Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding me this time, and let me point out from the outset that each Member who has spoken on this particular issue I have worked with on pension reform legislation, and we have worked together to try to increase the security for retirees. We share a common objective, and that is to provide more pension security for America's workers and for all individuals. I have many concerns about the legislation we are considering today. I feel compelled at least to mention some of these concerns. First, I am pleased that the legislation incorporates a replacement for the 30-year Treasury, which is a corporate bond mix which was included in the Portman-Cardin legislation. The Portman-Cardin legislation, that I have worked on with my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who is managing the time on the other side of the aisle, the two of us have worked together and developed a process that is not just bipartisan. It is a process that uses the procedures here about hearings and listening to all parties. It works with all stakeholders, tries to work consensus. As a result, we have been successful in enacting some very important legislation. I regret that that process was not used in the legislation before us. It certainly does not represent a consensus among the stakeholders. So let me tell my colleagues the problems as I see in this legislation. First, I have heard my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) talk about underfunded plans; and, yes, there are underfunded defined benefit plans. There is no question about that, but using an accurate interest assumption will not make the underfunding situation worse. In fact, it will help the PBGC because it will encourage companies that are properly funded to remain in the defined benefit world. It actually helps the plans using an accurate interest assumption. So why are we afraid to enact a permanent replacement for the 30-year Treasury? Defined benefit plans are the best security for American workers. They have guaranteed benefits that they know they will receive when they retire. They do not have to worry about the market going up or down. It is guaranteed. The company puts money on the table. It provides in almost all cases annuitant retirement so that an individual has income and is not tempted to take out their retirement in a lump sum, spend it and not have it for their own retirement needs. It is the one form of retirement that we all should be here today to try to encourage more, and as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) pointed out, we are seeing a hemorrhaging of these plans. They are terminating, they are converting, they are freezing their contributions. So what does this bill do in order to help the situation? It provides a 2-year, and a 2-year fix only, on a 30-year Treasury that does not exist. My concern is that because it does not provide the necessary predictability to companies that have to make a decision, whether they are going to continue these plans or not, that many plans will, in fact, convert or freeze and many companies will not even look at starting defined benefit plans. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) said that we should not require companies to put more into their plans than is required. Yet, that is exactly what we are doing in many cases. So why would a company or its workers want to put too much money in a pension plan when it is only one part of a compensation package? There are so many issues dealing with adequate funding that have been left out of this bill that were included in the Portman-Cardin bill. Let me just go through some of the issues that are not included in this bill, in addition to the fact that we had a permanent replacement and this is only 2 years. It has nothing on mortality schedules. The mortality schedules are out of date. Treasury will acknowledge the mortality schedules are out of date. There are companies that are contributing too much; there are companies that are contributing too little. And yet we are going to do nothing on the mortality schedules in this legislation. We have multi- employer plans that have been left out completely from this legislation. We have the 415 plans that are left out. These are small employers, small companies, and they are not going to get any relief under this legislation. That should have been corrected. It was in the original bill. The multi-employers are not affected by the 30-year Treasury replacement. They still have a problem. We do not deal with that. Assets moving to take us through good times and bad times are not included in the legislation. We know that the current interest assumptions encourage individuals to take their money out in lump sum. It discriminates against annuitant retirement. Accountants will tell my colleagues that. It discriminates against annuitant retirement, and it means more money is coming out of plans than perhaps would need to and add to. What it does is it makes the plans even more underfunded because we do not deal with the lump sum. Nothing in this legislation deals with the lump sum issues. And I think most tragically, I have heard my colleagues say, well, we are going to study these issues for the next 2 years and then come back with something. Nothing in this bill provides any study. I am just afraid 2 years from now we will be back exactly where we are today, and we will not have made the progress and we will not have taken advantage of the opportunity this year to deal with this matter in a more comprehensive way. There is something good I can say about the bill. It does not incorporate the administration's proposal for a yield curve. I think that would have been disastrous. I am glad that is not legislation. I do agree with each of the prior speakers that this Congress has to act. So I am going to vote in favor of the bill today. I hope that as it moves through the process the other body will show more wisdom and we will be able to have a more comprehensive bill, a longer term than just 2 years, covering more, at least a study, so that we are committed to dealing with all of these funding issues, and that we can get back on track to try to encourage companies to stick with it through defined benefit plans, because I think that is in the interest of American workers. We just do not want to see remaining this underfunded plan. We want these well-funded plans to continue to provide the benefits necessary for American workers, and I look forward to working with all my colleagues so that hopefully we can get back on track on important pension reform legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for yielding me this time and for the work that he has done on this resolution in pointing out that the principal sponsor, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), who introduced this resolution, could not be here today because of attending the funeral for the spouse of one of our colleagues. Let me also thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for his leadership on this issue. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 52, which recognizes the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry as the official national museum of dentistry in the United States. For many years, the importance of oral health has been underestimated. Only in recent years have we recognized that, in the words of the former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, ``There is no health without oral health.'' We have learned the important linkage between plaque and heart disease; that chewing stimulates brain cell growth; and that gum disease can signal diabetes, liver ailments, and hormone imbalances. Yet many Americans are still unaware of how critical oral health hygiene is to good health care. Despite our advances in reducing dental disease, one in five American children still suffer the devastating effects of severe tooth decay. I am proud that in Baltimore, Maryland, the Dr. Samuel D. Harris Museum of Dentistry is helping to reverse this epidemic by spreading the message that preventive dental health for children is key. Dr. Samuel Harris is a retired pediatric dentist who was born in the Ukraine and educated at the University of Michigan. He once said of the museum he helped found, ``Our main purpose must be to educate, to teach people, especially children, something important about themselves. That way they live not only longer, but better, healthier lives. I think that is a noble goal.'' One visit to the National Museum of Dentistry in Baltimore is proof that Dr. Harris's goal has not only been met, it has been surpassed. Located at the University of Maryland School of Dentistry in Baltimore, the first dental school in the Nation, the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry opened in 1996. The museum's permanent exhibits feature a display of historic dental tools, including the first known toothbrush made out of twigs. Among its most famous artifacts, as pointed out by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), are several sets of George Washington's ivory dentures and Queen Victoria's personal dental instruments. The museum also contains the actual office of Dr. G. V. Black, who is known as the ``father of American dentistry.'' Children especially like the tooth-shaped jukebox that plays vintage toothpaste commercials, computers that teach tooth anatomy, several interactive displays on oral health, and an extensive library of children's books, including several histories about the tooth fairy. One of my favorite exhibits is the scaled-down dentistry office where children can don smocks and review an x-ray panel as they play dentist and examine each other's or their parents' teeth. Each year, more than 10,000 visitors pass through its doors, including 4,000 schoolchildren. In addition to school and family programs, the museum hosts a variety of symposia for adults and dental health professionals, attracting visitors from across the Nation. Over the years, it has become an invaluable resource for understanding the history of dentistry and the importance of oral care. I want to thank the House for considering this resolution, which recognizes the museum, an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, as the Official National Museum of Dentistry in the United States. I urge all of my colleagues to visit the museum in nearby Baltimore or its Web site at www.dentalmuseum.org, and to support this resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and congratulate the Black/Jewish Forum of Baltimore, Inc. (BLEWS) upon their 25th anniversary, an event that is being celebrated at BLEWS annual dinner meeting on November 19, 2003. Since its inception, BLEWS has acted to further understanding and cooperation between the African-American and Jewish communities in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area. Through a variety of programs and through dialogue, BLEWS has worked to overcome intolerance, discrimination, hate crimes and stereotypes. BLEWS has participated in the U.S. Attorney's Hate Crimes Task Force, assisted in defusing intergroup tensions at universities and helped community groups deal with hate crimes and diversity issues. For the past 5 years, BLEWS has focused on its Youth Initiative with funding from several foundations. The Youth Initiative has conducted intensive all-day workshops for African-American and Jewish high school students to expose them to each other's history and culture, to dispel stereotypes and to encourage attitudes of tolerance, understanding and cooperation. These youth also have been taken to museums, plays, films and other activities that encourage friendship, greater understanding and community service. Every spring, the high school students participate in a Jewish Passover/African-American Overcome Seder meal that celebrates the theme of freedom. Because of their outstanding work in intergroup relations, BLEWS was recognized by President Clinton as one of the ``President's Promising Practices In Race Relations.'' I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting BLEWS, a model youth organization that is worth replicating elsewhere in the United States.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object, but under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, under my reservation, let me just compliment the gentleman from Oregon for raising this issue. There are States that have operated under waiver authority that has expired. I can assure you, although we have not been able to work out a bipartisan bill, there is bipartisan agreement to maintain the flexibility of the States under the waiver authority. I know that there are efforts to extend it and expand it, but at least there is agreement that we want to maintain at least where the States are today in their ability to use authority to tailor programs for their individual State needs. That is a bipartisan understanding, and I believe, also, there is a lot of support in the other body. I thank the gentleman for raising these issues, because I think they are very important as we move forward in the debate, not only to Oregon but to other States. I know the gentleman is fighting very hard for his own State. We appreciate that very much. We certainly do not want to see a diminished ability of your State to perform its services.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, it has been the position at least of this body by its formal actions to expand the authority to what is known as a superwaiver. That is controversial, and I am not sure there is certainly not an agreement on a bipartisan basis for a superwaiver; however, the superwaiver sort of consumes the individual State waivers. It is certainly the position of the majority of this House on both sides of the aisle that the States have at least the waiver authorities that they had under the expiring TANF laws. I will be glad to yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, but I am not certain that there is an agreement right now as to individual State waivers as compared to broader authority. I can tell the position that I would like to see is individual States, but I understand there is no consensus yet on that issue.

Mr. CARDIN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. CARDIN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, further reserving my right to object, just to respond to the gentleman, I agree completely with what he has said, and it has been the position of some of us to do the extension of individual States that had it prior to the expiration of the bill. There has been a consensus, as I have indicated before, to give States at least that flexibility; and the majority has decided to go beyond that with the superwaiver in this body. So the gentleman's point is very well stated, which I happen to personally agree with; and I appreciate his bringing it to our attention.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, this is very important legislation. It extends the TANF programs and related programs for the next 6 months so that we can try to work out a long-term, multiyear extension of the TANF programs and related programs. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this legislation forward.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I think the gentlewoman has already answered that. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut again if she wants to further clarify it.

Mr. CARDIN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the gentlewoman said. I think it is, in fairness to the gentleman from Oregon, certainly our desire to make sure the States maintain the type of authority Oregon has been able to use to create creative programs, and I really do thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention. It is a very important issue to our States.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to one of Baltimore's leading law firms--Ober, Kaler, Grimes and Shriver--as it celebrates its 100th anniversary. The firm was founded in 1903 when Stuart S. Janney and Albert C. Ritchie merged their practices into Ritchie and Janney. After World War I, the firm became Ritchie, Janney, Ober and Williams when Frank B. Ober and Robert Williams joined the practice. Another merger in 1969 changed the name to Ober, Grimes and Shriver. The current name of the firm--Ober, Kaler, Grimes and Shriver--resulted from a merger in 1983 with the Washington, D.C. firm of Kaler, Daniel, Worsley and Hollman. Most often referred to as Ober/Kaler, this law firm has produced two Maryland governors. In 1920, Albert Ritchie left the firm to begin an unprecedented 16-years as governor of Maryland. He returned to the firm after rejecting President Franklin D. Roosevelt's invitation to be his vice presidential running mate. Gov. Robert Ehrlich, the current governor of Maryland, practiced law for 12 years at Ober/Kaler. Ober/Kaler is a lawyer's law firm. With more than 120 lawyers, and offices in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia, the firm serves a national and international roster of clients in litigation, regulatory and transactional issues, as well as various other areas of the law. It provides outstanding legal advice to both businesses and individuals, including clients engaged in health care, construction, equipment leasing, banking, secured financing and other industries. I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Ober, Kaler, Grimes and Shriver as it celebrates 100 years of providing its clients with excellent legal advice.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Dr. Morton I. Rapoport, former President and CEO of the University of Maryland Medical System. Dr. Rapoport has been recognized nationally and internationally as one of the world's top hospital administrators. Under his leadership, the Medical System has made substantial improvements in the quality of patient care and services. He also has been a close friend and adviser to me for many years on health care issues, and I have great confidence in his judgement and insight. Dr. Rapoport took over stewardship of the Medical System in 1984. Since then, he has transformed the University of Maryland Hospital from a public institution with annual operating losses in the millions to a successful private corporation with a record of strong financial performance and renowned clinical programs. The Medical System now includes University Hospital, the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, the Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, Maryland's Hospital for Children, Kernan Hospital, University Speciality Hospital, Maryland General Health Systems and the North Arundel Health System. Dr. Rapoport is a Baltimore native who attended my alma mater Baltimore City College and University of Maryland School of Medicine. He conducted research on infectious diseases and served as associate dean of the medical school before taking over as head of University Hospital in 1982. In 1984, Dr. Rapoport was appointed President and CEO of the newly created UM Medical System. Before retiring, Dr. Rapoport oversaw planning and construction of the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Building, a $150 million facility to house operating rooms of the future and a new adult and pediatric emergency department. On Nov. 15, 2003, at a special gala, it will be announced that the atrium in the new Weinberg Building will be named in honor of Dr. Rapoport and his wife, Rosalie. I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Dr. Morton I. Rapoport for his dedication, leadership and vision in helping the University of Maryland Medical System become one of the most respected institutions in this country and in the world.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the person who is the author of provisions that would enforce a real work requirement on our States by rewarding those States who find real jobs for people who leave cash assistance. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say in closing, with what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) said, I concur. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Let me just underscore the point, though, in 1996 we got it right. We got it right because we listened to each other, and we listened to the needs, and we realized by doing that we could transform the old welfare system into a system that encourages people to get off of cash assistance and to be employed. The bill that passed this body is a step backwards. My friend from Pennsylvania said we will not take a step backwards. The legislation that passed that body did that. It was one size fits all. In 1996 we said we would trust local governments, our States, to craft the programs necessary to meet their constituency. Now we are going back, according what passed this body, to one size fits all from Washington. That is inconsistent with what we did in 1996, which was the right way to go. Secondly, we said in 1996, let people who are on welfare, on cash assistance, get the education and job training they need in order to get permanent employment. The legislation that passed this body takes a step backwards on that, restricting the ability of the States to allow welfare recipients to get the necessary education and training that they need. In 1996 we said they cannot do this unless they provide child care to the States so they could provide help to take care of the children. That is what we said in 1996. And yet in the bill that passed this body, we did not recognize that. Instead, we put unfunded mandates on the States and did not provide the necessary resources for child care. So I would hope that we will use the next 6 months to correct this. Let me just say in the backdrop, as we are debating this today, the poverty rates in this Nation are actually increasing among children. Our States, almost all have cut their child care money because of their budget problems. The needs for us to act now is greater than it was a year ago when we originally passed the bill in this body. So I would hope that we would look at the current situation. Our States are spending more of their TANF funds every year than they are receiving in the annual authorization. The needs are there. Yes, let us step up to the plate like we did in 1996. Let us work together in a bipartisan way. Let us be committed to get families not just off of cash assistance, but out of poverty, and if we will sit down and talk together, I am sure in the next 6 months we can come up with a bill we all can be proud of that will be supported by our States. If not, I am afraid the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Levin) prediction will come true, and we will be again looking at another short-term fix. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise also in support of the legislation and urge my colleagues to support it. I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the subcommittee, regarding the need to enact this legislation. However, I want to make it clear I disagree with my subcommittee chairman on many of the statements made as to the reason why we are at this point, why we need to enact a temporary extension of our TANF law rather than a permanent extension. This bill is important because it allows our States to know that for the next 6 months they will have uninterrupted Federal funds to continue their work on dealing with the people who are the most vulnerable, that we are trying to get off of cash assistance, into real jobs. However, we have made that task more difficult because we cannot pass a long-term reauthorization, and we cannot pass a long-term reauthorization because this body, in passing its bill, did not do what our chairman asked us to do, and that is to reach a consensus to try to work together as Democrats and Republicans to build upon the success of 1996. Instead, we had a very partisan bill that passed this body and that has made it very difficult to reconcile with the other body. We passed a bill that was opposed by our Governors, by our mayors, by State welfare administrators, by poverty experts and advocates for low- income families; and the reason, quite frankly, is because it did not reauthorize TANF and take us to the next level, which would be to get families not just off of cash assistance but out of poverty. Instead, the bill that passed this body created what is known as ``make-work'' opportunities rather than real jobs. It provided mandates on our States without providing the funds to deal with it. It made it more difficult for people who are the most in need of training and education to get the training and education they need in order to succeed in the workforce. It discriminated, and continues the discrimination, against legal immigrants. For all these reasons, the bill that passed this body made it more difficult for us to reconcile differences with the other body and to enact reauthorization of TANF that we all could be very proud of. Mr. Speaker, I hope we use this opportunity, the next 6 months, to sit down together and listen to each other, listen to our mutual objectives as to what we are trying to achieve in welfare reauthorization, so that we can pass a bill that we will be proud of that will take us to the next plateau and allow us to move families out of poverty and not just off of cash assistance. I might point out that this legislation extends the traditional Medicaid that continues families with health insurance after they have left the welfare rolls. That is a very important program. It also extends the IRS user fees for certain advanced rulings and allows the IRS to continue to share information with the Department of Education to administer the student loan programs; custom user fees will be extended for 6 months; Medicare premiums for low-income seniors, that program that pays those premiums would be extended. There is a lot in this bill that we have to make sure is accomplished before the expiration at the end of this fiscal year, and I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for their work on this important legislation and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). They have brought out a well-balanced Water Resources Development Act, and we appreciate that. This is a good bill for our Nation. It is a good bill for the people that I represent, and I thank them very much for their courtesies. I particularly wanted to mention a project authorized in the manager's amendment to restore the stream ecosystem of the Gwynns Falls in Baltimore City. This is a complicated project that has been under study by the Corps and local jurisdictions now since we first authorized the study in April of 1992; so it has been a long time. The authorization of this ecosystem restoration stream builds on the successful work we have on a greenway/bikepath through the Gwynns Falls. It also is an important part of the Chesapeake Bay program for improving the quality of the water along the bay. We now understand that our watersheds, our streams are a very important part of our work to restore the Chesapeake Bay, and the work done along the Gwynns Falls will be very helpful in that regard. Let me also mention the fact that Baltimore is currently under a court order to replace its aging sewer system. We need to modernize our sewer system. In doing the work along the Gwynns Falls, we also will be advancing the work of the replacement of our aged sewer system. So for all these reasons, this project is a win-win for our environment, for the appropriate use of our lands. And I want to thank all of them for including this project. I know it was complicated. I know it was difficult, and we thank them very much.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just point out to my friend from Connecticut that the transfer authority will have no impact on her State since her State's obligated all of their TANF funds. Let me point out to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), if we want to do something for the military, the bill is sitting at the desk from the other body. We could take it up and get it done before we leave here this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).