. My proposal for BME replaces the current outdated payment structure for residents with a fair national standard based on actual resident wages. As the dire financial situation of academic medical centers worsens, I hope we can reorganize the need to stabilize their financial condition. We can act to shore up these institutions and ensure the continuation of the high-quality medical workforce we enjoy today. I also support restoration of the cuts BBA made to hospice care, which is an essential part of our effort to provide comprehensive medical treatment to the Nation's elderly and disabled. I support providing adequate payments for all frail patients in nursing homes, including rehabilitation categories whose costs will continue to be inadequately reimbursed even after passage of this bill. And, I support the creation of a drug benefit for fee-for-service Medicare that provides all beneficiaries, not just those with access to an HMO, with coverage for outpatient prescription drugs. These are key issues that Congress will need to be addressed further next year. Earlier this year, I urged Congress and the Administration to join in a united effort to address these matters. I am proud that Congress has taken this crucial step today and I also applaud the Administration for working with Congress and moving to take the administrative measures that are within its power. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and help us move forward to restore crucial health services to America's Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report, with reservations. Congress has been working for many years to reform the Nation's outdated financial services laws. After several attempts at crafting comprehensive legislation, I am pleased to see that the House, the Senate and the administration have reached agreement on a bill that accomplishes this task, while preserving financial regulation along functional lines. After 65 years, it is important that we modernize our financial services laws. This legislation does provide the necessary legislative framework to allow financial institutions to compete fairly in the market. That is in the best interest of my constituents and I shall support the conference report. However, I must express my disappointment that the conference report does not provide customers the opportunity to prevent the disclosure of information to affiliated companies. It does allow them to opt-out of disclosures to companies with whom their financial institutions have no affiliation, except when the institutions have entered into a joint agreement. This may result in the free exchange of personal information, such as bank balances, credit card transactions, and check receipts, between life insurance companies, mortgage issuers, stockbrokers and other commercial entities without the consumer's knowledge or consent. This situation is particularly troubling because Congress has not yet passed medical privacy legislation. It is important to recognize that the HHS Secretary's proposed medical privacy regulations, set to take effect next February, are restricted in scope to health providers, health insurers, and health information clearinghouses. Limited by legislative authority granted in HIPAA, these rules cannot limit the secondary release of information beyond these specific entities. Therefore, once this financial services bill becomes law, information that an individual voluntarily discloses to a life insurance company may then be forewarded legally without an individual's assent to any of its affiliates and to any unrelated financial institution that has entered into a joint agreement with that insurance company. It is my hope that the 106th Congress and the administration will return to this issue early next year in order to strengthen the privacy safeguards. Only then will we be able to provide American consumers innovation, convenience, and safety in financial services, as well as guaranteeing the privacy of their most personal information.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, we began this session of Congress in January with much hope of improving our Social Security system and strengthening it. Both Democrats and Republicans talked about making that our top priority. Well, Madam Speaker, we are now near the end of this session of Congress, and we have not lived up to our commitments to our seniors. In January, we talked about extending the Social Security Trust Fund. Now, when we look at what is going to be done, we will not extend the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund by one day. The Republican leadership is trying to change the subject. But our seniors understand what is happening. It was our responsibility to act on Social Security this year, and we are not going to do it. The President has sent up proposals that would extend the solvency of the Social Security system by 16 years. That is a good first step. We should pass that. Then we should work together as Democrats and Republicans to strengthen our Social Security system rather than just talking about it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, my constituents are perplexed. At the beginning of this session both Democrats and Republicans talked about how important it was to protect Social Security. Now we have the last appropriation bill being considered today and the Republican record is in. The Republican partisan budget uses gimmicks such as a 13th month and directed scorekeeping to spend Social Security money, even though they would say that they are not. They propose large tax cuts that clearly jeopardize our ability to meet our obligations under Social Security, and at the end of the day they have not extended the life of Social Security even one day. The President has submitted a plan that Democrats support that would extend the Social Security system by at least 16 years. If we all agree that Social Security is so important, that it is keeping our seniors out of poverty and giving them a decent opportunity within our community, then why are we not working in a bipartisan way to get a realistic budget that will really protect Social Security?

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to welcome Dr. George Toole as our guest chaplain today. He is here along with his wife, Donna. We are certainly honored to have him here with us. He is the senior minister at the Towson Presbyterian Church in Maryland. His parents were Scottish immigrants. They loved their new country. His father attempted to enlist in the Navy during World War II but was told he was too old. That did not stop his father. He tried two other times and finally was allowed to enlist in the Navy just before the statutory age limit and served his Nation, his new Nation, with distinction because of his love of our Nation. It was that inspiration that has led Dr. Toole to his public service. Dr. Toole has been very active in community service. In New York as a police commissioner, he helped successfully to convince an armed individual to release his spouse in a hostage situation. And in Maryland he is a familiar face in community service. We thank Dr. Toole for his public service and for being with us today. This is a great honor for me to follow Dr. George Toole, the senior minister at Towson Presbyterian Church, one of Maryland's finer churches. Before I begin, I would also like to recognize Dr. Toole's wonderful wife, Donna, who is in the gallery today. Dr. Toole tells me this is a great day for his family. After hearing his father's story you will understand why. You see, his parents were Scottish immigrants who fell in love with their new country. So much so that when World War II rolled around, Dr. Toole's father wanted to give back to the country that had opened up a new life of freedom for him and his family. ``This is my country and I owed her,'' he later explained to his son. He went to enlist in the Navy. But there were a few small problems. Dr. Toole's father was 38 years old. He had a wife. And he had two sons. The U.S. Navy said thanks, but no thanks. But that didn't stop the elder Toole. Remember: ``This is my country and I owed her.'' So Dr. Toole's father waited and tried again. Same response, thanks but no thanks. They say the third time's the charm. That certainly proved true in this case. Two weeks before the absolute age disqualification date for service in the Armed Forces, Pentagon brass relented and allowed Dr. Toole's father to join the Navy. He served proudly in the South Pacific and Dr. Toole tells me the younger men on-board his ship called him ``Pop.'' If he treated them half as well as he treated his son who is here with us today, they were probably some happy sailors. Dr. Toole tells this story as a way of demonstrating what a difference it made to have such a caring and patriotic father. It probably goes a long way to explaining why the Baltimore County Police recognized Ensign Toole's son, today's guest chaplain, several years ago for bravery and community service. Dr. Toole, a former police commissioner in Bath, NY, spent over 4 hours negotiating with an armed man who had taken his wife hostage in their home. The man had been to a service at Dr. Toole's church a few days before the incident and told the police this was the only person he would talk to. Just like his father refused to give up on the Navy, Dr. Toole refused to give up on this distraught man. The man eventually gave up his gun and released his wife. We are a better country for both of these refusals. Thank you for your remarks today, Dr. Toole, and please keep up the good work in Towson.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that, if this motion to table does not carry, the House would then debate for 1 hour my motion; and that if it carried, the House would then have an opportunity to vote either to sustain or override the President's veto on the Taxpayer Refund Relief Act of 1999?

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and thank him for the work that he has done on this very important legislation. I want to compliment the leadership of both the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Commerce on both sides of the aisle. I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has pointed out that we have not completed our work yet, but this is a good bill. This is a bill that we need to move forward, and I do hope that it will be even strengthened as it moves through the Senate, the other body, and through conference. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 4.7 million Americans who are currently on SSDI, Social Security Disability, and 4.3 that are on SSI. Of this number, only about 10,000 move off the rolls every year to work. That is not acceptable for this Nation. Let me just talk economics for a moment, if I might. For every 1 percent of the disabled that we can move off of SSDI and SSI into work, we save during their beneficiary's lifetime $3 billion in benefits. So it is in our financial interests to work to get people who are on disability to work. The problem is that the current system puts too many barriers in the way for people to leave the disability rolls to work. People want to work, but our system prevents them from working. What the Ticket to Work legislation does is provide more providers, a choice of providers, to help people with disabilities to become gainfully employed. It offers incentive payments so that the provider has incentives to work with the beneficiary to get the individual a job, to get the individual employed. It removes the disincentives. Perhaps the greatest disincentive is health benefits. Currently, only 35 percent of the people who leave disability to get gainful employment find health insurance, and yet if one is disabled, it is virtually impossible for one to leave the disability rolls where one has guaranteed health benefits unless one has health insurance. So what this legislation does is provide a way that we can continue health benefits for people who work off of the disability rolls. That makes sense for the individual, it makes sense for us. We also make it easier for an individual to be able to get back on cash assistance if the work experience does not work. We want people to take the risk to go to work. If it does not work, we should be able to come back and help that individual. We have taken care of that particular problem. Mr. Speaker, we brag, both parties, about how low the unemployment rates are in this Nation. We are very proud of what we have been able to do with our economy, and yet, for the disabled population, the unemployment rate is 75 percent. That is unacceptable. We need to do something about it. The Ticket to Work legislation is aimed at reducing that unemployment number to help people become employed. This is a good step forward; I hope that we can improve it as it goes through the process, but I would urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided attempt to represent the President's budget. Rather than distorting the President's budget proposal, we should be working together to find a bipartisan solution to the budget problems. The debate over the appropriate level of discretionary spending ties into the Republican leadership's repeated promises not to threaten Social Security. But these promises fly in the face of the Congressional Budget Office analysis which shows that the Republicans have already spent tens of billions of dollars of Social Security money. They have used every accounting gimmick ever devised, and come up with a few new ones, including the infamous 13th month and designating the constitutionally-required census as an emergency. At the same time, they have criticized the President and those of us on this side of the aisle who strongly support adequate funding for education, environmental protection, housing, the Middle East peace process, and other priorities of the American people. Yet the amount of funding under discussion on the appropriation bills is dwarfed by the great Social Security raid of 1999. That legislation, which the Republican leadership put forward under the title the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act, simply backed the truck up to the Treasury and emptied it. That plan to cut taxes by $792 billion over 10 years represented a severe threat to the future solvency of Social Security. Fortunately, the President vetoed the tax bill. That veto occurred a month ago, on September 23. We have had the veto message 26 days. While the majority has found time to schedule this meaningless bill this afternoon, somehow it has not found time to schedule the vote on the President's veto. The tax bill, the crown jewel of the majority's legislative agenda for the year, remains bottled up in the Committee on Ways and Means collecting dust. After we complete this debate, I will offer a privileged motion to discharge the Committee on Ways and Means from further consideration of the tax bill. I would hope that my Republican colleagues will take this opportunity to demonstrate their newfound commitment to preserve Social Security by voting to sustain the President's veto.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to amend the rules of origin for certain textile products. This bill would amend the rule of origin requirements contained in section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) in order to allow dyeing, printing, and two or more finishing operations to confer origin on certain fabrics and goods. Specifically, this dyeing and printing rule would apply to fabrics classified as of silk, cotton, man-made, and vegetable fibers and certain products classified in enumerated headings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Under current law, fabrics and certain products derive their origin in the country where the fabric is woven or knitted, notwithstanding any further processing (such as dyeing and printing). This bill would change that rule for fabrics and products included within its scope and would base origin determinations for customs and marking purposes in the place where these finishing operations take place. Enactment of this bill would also settle a longstanding dispute in the World Trade Organization (WTO) brought by the European Union (EU) against the United States regarding section 334 of the URAA. The Administration worked with the EU--in close consultation with U.S. industry--to resolve outstanding concerns with respect to section 334, and, in August, concluded a settlement with the EU, under which the Administration agreed to propose new legislation to Congress to amend section 334. I urge my colleagues to suport swift enactment of this bill. It is non-controversial, was drafted in consultation with domestic industry, will have minimal effect domestically, and will settle an outstanding trade irritant between the European Union and United States. I look forward to its passage into law in the remaining weeks of the congressional session.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).