Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman looks at the Democratic substitute, the gentleman will find that 95 percent of the provisions take effect within the 5-year window. I think that is pretty good. If the gentleman would agree to live up to that 95 percent standard, I think we would be glad to amend our motion. Mr. Speaker, the point is that we do not want to have the overwhelming majority of revenue hit when we are in the last years of the bill, and the proposals we are talking about may do that. The Democratic substitutes never do.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it would be very consistent with my Senators.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentleman will not be able to refer under the Speaker's admonition how my two Senators voted on this bill; but I think the gentleman will find that they did the right thing.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the reminder of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I would urge our colleagues to support this legislation. I think it is a very important bill that moves forward the cause for adopting parents and bringing families together. I would like to just repeat the concern that I expressed earlier in regards to special-needs children and their adoption. A report issued by the Treasury Department in October of last year pointed out that this bill might have an unintended consequence of making it actually more difficult for special-needs children to find homes. The reason, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill will make it a little bit less difficult for parents to participate in international adoptions where the majority of children are now available. We do not have many children available in this country for adoption other than special-needs children; other than family relations. And this might, in fact, make it a little bit easier for a family to go for an international adoption rather than a special-needs adoption. Mr. Speaker, I know that is not the intent of the legislation. I know that the committee will continue to work on this, but I would just urge my colleagues, as this bill works its way through the process, we need to go back at least to the original provisions in the bill, to make it easier for families that wish to adopt special-needs children. We have a tremendous need there. This bill presents an opportunity, and I would encourage us, as the bill works its way through Congress, to address that need. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, there is broad support for the underlying goals of H.R. 622, to assist families in meeting their needs on adoption. The bill, as the chairman has indicated, would increase the adoption credit to $10,000. That is broadly supported in this body. Secondly, it would make permanent the adoption credit. In current law, the adoption credit for special-needs children is already permanent, and this bill would make it permanent for all adoptions to use the credit; and there is broad support for that provision. Mr. Speaker, let me point out two concerns that we have with this bill. As I indicated, we supported the bill, but we have two concerns. First, this is the eighth tax bill that has been considered by this body. This bill is not part of the $1.25 trillion budget that has passed both this body and the other body. So we are already starting to see additional tax bills that are going to be considered that are going to go beyond the $1.25 trillion. One of the concerns that has been expressed by the Democrats is that we, in fact, are going to be having tax relief far in excess of what is provided in the budget resolution. I regret this will probably not be the last time that we will be making this point, that there will be other tax bills that are going to be brought forward that exceed the budget resolution that was passed by this body. The second concern, and we have already heard this by other speakers speaking on the rule, is that there is not enough help in this legislation for parents who want to adopt special-needs children. The children that fall into this category are our most difficult children to place with adoptive parents. These are usually older children, children that come out of foster care, children that have one or more disabilities. We want to help these children find permanent homes. Unfortunately, today, only one out of seven parents who adopt a child with special needs can take advantage of the credit that is in the law for adoption expenses; and the main reason for this is that the expenses that qualify for the adoption credit are normally paid for by the social agencies that are involved in adoption of children with special needs. Those parents who can take advantage of the adoption credit find that they do not have as much expenses and they do not reach the limit. The percentage of parents who are using the adoption credit with special-needs children are much lower in reaching the credit than those that are adopting other children. So, therefore, this bill that costs $2.5 billion over the 10-year window will have little benefit for helping children with special needs find permanent placements. Mr. Speaker, there are 122,000 children waiting for adoption with special needs. I think we can do more to help families. The original bill had a provision in it that allowed the $10,000 credit without the documentation of costs. That amendment would cost about $125 million, a small fraction of the money that the underlying bill that has been reported to this body would cost. Mr. Speaker, we support this bill; but I would hope that we could do better. I would like just, if I might, to quote from the Committee Report, and I thank the chairman for including this language in our committee report: ``The committee, however, is aware that families adopting special-needs children may incur continuing expenses after the adoption is finalized that are not eligible for these benefits. The committee will continue to search for ways to help alleviate these post-adoption expenses.'' I want the chairman to know that we want to work with him in finding a way in which we can provide additional assistance to families who are adopting special-needs children. We think we can do better, and we hope as the bill works its way through the legislative process we will find a way to take care of that need. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. I appreciate my chairman's explanation of the budget reconciliation process. That is what this is, this is the budget reconciliation bill. But I always thought that budget reconciliation legislation was supposed to reconcile what we do on spending and tax bills with the budget resolution. We have certainly limited how much tax cuts we are supposed to have this year and how much spending, but as the chairman pointed out, and I think rightly so, budget reconciliation normally occurs at the end of the session, so we reconcile to the budget resolution. Instead, we are doing it earlier so we can pass a single tax bill in the other body, not by a bipartisan vote, but along very partisan lines. That is what this bill is allowing us to do. I urge my colleagues to vote against it. It is very interesting that the other two issues that are scheduled this week already violate the budget resolution, because we have a bill this week that will cut taxes a little more for adoptions, and we have a spending bill that will be coming out dealing with the education programs that is above the budget resolution. Mr. Speaker, my reason for urging my colleagues to vote against this legislation is that it is not a $1.25 trillion tax bill. In reality, we have gone through this, and the chairman knows it, we are going to be doing other tax issues this year. We are going to have to deal with the alternative minimum tax. We have to deal with the tax extenders. There is other tax legislation that already has been favorably reviewed by the committee. Also, we have the underlying interest cost. When we add that all up, it comes to over $2.5 trillion. On the spending side, the education bill we will be taking up later this week, it does not spend what was provided in the budget resolution, it is $4.5 billion above what was provided in the budget resolution. I do not object to spending more money on education. The Democratic budget provided for more money for education. But I do object to us passing legislation that is going to add to red ink. That is where we are heading, to larger tax cuts, larger spending, and what we will give is our ability to pay down our national debt. I do not even think we are very subtle about it. The National Review, which often espouses the Republican philosophy, says, ``Don't fear a deficit: the advantages of red ink.'' I would hope that with our projected surplus, that our first priority on a bipartisan basis would be to reduce our national debt. I regret that is not the case. So I heard my chairman's explanation. This budget reconciliation should not be a way in which we pass a single partisan bill in the other body. Instead, we should use it as a way to come together to a budget that is truly bipartisan that will allow us to protect the priorities that are important to our Nation: to have a reasonable tax cut, and to be able to move forward in a bipartisan way. This bill does not do it. I urge my colleagues to reject the legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I regret that we have to resort to these types of extraordinary rules. We could have bipartisan agreement on a budget. It would not have been difficult for the majority to reach out to the Democrats and come out with a budget that we all could support, that would provide for tax relief as well as protecting Social Security and Medicare and the priority programs, and, most importantly, reducing our national debt. Mr. Speaker, the reason why I will not support this budget is that I believe it provides for tax cuts that will be too large, allowing us to protect Social Security and Medicare, not only this year, but in future years, and would allow us to continue to make the type of investments in education and the environment and other priorities that are important for the people I represent. But, most tragically, Mr. Speaker, I think this budget will do exactly what the National Review indicates it will do, and that says ``Do not fear a deficit.'' ``Do not fear a deficit.'' I think that there are many who understand that this budget, if implemented, will lead to deficit spending again and an effort to downsize government. We do not want to see deficits again, yet I believe this budget will lead in that direction. So, Mr. Speaker, I regret that we have not used the time until now to work together to bring Democrats and Republicans together on a budget that will allow for reasonable tax relief and allow us to pay down our national debt, rather than adding potential red ink to it. I urge my colleagues to reject this budget and to work together for the American people.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as the general debate has indicated, there is strong support for this legislation. I thank my colleagues who have come to the floor to express their views on this legislation. It is clear that it will help American workers, it will help people save for their own retirement. Let me just point out the Congressional Research Service on November 6 pointed out that if employers offer plans, workers at all income levels participate and benefit. Eighty-five percent of the workers earning less than $40,000 will participate in the plans, and 68 percent of the workers earning less than $20,000. This bill will make it easier for companies to provide pension plans, and more workers at all levels will participate. I again want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his work. On my side of the aisle, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) for their contributions to the legislation that is before us. Lastly, let me thank my staff person, David Koshgarian, for all the work that he put in. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), the sponsor of many of the provisions in the bill that deal with small business.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his kind comments; but I really want to thank the gentleman for the manner in which he has led our committee in consideration of the pension legislation. The gentleman from California has allowed us to work in a constructive environment so we could reach the point of having a bill that enjoys broad support on both sides of the aisle. That is indicative of the gentleman's leadership. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his extraordinary work. The gentleman from Ohio has worked in a bipartisan way so we could reach this point of having a major, comprehensive pension reform bill that enjoys strong bipartisan support, and support not only in this body, but in the other body. We are going to pass this legislation with a strong vote, and we hope that it will pass the other body and be enacted into law this year. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides individual tax relief. It will provide billions of dollars of tax relief to individual taxpayers by allowing them to defer their tax liability by putting more of their own resources and their company's resources into retirement plans. That is very important for our country. It is very important for individuals. It is the building block, and we will hear a lot today about other problems that we have in our society. We need to reform the Social Security system. We agree on that. We need to get lower-wage workers to put more money away; and the government should maybe offer some incentives to do that. Congress needs to fix Social Security and offer retirement accounts for individuals. Fixing our current retirement system is the first building block in accomplishing those results. I think that my colleagues agree that the legislation before us should pass, and should pass quickly. I am not going to go into great deal of detail. We have heard why this bill is important. It allows small businesses the opportunity to provide pension plans for their employees. That will help workers today who do not have an employer-sponsored plan. Lower-wage workers need their company to offer incentives so they can participate in a pension plan. It raises all of the limits on defined contribution and defined benefit plans. Mr. Speaker, in raising the limits, we are trying to make up for what inflation has done in reducing the limits by allowing people to make up and be as secure as they used to be in putting money away for their own retirements. The portability issue, many people change jobs regularly. This bill allows for the combination of those different plans to manage your own retirement. We also shorten the vesting rules which is a very important point. The bottom line is in the last decade when we started talking about changing our pension laws, we knew that the savings ratios in the United States was too low. Yes, we have had some very impressive economic growth over the last decade. But in one staring example, we are not doing well, and that is the amount of money that we put away as a Nation in savings. Eight years ago, that was about 9 percent of our earnings. Today it is negative. We have actually spent more as a Nation than we earn. We need to do something about increasing savings. This legislation will move us in that direction. I am proud to be associated with this legislation. I know that it will enjoy broad support in this body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, part of whose bill is included in ours dealing with the portability and vesting.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means who has been very active on the pension issues.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to clarify a point on the Democratic substitute. I am pleased that it adds to the underlying bill. It accepts the fact that the underlying bill is very important and tries to improve upon it. I just want to make it clear that nothing in the Democratic substitute would distract or take away from the underlying Portman-Cardin legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means and one of those individuals who has also been involved in helping us formulate the underlying legislation.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation guaranteeing one of the most fundamental of patients' rights--the right of access to needed emergency medical care. In the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses, I introduced the Access to Emergency Medical Services Act. This bill would establish the ``prudent layperson'' definition of emergency as the standard for insurance coverage for emergency services under group health plans, health insurers, and the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Health plans would be required to cover and pay for emergency care based upon the patient's symptoms rather than the final diagnosis. This coverage is tied to the federal law called EMTALA, which requires hospitals to provide screening and any stabilization services that are necessary. In addition, the legislation would prohibit health plans from requiring that patients obtain prior authorization before seeking emergency care. The bill would also help promote quality, cost-effective care by requiring that health plans and emergency physicians work together to coordinate any necessary follow-up care. The prudent layperson definition requires a health plan to pay for treatment rendered when a patient experiences: A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that a prudent layperson, who possesses an average knowledge of health and medicine could reasonably expect the absence of immediate medical attention to result in placing the health of the individual in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress did indeed guarantee this right to Medicare and Medicaid patients enrolled in managed care plans. Then in February 1998, the President's Executive Order extended this right to all persons in federal health programs, including FEHBP, veterans and military enrollees. So as subscribers in FEHBP plans, all Members of Congress have been guaranteed this important patient protection. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have also passed laws establishing this standard. But to protect residents of the eighteen states that have not passed a prudent layperson standard, and for the approximately 50 million persons who are enrolled in ERISA self-insured plans, Congress must act. But I want to caution my colleagues--simply inserting the words ``prudent layperson'' into a bill does not ensure access to appropriate emergency care. During the House debate on The Patient Protection Act (H.R. 4250) in the 105th Congress, some Members insisted that it contained the same emergency care standard that was provided for in the Balanced Budget Act. In October 1998, thirty Members who had voted for H.R. 4250 recognized that the language was not the Regrettably, the 105th Congress adjourned without additional action on HMO reform. Millions of Americans enrolled in managed care plans were frustrated by our inability to send a bill to the President's desk, but remained hopeful that Congress would produce effective patients rights legislation when it convened this year. In the 106th Congress, this body passed by an overwhelming margin comprehensive managed care reform legislation that got the emergency services language right. But the other body's bill did not. And in the conference that failed to produce a compromise bill, some conferees fought against the language approved by the House, language that is consistent with Medicare and Medicaid law, language that is strongly supported by doctors, hospitals, consumer groups, and one of the oldest and largest health maintenance organizations in the United States, Kaiser Health Plans. And so, joined by my colleague from New Jersey, Mrs. Roukema, today I am reintroducing the Access to Emergency Medical Services Act in the 107th Congress. I encourage all members of Congress to study this issue carefully, listen to their constituents, and support passage of this fundamental legislation. The American consumers deserve to be protected by an authentic prudent layperson standard that ensures them access to the full range of services their acute emergency conditions require, and Congress should give them this right without further delay.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor, Rabbi Mark G. Loeb, an outstanding religious leader who has served the Beth El Congregation of Baltimore for 25 years. He has led this progressive congregation to its present growth of 1,700 families. Rabbi Loeb is recognized for his scholarship and eloquence. He never fails to enlighten and to challenge an audience. Rabbi Mark Loeb has made his mark on the national scene as well. His message of tolerance and caring is not confined to his pulpit at Beth El. He has championed any number of social and interfaith causes to improve the common good of people of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds. One of his most prized roles has been that of National Chair of MAZON-- A Jewish Response to Hunger. He has also served as a past National Program Chair of the Christian-Jewish Workshop, and he has been a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Institute for Christian-Jewish Studies since 1988. Locally, Rabbi Mark Loeb, has served as Past President of the Baltimore Board of Rabbis and is the current Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Baltimore Hebrew University. He has promoted and instituted a comprehensive Jewish education program at Beth El with a defined expectation that a formal course of study will be followed by both the student and his or her parents. The parents and their children together commit to an involvement in Jewish learning. This program for Jewish education has been used as a model in other Jewish congregations around the country. Rabbi Loeb is recognized not only for his own scholarship but for his efforts to promote learning as an important key to a meaningful life. He is also a recognized authority on opera and has formally critiqued and taught others to more fully enjoy this wonderful art form. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Rabbi Mark G. Loeb for his 25 years of service to Beth El Congregation and to many other individuals in the state of Maryland.