Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me this time. Let me also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his leadership in bringing forth this resolution and thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), as well. Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues are concerned about taking a side. We are taking a side; we are taking a side against terrorists. We cannot be neutral when it comes to terrorists. Our President has said it very clearly: they are either on our side in the fight against the terrorists, or they are on the side of the terrorists. This resolution is very straightforward. It supports the resolve of the people of Israel, and it lends the support of our Nation in their war against terrorists. That is exactly what the President and we asked of the American people after the attack on our country on September 11. We asked for the resolve of our people and their national support. There should not be a different standard here. We all should be opposed to the terrorist activities and support this war. Mr. Arafat must make a choice. He either will join us in rooting out the terrorists in the Middle East or he will continue to be an ineffective leader. If he wants to be the leader of the Palestinian people that brings peace to the Middle East, then he must engage us, as this resolution calls upon him to do, to root out terrorists in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution that I hope all of us would support. It shows that we will not compromise with terrorists. It shows that we are united as a Nation, we are united in our international coalition to root out terrorist activities, whether they occur in the United States, whether they occur in Israel, or wherever they occur. Innocent people should not be targets. We cannot compromise that issue. This resolution speaks to that, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, to put this body on record against terrorism.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First let me thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) for bringing forward this legislation. I agree with him that this is an important bill that helps us move forward on making it easier for families to afford college education and reducing the administrative burden of tax laws. I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for bringing forward this bill. It is his legislation. I thank him for putting together a sensible bill that will reduce the costs of compliance without raising the level of potential abuse. That is what we all try to do. First, Mr. Speaker, this bill makes it easier for families to be able to have the HOPE scholarship and lifetime learning tax credit which this body, this Congress, passed in 1997, that allows up to a $1,500 tax credit for higher education expenses. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) is correct. Education is a very important part of the American dream. We want to make it easier for American families to afford higher education. We want all Americans who can benefit from higher education to be able to afford higher education for their children, and the HOPE scholarship and lifetime learning tax credit carries out that commitment. Mr. Speaker, many times Congress, in well-intended legislation, causes burdens to the private sector that are not really necessary. We are well intended in what we think is necessary in order for compliance. I remember working with the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Portman), on IRS reform, and one of our principal objectives was to make the Tax Code easier to understand and to make it simpler for people to comply with the laws that we passed. This bill does that. This bill makes it easier for compliance. The first part on reporting, the current law makes it difficult for some colleges to be able to report the dollar amount that is impacted by the credit. We make it a little bit easier by allowing the college to report the amount of expenses or the amount that is paid. It is a simple change, but it allows a lot of colleges to allow their current computer program to be adequate to deal with the reporting needs of the Federal Government, rather than requiring them to change their entire system in order to meet the needs of the tax credit. That is common sense. The second is the reporting of the taxpayer identification number. We already have the taxpayer identification number of the student, and that is all we really need because we can match that, and the IRS has indicated they can match that, rather than requiring a reporting number of the person who claims the child, adding to the complexity again, and adding to information that is not readily available by the college and university that is reporting the information to the government. So the changes that are made in the legislation are common sense. They make it easier for the colleges and universities to comply with reporting requirements. It does not add to the potential abuse of tax law and it makes it easier for the law that Congress passed in 1997 to be utilized by American families. It is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that I hope every Member of this body will support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, let me just concur with my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). Also, I would like to compliment the Internal Revenue Service. We do not often say that. But they have worked with us to implement, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) has pointed out, this part of the code in a taxpayer-friendly way. If we look at the 1098-T form and 8863 form, I think we will find both of those forms are easy for the taxpayer to use. They worked with us to modify the law in regard to the unnecessary burden upon the institutions of higher education. As a result, we have had, I think, the right spirit in simplifying the Tax Code to carry out the purposes of Congress. This legislation is important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Medicare Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act of 2001. This bill is the result of months of collaborative efforts between Democrats and Republicans, between the ways and means and the Energy and Commerce Committees. In other words, it was developed the way that responsible Medicare legislation should be-in a bipartisan and deliberative manner. For too long, Congress has ignored the valid concerns of one of Medicare's most important assets--its health care providers. By easing regulatory burdens on physicians and allied health professionals, and by modifying the provider appeals process, this legislation speaks to some of the foremost concerns that have been brought to Congress by the dedicated health care professionals who participate in the Medicare program. This bill also provides important patient protections for beneficiaries--it guarantees them access to a truly independent external review process; it improves the advance beneficiary notice (ABN) process so that seniors may know in advance of receiving care whether the services will be reimbursed by Medicare; and it establishes a Beneficiary Ombudsman to assist seniors in navigating the Medicare program. As the Medicare+Choice program enters its fifth year, and enrollees across the country are witnessing their benefits reduced and their premiums increased, this bill contains an important beneficiary protection. It delays by one year the implementation of the enrollee ``lock-in'' period, which will enable many seniors to move between HMOs as efforts are made to stabilize this program. The 1997 Balanced Budget Act imposed $1500 caps on physical, speech- language, and occupational therapy. I have long supported replacing these caps with a rational payment mechanism. Congress has acted each year to delay these caps, which discriminate against the most frail beneficiaries. However, it is a waste of energy and resources for providers to return to Congress annually to seek a one-year moratorium on these caps. Medicare should implement a rational payment system that provides seniors with the level of care they need. We passed a law requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a mechanism for assuring appropriate use of services and to study use of these services by last June. This bill directs the Secretary to produce these overdue reports so that Congress can enact sound reimbursement policy for outpatient therapy. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3391 is a shining example of how Congress can act to greatly improve the Medicare program for beneficiaries and providers. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it this evening.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, over the past twenty years, this country has witnessed a revolution in the way American workers save for their retirement. The central feature of this revolution has been the shift from defined benefit to defined contribution plans, and, in particular, the explosion in the growth of 401(k) plans. Through employer-sponsored 401(k) plans, tens of millions of middle class Americans have entered the investment class, many of them encountering their first exposure to the workings of the stock markets. This trend has important implications with respect to the retirement security of these workers. Under the defined benefit model, the risk and responsibility for making prudent investments rests with the employer. At the end of the day, the employer is on the hook to provide the promised benefits. Should the employer fail to meet this obligation, the federal government, through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, provides added protection to make sure those benefits will be there when workers retire. In the 401(k) world, however, the risk and the responsibility rest with the worker. Individual investment choices and decisions can make a huge difference in terms of the size of the retirement nest egg that a worker accumulates. For many workers, this reality leads to one very basic question: ``Where should I put my money?'' This bill recognizes the need to provide workers with a responsible, reliable answer to that question. I commend the gentleman from Ohio, the Chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, for his leadership on this issue. He has recognized that the need for retirement investment advice for America's workers is great, and deserves our thanks for bringing this issue to the fore. The bill does two things to make it more possible for workers to get investment advice. First, it provides liability relief for employers. Currently, surveys of employers tell us that a major impediment to employers retaining investment advice firms for their employees is the concern that they, the employer, will ultimately be held responsible for the specific advice provided. The bill before the House says that if the employer exercises prudence in selecting the adviser, he or she will not be subject to liability for the advice provided. This is a good, sensible reform, and I support it. The second issue addressed by the bill goes to the current restrictions within ERISA dealing with ``prohibited transactions.'' ERISA contains important protections that prevent investment advisers from advising plan participants to invest in products where the adviser has a conflict of interest. It is a sensible protection, and one that should only be lifted with great care. The bill before us does not, in my judgment, provide satisfactory protections for workers faced with investment advisers providing conflicted advice. The bill will require advisers to disclose that they are in a position to make money on the advice they are offering. That is an important provision, and the disclosure provisions were strengthened by the amendment presented by the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. But disclosure of the conflict by itself is not enough. Workers need to know more than that the person sitting in front of them will make money if their advice is followed. They need to have a full range of investment options. They need to know the range of fees that are charged for different types of investments, and how those fees will affect their long-term returns. In short, this bill does not provide any assurance or requirement that workers will have the information they need to make prudent investment decisions. On the other hand, at the end of this debate, we will have a substitute that attempts to address these problems. I certainly commend the gentleman from New Jersey for his work on this issue and for his long-standing commitment to expanding retirement savings opportunities for American workers. But I am concerned that the substitute imposes requirements that will make it unlikely that employers will take the necessary first step of providing investment advice to their workers. Mr. Speaker, America's workers need investment advice on their retirement savings accounts. Unfortunately, today we have two choices. The Republican bill takes the position that bad advice is better than no advice, and the substitute takes the position that no advice is better than bad advice. The right answer, of course, is that what the 42 million Americans who participate in a 401(k) account need is not bad advice, or no advice, but good advice. We need to put together a bill that will give employers, workers, and the investment community the chance to get that job done.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for his leadership on these issues and for bringing forward this legislation. The two of us have worked together in a bipartisan spirit in order to move legislation that is important for America's families. Promoting Safe and Stable Families is a very important program. It deals with the most vulnerable families that we have in our community. These are children at risk, at risk of being put into foster care. This program has enjoyed strong bipartisan support because it protects the family unit; it protects our most vulnerable children. I support this suspension, this bill, because we have already seen a 6-week expiration of this program. This program expired at the beginning of the fiscal year, and if we do not reauthorize it, the States would see an immediate reduction of Federal funds dedicated to these very important programs, including case worker oversight, substance abuse treatment, mental health services, respite care, domestic violence assistance and other related services. Mr. Speaker, though I must express my real disappointment that this legislation does not include the full requests requested by President Bush and included in the budget resolution that was passed by the Congress, we had approved an additional $200 million a year for the next 5 years in the Safe and Stable Families Program, the legislation we are considering this evening does not provide for that $200 million increase. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) properly pointed out, we authorize, but we do not include it under the basic guarantee to our States. That is not adequate. I might say, on the tuition vouchers for children in foster care, the President also requested that we provide those funds. It was included in the budget, and we are not including it in the legislation before us. That is very unfortunate. We are talking about children who will not receive the services as a result of these additional funds not being made available. We estimate in 2002 alone 76,000 families would have benefited from that extra $200 million that will not be made available. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) also points out that we have authorized additional money. The problem is, our appropriators have already acted and they have only provided $70 million of the additional $327 million that the President requested. We had the ability in this legislation to make sure those funds were available and it was provided for in our budget resolution. We have should have done better. There are some that say we can no longer afford this because of the September 11 tragedies. We do not want the terrorists to win. The terrorists should not prevent us from taking care of our families. We have already passed in this body legislation that would spend during this period $150 billion, primarily on tax relief. Cannot we afford, Mr. Speaker, another $1 billion for our children? So although I support this legislation, it is important that we authorize the program, it is important that the funding continue to our local governments to provide these services. We should have done better. We should have done what the President asked us to do and with what our own budget resolution would have provided. I hope, as this legislation make its way through the other body, that we will find the resolve to include the extra monies as a mandatory expenditure, as requested by the President, and that we can in fact live up to our commitment to America's families. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on strengthening our antidumping and countervailing duty laws. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) for his strong leadership in this area. Madam Speaker, I strongly support this resolution. We must make sure that in negotiating in the next trade rounds, that we do not do anything that can compromise our current laws that we have in effect that deal with antidumping and countervailing duties. Madam Speaker, I must say we even have to go further than that. We need to strengthen our laws consistent with our World Trade Organization obligations. I think that we need to strengthen those laws. It is interesting that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) are both cosponsors and sponsors of legislation in order to do that. The problem is it takes too long to provide relief to industries that have been hurt by dumped products. The steel industry, of course, is a classic example. Too many of our steel companies have gone out of business because it has taken over 3 years since we have had illegal imports for the system to provide the appropriate relief. So we should be talking about strengthening those laws, not weakening them. I think this resolution makes it clear that we are going to draw a line in the sand that we are not going to weaken our current protections that we have against illegally dumped steel. It is an important statement for us to go on record. I applaud my colleagues for bringing forward this resolution and urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, everyone in this country has been impacted by what happened on September 11; but I think we all agree that our first priority needs to be for the victims, their families, the businesses that were put out of business and lost opportunity, and the workers that no longer have jobs as a result of what happened on September 11. It also happens to help our country by giving these unemployed workers benefits because we know they will spend the money. They will help economic growth. So from the humanitarian point of view, the fairness point of view, and the economic point of view, our priority must be to get the unemployed worker additional resources. The bill before Members would cost over $200 billion over a 5-year period, and virtually none of that money goes to the people who have lost their jobs as a result of September 11. The unemployment insurance provisions in the bill are inadequate. It allows the States to draw down on their own money a little bit faster, but there is no guarantee that even one dime of that money will be spent on increased unemployment insurance benefits for the unemployed worker, for the States can use the money as they see fit in their unemployment insurance system. In order for the States to provide more benefits, the legislatures would have to meet. Many State legislatures are not scheduled to meet. New laws would have to be passed. It is for that reason that our Congressional Budget Office estimates that as little as $700 million will get out under the underlying bill to unemployed workers. Mr. Speaker, individual corporations will receive more money in tax breaks than all the workers in this country will receive in increased unemployment insurance benefits. That is not fair. We can do better. The substitute that will be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the amendment that I offered in committee, allows us to provide real help to the uninsured by expending those who are eligible to include part-time workers and using the most recent wage quarter, to provide additional benefits for those people who are unemployed today, so we can increase the benefits and increase the number of weeks that they are eligible to receive benefits. The substitute does this all at Federal cost so we do not impose any new burdens on the States, and we make these provisions temporary, as we should, in any bill that is aimed at the direct impact of September 11. It is a 1-year bill only. It is the right thing to do. So if Members share my concern for the people who are unemployed as a result of what happened on September 11, Members will have a chance to voice that concern by voting for the substitute of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that provides relief for the unemployed. I urge Members to support the substitute and reject the underlying bill.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank my chairman for at least giving me the specifics. The Congressional Budget Office agrees with me and disagrees with him. The Congressional Budget Office points out very clearly that very little of this money is going to get out because it requires a change of policy at the State level that requires the legislatures to meet. Number two, FUTA taxes, which is the money that we are advancing to the States, are Federal tax receipts and are Federal funds. We are even thinking about reducing or eliminating that tax. It is a Federal tax and it is Federal money.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), who is the sponsor of a bill similar to the one we are debating here on the floor today. (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say in concluding that this is another opportunity for us to show the unity of our Nation, to allow the average person to be able to help contribute to a successful conclusion of our war against terrorism. I urge my colleagues to support the Freedom Bonds Act of 2001. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (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 echo the comments of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). The gentleman is absolutely correct. I agree with everything that my colleague has said about the events of September 11, the response by our communities, our collective communities since September 11, and the fact that our Nation has really come together. I must tell my colleagues that wherever I go in my district people want to know what they can do to help; and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for bringing forward this legislation that allows one more opportunity where our Nation, where our citizens can demonstrate how they can also help in our effort to beat back the terrorists and what they have caused to our country. H.R. 2899 establishes the freedom bonds, the United States savings bond. I think many of us remember during other periods of America's history when we have been tested. People lined up in order to buy United States savings bond, victory bonds and now freedom bonds. It is an opportunity to invest in our Nation and to become part of the way in which we deal with the effects of September 11. The proceeds will go to assist in the recovery and relief operations following the terrorist attacks, including humanitarian assistance, and to combat terrorism. This is a way for the public to show support in our fight against terrorism. It is a safe, low-risk investment that is available for the average person in our community. The average person can participate by buying a freedom bond. It is a statement that the Federal Government stands ready to raise funds needed to finance the war against terrorism with the full participation of the American public. For all those reasons, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), for bringing forward this legislation. We strongly support it in a bipartisan way. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and works of Bea Gaddy, an advocate for the poor, councilwoman, and humanitarian who died of breast cancer last Wednesday. Bea Gaddy's devotion to the service of the poor and the disadvantaged has made her a legend in Baltimore and throughout Maryland. With her exceptional strength of character and determination, she not only transformed her own life but also the lives of those around her. Her childhood was marred by her father's abandonment and her stepfather's alcoholism and abuse. By the time she reached her early twenties, she had already lived through two failed marriages of her own. Bea Gaddy knew hunger and poverty intimately. In order to feed her five children and others like herself, she began pushing a garbage can on wheels to local grocery stores asking for food. And so, began her life-long mission to feed the hungry and help the poor. She finished her high school education and earned a college degree from Antioch University's Baltimore division. On October 1, 1981, she officially opened her food and clothing distribution center. In 1988, she began homeless shelters for women and children out of rundown houses. While she provided food, clothing, and shelter for the needy, she also taught them to be independent. With her encouragement, many found jobs and got an education. She taught people how to live better lives. In 1999, she was elected to the Baltimore City Council. As councilwoman, she fought to get decent medical services for the homeless in addition to other services. She brought attention to the plight of the poor. Baltimore was blessed with Bea Gaddy's charitable works, but her remarkable spirit was recognized around the Nation. She was once named Woman of the Year by Family Circle Magazine, she appeared on CBS Morning News, and in 1992 was named as one of President George Bush's ``Thousand Points of Light.'' I hope that my colleagues will join me in saluting Bea Gaddy, a rare individual whose life is an example to all of us. Her kindness and strength changed many lives. Bea Gaddy will be sincerely missed.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, and just concur in the comments that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has just made. These are difficult times for our entire Nation and for the people who work in our intelligence agencies. They are at a disadvantage. When they have a victory, when they are able to stop terrorist activities here or abroad, they cannot issue a press release when they do their work successfully. Obviously, we need to do a better job on the intelligence front for our Nation, and the legislation before us moves us in that direction and I strongly support it. We all need to do a better job, including what we do here on the Hill in providing the resources to our intelligence community. Mr. Chairman, I just really wanted to rise to thank the men and women who give public service to this country in the intelligence field. They do public service for this Nation, they do it in a very fine way, and they need additional support. We all need to come together so that we can make this Nation a stronger Nation. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for the legislation they have brought forward.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as our economy enters a period of great uncertainty, Congress can take at least one step that will protect the families most imperiled by mounting job losses, while simultaneously stimulating consumer demand and economic growth. In short, we should improve our unemployment compensation (UC) system. Expanding, extending and supplementing UC coverage will put more money into the pockets of the families most affected by economic dislocations and most likely to spend quickly. I am therefore introducing the Temporary Unemployment Compensation Act to improve our Nation's response to rising unemployment levels. The bill would draw down funds from the federal unemployment accounts for one year to: (1) provide benefits to certain unemployed workers who are now not covered by the Unemployment Compensation system; (2) extend benefits by 13 weeks to workers whose regular UC has expired; and (3) supplement the amount of unemployment benefits. Over the next year, these provisions would provide UC benefits to over one million jobless Americans who otherwise would go without any assistance, they would extend UC coverage to roughly 3 million individuals whose regular benefits have expired, and they would increase the amount of unemployment payments to 9 million displaced workers. With new claims for unemployment benefits recently reaching their highest level in nine years, it is imperative that Congress and the Administration consider these reforms in the quickest possible time frame. Any effort to improve our unemployment system must start with the recognition that many dislocated workers, particularly low-wage workers, do not receive assistance from the current system when they are laid off. The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported last December that while low-wage workers were twice as likely to become unemployed, they were only half as likely to receive UC benefits compared to higher-wage workers, even when employed for similar periods of time. The GAO cited the fact that only 18% of unemployed lowwage workers were receiving Ul benefits compared to 40% of higher-wage workers. This problem may track a general reduction in the percentage of unemployed Americans who actually receive UC benefits (which has declined over the last few decades from about one-half to about one- third). Over the last few years, Congress has received repeated recommendations to correct this situation. Groups suggesting changes include: the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation, which was jointly appointed by Congress and the President; the Committee for Economic Development, which is led by leaders in business and academia; and a group of state, federal, business and labor stakeholders in the UC system. All of these organizations highlighted two issues that must be addressed. First, too many unemployed workers are denied UC because their most recent wages are not counted. (Many States do not count the last completed quarter of work). And second, part-time workers are sometimes discriminated against in the UC system. To begin to address these inequities, the TUC Act would provide federally-funded UC coverage for one year to jobless workers who would be otherwise ineligible because their last completed quarter of employment was not included in their wage record, and to unemployed workers seeking part- time employment. As unemployment creeps up, it becomes increasing difficult for dislocated workers to quickly find new jobs. For this reason, Congress also should consider increasing the duration of unemployment benefits, particularly since the current law provision providing an extension of benefits has proven ineffective. In fact, since 1983, only 12 States have triggered on to the current Extended Benefits (EB) program. Because changes to the existing EB program would demand time-consuming changes to many State's laws, this legislation would establish a new, temporary program that would provide an additional 13 weeks of benefits to individuals whose regular UC expires. Like the coverage for certain newly eligible workers, these extended benefits would be federally- funded and would continue requirements that recipients seek work. One final area that deserves attention is the adequacy of UC benefits. Unemployment benefits generally replace 50% or less of lost wages, leaving many workers hard-pressed to meet their monthly bills. This is particularly true in many urban and suburban areas where housing costs have exceeded inflation over the last decade. Furthermore, many States have relatively low average and maximum UC payment rates (the average weekly UC payment in the US is about $230). Finally, UC wage replacement rates were never adjusted to account for the fact that unemployment benefits were made fully taxable in 1986. This tax policy was enacted to ensure equity among families with the same amount income but from different sources. However, it has had the effect of reducing the value of UC benefits by about 15%. Therefore, to restore the value of unemployment benefits, while also maintaining equity in the tax code, this legislation would increase every UC recipient's weekly check by 15% for the next year. Mr. Speaker, we have over $38 billion in the Federal Unemployment Trust Funds. Those reserves are designed just for this purpose-- responding to rising unemployment. We should spend a portion of those funds to help Americans face the uncertainties and hardships that come with increased joblessness. The Temporary Unemployment Compensation Act will put those monies to good use by expanding, extending and increasing unemployment coverage just when it is needed most. Thank you.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, September 23, 2001, the City of Baltimore, the State of Maryland, and our nation's health care comnunity lost a valiant pioneer. Dr. Thomas Hobbins was a physician by training, but he made an indelible mark as a health care and human rights activist. Tom Hobbins harbored a deep and abiding commitment to health care for all. He taught at the University Medical School and served as medical director of the Maryland Sleep Disorders Center in Towson. A board member of the Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative, he fought tirelessly for universal health care coverage for Marylanders. He also served on the front lines against handgun violence, teen smoking, and environmental degradation. He was a member of my health advisory group and I greatly valued his guidance. Dr. Hobbins' curriculum vitae is filled with memberships, awards, and accolades. But I and my colleagues whom he visited here in Washington will remember him best for his generous spirit, his calm demeanor, and his altruistic approach to public policy matters. Whenever he called my office for an appointment, I could be assured that the subject of his visit would involve his patients' welfare and the common good. Tom Hobbins never once disappointed me. He combined a rare selflessness with a level of grace and serenity that most can only aspire to. It is with a sense of gratitude that I remember Dr. Thomas Hobbins. There are many who have been touched by his good will, and I am proud to count myself among them.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding me this time. I just want to follow up on some of the comments that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) made. It is true that he grew up in the Second Congressional District, he lives and played most of his career in the Third Congressional District, but he is truly the pride of all of Maryland. He is what we think a sports figure should be, a role model should be, and a person that gives back so much to his community beyond just playing baseball. We have heard these numbers. As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) said, they are worth repeating. Americans across the Nation have taken joy in the many successes of Cal's remarkable career, from his 2,632 consecutive major league games, to his 3,000 career hits and 400 home runs and his 19 All-Star appearances. He redefined our notion of what a shortstop should be, paving the way for a new generation of stars, including Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter. He represents all that is right with sports and competition in America. Madam Speaker, over a long career that has been defined by consistent excellence, Cal has also demonstrated an ability to rise to the occasion and perform best when the spotlight was brightest. His career batting average in the postseason is a remarkable .328. I think none of us will forget that when he tied Lou Gehrig's record and then when he went on to beat Lou Gehrig's record for the most consecutive games, in both of those games, with everyone in the Nation focused on Camden Yards, he hit home runs. And the second home run, the President of the United States was actually in the press gallery calling the game, calling the home run. During that time, he met the Nation's attention with humor and good will, frequently staying on the field long after the end of a ball game to sign autographs for thousands of fans. His performance, both on the field and off, coming at a time when baseball had been rocked by the cancellation of the World Series, led many sportswriters to declare that Cal had ``saved baseball.'' In the process, we can say that he showed us the essence of grace under pressure. Of course, we in Maryland take special pleasure and celebrate Cal as one of our own. Number 8 has played all 21 years of his major league career as a Baltimore Oriole. While that is rare enough in major league sports, at one point Cal's brother Bill was playing for the Orioles as well as his father, Cal Sr., was managing the team. The Ripken family has played an extraordinary role in the Baltimore community for a generation. As the people of Maryland have enjoyed Cal's career and shown him unending support, Cal has been a strong community leader. As my colleague from Baltimore County pointed out, he and his family have given generously to many worthy projects and have led on many more, including the Baltimore Reads Ripken Learning Center and the Reading, Runs and Ripken program. He has truly given back so much to our community in addition to what he does on the field. With Cal's retirement from major league baseball, we look forward to his continued role as a leader in our community. Among other efforts, Ripken is building a major, new baseball facility in his hometown of Aberdeen, just north of Baltimore. Madam Speaker, at a time when the sports news is often dominated by reports of labor unrest or athletes involved in unsavory behavior or owners running their team with no apparent regard for the feelings of loyal fans, Cal Ripken, Jr. has stood has a symbol of all that is good and right about baseball. For Cal, it has always been the game that matters the most. His dedication to the rhythms and rituals of the game, his commitment to doing a job he loved as well as he could, day in and day out, has stood as an example to millions of Americans, and especially America's children, that we can admire and aspire to what he has done. Madam Speaker, this weekend will be the end of an extraordinary career by Cal Ripken as he plays his last game at Camden Yards. His legacy will live on. He will serve as a model for future generations. I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the outstanding career of Cal Ripken, Jr.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of this important bill. Since 1987, my first year in the House of Representatives, perhaps no defense authorization vote has been more timely or more significant, and I am proud to join my colleagues on the floor as we consider this legislation. The health care provisions of this bill are key. In an effort to fully meet America's promises to the military, last year Congress created a Senior Pharmacy Benefit that took effect last April 1, and authorized expanding TRICARE to Medicare-eligible retirees and their dependents. Starting Oct. 1, 2001, all military retirees and their dependents who are age 65, or who are otherwise eligible for Medicare will be able to use TRICARE as a second payer. This year's bill authorizes full funding for these programs, a necessary and important step that our military retirees and their spouses deserve. In the past, military retirees who reached the age of 65 lost their TRICARE eligibility and were required to purchase supplemental policies, which are often prohibitively expensive, to cover Medicare's deductibles and coinsurance. By expanding TRICARE to the 65 years of age and older population, Congress can ensure that these men and women who served our nation are eligible for the best health care this nation can offer. There is one more step that Congress should take as soon as possible to ensure that every Medicare-eligible retiree can access the health care benefits to which they are entitled. I recently became aware of an inequitable situation facing many military retirees. Under current law, seniors who failed to enroll in Medicare Part B when they first became eligible are subject to a premium penalty of 10 percent for every year they did not enroll, effectively increasing the monthly premium for a 70-year old first-time enrollee from $50 to $75 for the rest of his or her life. Because military retirees could not have anticipated how their benefits would change, tens of thousands of retirees are now subject to these late penalties. On June 6, 2001, the 57th anniversary of D-Day, I introduced the TRICARE Retirees Opportunity Act, legislation to waive the penalty for military retirees who enroll between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2002. There is another barrier to full participation facing our military retirees. Current law permits late enrollees to sign up only during Medicare's annual open enrollment period--January 1 through March 31--with benefits beginning on July 1. My legislation will create a continuous open enrollment period through the end of 2002 for military retirees so that these prospective beneficiaries may access their new coverage immediately. Because the cost of this bill--a scant $10 million a year, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office--would affect the Medicare Part B Trust Fund, this authorization bill is not the appropriate venue to correct this inequity. However, I want to urge Congress to adopt this provision with all deliberate speed this year. Madam Chairman, this country has done a good job of meeting the health care needs of our active duty military. The Floyd A. Spence National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2001 was a milestone in our efforts to help the military retirees who devoted years of their lives to defend this nation. This year's authorization bill builds upon that work. My bill takes one more important step to ensure that these retirees, their spouses, and their survivors have full access to the benefits we enacted for them last year. I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of this key legislation so that we may truly fulfill our promise to the nation's military retirees this year.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 23, a resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States and its citizens. September 11, 2001, will be a date that will live forever in the hearts and minds of freedom loving people. On that date our country was attacked by terrorists in a way thought impossible. Thousands of innocent men, women, and children were murdered. It has touched the lives of thousands of families and of all Americans. It was an attack on our people and our freedom. The resolution before us authorizes the President to take the appropriate action including if needed the use of our military against those nations, organizations or people who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. The resolution specifically directs that such action be targeted to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such entities. Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to protect the safety of our citizens, particularly those within our own country. This resolution helps us carry out that responsibility. Our military force must only be used when it is clearly justified. This resolution limits that use to respond to the September 11 attack on our Nation. It is not only justified, but there is no more legitimate use of military than to defend one's country from acts of foreign attack. The resolution recognizes the role and responsibility of Congress in authorizing and committing our military to hostile action. The Constitution provides that the Congress has the power to ``provide for the common defense'' and the power to ``declare war''. The resolution strikes the right balance between the President and Congress and is in compliance with the War Powers Act, making it clear of the President's obligations to consult with and inform Congress. Now is the time for Congress to act. Let those who were responsible for these horrible deeds know that the Congress and the President and the American People are united and are resolved to bring the perpetrators to justice and to prevent such acts from ever happening again on our shores.