Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I would welcome my colleague into the Third Congressional District of Maryland to participate. We do have, of course, Flag Day. We invite all Americans to join us in a pause for the pledge to the flag and our national anthem. Let me assure my colleague that I checked with the Parliamentarian and we can mention the names of senators if they are sponsors of a comparable bill in the other body. So it was within the rules of the House to mention our senators.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), who has also been very actively involved in helping our Filipino veterans. (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the sponsor of legislation that is incorporated in the legislation we have before us that gives flexibility to our veterans.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for this amendment. I think it is a very important amendment, and it improves the bill that is before us. It makes it clear that foster parents need to be prepared adequately with appropriate knowledge and skills to provide for the needs of the child. We are trying to give additional flexibility to States to help children aging out of foster care and into independent living, but part of that depends upon having foster parents that are adequately trained and have the right skills, and I think this amendment adds to that. I want to congratulate the gentleman, and we certainly accept it on our side.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me this time. This rule gives the Members of this body a rare opportunity: A chance to vote for legislation that has the enthusiastic support of the President of the United States and the majority whip of this body. The Foster Care Independence Act has received its broad-based support because there is a general recognition that we are not doing enough for the 20,000 children who age out of foster care every year. I want to inform my colleagues that the information that they may have received from the American Public Human Services Association on H.R. 1802 is very misleading. First, contrary to their letter sent to our congressional offices yesterday, H.R. 1802 provides increased Independent Living funds for every State, except South Dakota and the District of Columbia. The only reason why South Dakota and the District of Columbia do not receive increased funding is because we are updating the number of children in foster care for the formula that is currently about 15 years old, and both of those jurisdictions have had a reduction in the number of children in foster care. Second, the same number overstates the number of States and the overall funding impacted by the bill's changes in the child support hold harmless provision. Third, the letter's suggestion that States should be allowed to continue Medicaid coverage under SSI-related eligibility criteria for individuals denied SSI is already addressed by the manager's amendment which will be made in order when we adopt this rule. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this rule and the adoption of the Foster Care Independence Act.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to first compliment the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for her leadership on this legislation. As chair of the committee, she held early hearings so that we could establish the record that we all knew would be there that we are not doing enough for the children aging out of foster care. Due to her leadership, we are able to bring forward a bill that is supported by both the Democrats and the Republicans, and has the strong support of the Clinton administration. I want to also compliment Ron Haskins, the majority staff person, Nick Gwyn, the Democratic staff, for the work they have done in bringing this bill to the point where it enjoys very, very broad support. Mr. Chairman, we are here today because we are the parents of children aging out of foster care. We are responsible for them. Twenty thousand children every year age out of foster care. These children are very vulnerable. In many cases they were removed from their natural parents because of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. They may have been in two, three, four, five, or more foster homes during their childhood. Now they turn 18 and we say they are on their own. How many of us as parents tell our children at 18 that they are on their own? We have a responsibility. These children are very vulnerable at the age of 18. In many cases, they lack housing. They have poor employment prospects, inadequate educational achievement, absence of health care coverage, and tragically, many have substance abuse and will become homeless. The legislation that we bring forward contains five major provisions in order to deal with this circumstance. First, we double the amount of money available in the independent living program from $70 million to $140 million. We expand counseling services, not just for children over the age of 18 but for children under the age of 18, so they can be prepared upon reaching that age to be more self-sufficient. We expand educational opportunity, training, job accomplishment, and other resources available so that they have a better chance to be able to make it in independent living. Second, for the first time we allow the use of independent living program funds for housing assistance for children aging out of foster care between the ages of 18 and 21. This is a major change in Federal law. It acknowledges that 18-year-olds coming out of foster care have difficulty finding adequate and safe housing. Yes, many end up homeless today, and we want to do something about that. Third, the legislation allows an 18-year-old to have a little bit more money in the bank. Under current law the limit is $1,000, almost penniless, expected to make it on their own. This bill allows a foster child to at least accumulate up to $10,000 so they may have some money in order to put down a deposit on an apartment or to be able to get an automobile for transportation, so they can make it in the real world. Fourth, the legislation improves the data and research on children in foster care. Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to establish reasonable goals of what we want to achieve in our foster care program. Yet, we do not have the information today in order to evaluate that. This legislation will give us the tools to be able to assess what the Federal programs should be accomplishing and to hold our local governments accountable to reasonable results. Fifth and last, it allows the States to provide Medicare coverage for those children between the ages of 18 and 21. A recent study shows that as much as 44 percent in that age group are having great difficulty finding health insurance. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is not without cost. It has been scored to cost $500 million over 5 years. The legislation is paid for, which we think is the responsible thing to do. We have done that in a way that we think adds to the benefit of the legislation before us, first by curbing abuse in SSI fraud so that we can make the system more accountable; secondly, by allowing veterans of World War II to collect SSI at a reduced amount if they desire to return to their homeland; and third, by repealing the child support hold harmless provisions that were put in the law during welfare reform in 1995. I think all of us know that welfare rolls have dropped dramatically since 1995. The hold harmless, which was questionable when it was put into the law, certainly today tends to provide more Federal resources than the States actually spend in child support enforcement, but we decided to do a good thing in repealing the hold harmless. That is, we adopted an approach in the manager's amendment that was suggested by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) to reward those States that passed through their child support collections to the families, to the families coming off of welfare, so we encourage the family units; so that the noncustodial parent believes, and rightly so, that he or she is part of supporting the family. Mr. Chairman, this is good legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1802. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I just want to underscore the point of my friend from Louisiana, and, that is, this bill does a lot of good things in helping children aging out of foster care and we pay for it in part by dealing with fraud and abuse. I want to thank the gentleman for his help. I also want to thank the Clinton administration for working with us. These provisions have all been mutually agreed upon as an effort to make the program do what we think it should do and provide savings so that we can help children. It is a win-win situation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Just to follow up on that colloquy, the hold harmless was put in in 1995. It was put in to protect States on child support collections. It was based upon the collections then which already reimburse some States more than the actual cost of child support collections. But as my colleagues know, the number of people on welfare has diminished dramatically since that time and, therefore, there have been significant reductions in the burdens to the various States. But Members are going to have a chance in the manager's amendment to vote on a modification of that, that allows for a good policy with the hold harmless, if the States want to pass through those funds to the families so the families actually get the advantage of the funds and we maintain a family unit. So we are going to have a chance to modify that in the manager's amendment. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) had recommended that in our committee and it is incorporated in the manager's amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that I want to compliment the gentleman for his amendment, and for bringing to our attention a real problem, and dealing with it in a way that I think we can get the answers. I certainly support it.

Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who has been one of the real leaders in this Congress on the issues of children.

Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have already gone over the different provisions during the general debate that is in the manager's amendment. I want to compliment the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for putting together this manager's amendment to take care of some very technical points, to expand the provisions concerning the World War II veterans, to deal with some unintended consequences that deal with the hold harmless provision for pass-through to child support to the families. Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly discuss three of the improvements to the Foster Care Independence Act in the amendment being offered by Mrs. Johnson and myself. First, the amendment expands a provision that would allow U.S. World War II veterans to return to their homeland, including the Philippines, and still receive \3/4\ of their SSI benefit. This provision provides Members with a rare opportunity to vote for proposal that is supported by veterans and saves money. Second, the amendment would ensure that the bill's restrictions on asset transfers and trusts under SSI do not have unintended impacts on Medicaid coverage. More specifically, the amendment would clarify that individuals who are not receiving SSI do not lose Medicaid coverage because of changes in SSI eligibility rules, which are sometimes used to determine Medicaid eligibility. And third, the amendment would continue to provide half of the current child support hold harmless payments to States that pass- through child support payments to families on and leaving welfare. The bill generally repeals the hold-harmless provision, which has created an unintended windfall for States, but the amendment provides this limited extension to help more States that are passing through child support to low-income families, rather than keeping it to recoup past welfare costs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1802. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) who has been very helpful to us in putting this legislation together.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, the people of my district are conflicted on this issue. They and I have a special feeling towards our flag. I represent Fort McHenry in which Francis Scott Key saw the flag that inspired the National Anthem, the symbol of our freedom. But they and I also understand that protecting the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, we must do. It is part of the founding principles of our country, the right to speak out even when it is not popular. I want to applaud the gentleman from North Carolina for giving us the opportunity to both protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and putting this issue in proper context. Yes, we want to protect the flag from desecration, but we also want to protect our Bill of Rights.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I support the Conyers-Campbell substitute. Let me just respond to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the subcommittee chairman. Under current law, and under the underlying bill, individuals will still be able to buy guns at gun shows without the background check because of the time differences and the definition of what is a gun show. So if we really want to do something, this is our last chance. Let us go along with the other body. We ask for that, many of us, on both sides of the aisle. We can do something for child safety. We can do something for gun safety. The subcommittee chairman says we will have other opportunities. It does not come along in this Chamber very often. This is our last chance. Let us support the substitute.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, there is something terribly wrong going on in this House today. We will spend more time today discussing why a child should not even see a handgun on TV rather than debating how we prevent a handgun from getting into his hands in the first place. The other body did its part, and it did it quickly. It passed reasonable legislation to protect our children including background checks at gun shows and safety locks on handguns to protect our children. It turned to this body to finish the work. The country turned to this body to finish the work. And then suddenly something went wrong. Republican leadership said we could not use an expedited process, we had to go through the normal committee process, and then they abrogate the committee process by this rule and do not even listen to what has happened within our body. They do not even allow an up or down vote on what the other body passed. That is wrong. We should be able to vote on what the Senate passed. This is a wrong way, Mr. Speaker. The process insults the Columbine victims, it insults the American public, and insults the Members of this body who will have to explain to their constituents why this body chose politics over debate on a reasonable gun safety and juvenile justice measure.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me this time. I agree with the point that the gentleman made, and that is that it would be a lot better if we were talking about a bill that would actually help the people on Social Security, that would extend the solvency of the program. We have been here now for many months, and it is time for us to use the regular legislative process of committee hearings and markup to start taking up legislation. So rather than spending so much time on this lockbox, I wish we would spend the time debating how Social Security should be strengthened and how we should deal with the long-term solvency. I also agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) in that this bill is one that we should vote for because it does contain some provisions that, if we adhere to them, would be good. Why am I skeptical about that? Because we have current budget rules in effect that do pretty much everything that is in this bill, but every time we waive those rules or find ways of getting around it. Just look what we did with emergency spending. We found ways to get around the budget rules. I am afraid that what is contained in this particular legislation, it will be very easy for Congress to get around it. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues my problems, though, with the lockbox itself. We normally think of a lockbox that we put in there what we need in order to deal with the problem and we have a strong lock on it in order to make sure it is only used for that purpose. Well, that is not the case in the legislation we have before us. We have not put into this lockbox what we should; that is, all the surplus. We should not be spending the surplus until we have fixed Social Security first. I thought that was the commitment that we made on both sides of the aisle, that both leaderships said we are going to fix Social Security first. Yet, we do not put into the lockbox the resources that will be needed in order to deal with that. That is the first major flaw. But perhaps even more significant is that there is no lock on this lockbox. All we need to do is pass legislation that says that we fixed the problem and we can spend the money. Let me read the language in the bill. I know we rarely do that around this place, but let me read what we are asked to vote on. It says the term ``Social Security reform legislation'' means a bill or a joint resolution that is enacted into law and includes a provision stating the following: ``For the purposes of the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999, this act constitutes Social Security reform legislation.'' Mr. Speaker, there is no lock on this lockbox. There is no requirement that we extend solvency of Social Security even one day before we can spend the money that we say that we are locking up for Social Security. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have an opportunity to cast a really significant vote, and that significant vote will be on the Holt- Lucas-Moore proposal. It will be in the motion of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) to recommit. That will be a real vote. Why do I say that? First, it will put into a lockbox all of the surplus and say that we cannot spend that until we have dealt with Social Security and Medicare. But it goes a second step and puts a lock on the lockbox. It puts a lock on the lockbox by defining what is Social Security reform, defining what is Medicare reform. We do not do that in the legislation before us. We do not even allow an amendment for the legislation before us. We have a closed rule. We cannot even bring forward suggestions to improve the bill. That is not the democratic process and the bipartisan cooperation that my colleagues are asking for, when they will not even give us a chance to really debate the issue before us today. But the motion to recommit, the Holt-Lucas-Moore proposal actually does define what we need to do in order to be able to spend the money in the lockbox: seventy-five year solvency for Social Security. We all agree on that. Let us put it in the bill. We do not do that. But we will have a chance. Vote for the motion to recommit. It does not delay the process. It brings the resolution immediately back for passage, but says that we have to deal with the 75-year solvency of Social Security, which we should do. And then on Medicare we say we have to have at least 30-year solvency in Medicare. That makes sense. Then we would really be putting this money aside and putting a real lock on the lockbox to make sure the money, in fact, is not spent until we have, in fact, dealt with the solvency of both Medicare and Social Security. So, Mr. Speaker, we are being asked for bipartisan cooperation. We agree with that. We do not have any chance to amend the bill. Vote for a motion to recommit so that we can have a true lockbox.