Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to an important member of Baltimore's manufacturing community and an institution central to the cultural and social life of Maryland. On Wednesday, September 27, 2000, the General Motors Baltimore Assembly Plant will unveil the 12 millionth vehicle assembled at this plant. Production at the Broening Highway plant began in 1935, in the midst of this country's Great Depression. But the new plant, combined with a willing and capable work force, set new standards for quality production. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, the Baltimore Assembly Plant adapted to the changing needs of the American market. Renovations and upgrades to the assembly line and manufacturing process positioned the plant to remain productive. However, the competitive edge for the Baltimore Assembly Plant has been assured by innovative management and a highly trained and skilled work force. The production of the 12 millionth vehicle marks not only a milestone in a great manufacturing tradition, but sends a clear signal that the Baltimore Assembly Plant is ready to meet new challenges. General Motors Corporation, management at the Baltimore Assembly Plant, the skilled workers, the unions, and Maryland's elected representatives have acknowledged that new products will offer this plant the opportunity to continue its legacy of fine automotive manufacturing. We look forward to, and accept the challenge of working together to secure the future of the Baltimore Assembly Plant. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing congratulations to all those associated with the great past, and a strong future of the General Motors Baltimore Assembly Plant, in Baltimore, MD, on this milestone date.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Let me assure our colleagues that there is strong bipartisan support for the provisions that are contained in this bill that is before us. Many of us, including this Member, is confused on the process. I listened also to the distinguished majority whip explain what this bill is intended to do, and I do not believe that is included in the legislation before us. So I am confused on the process that we are using, but I hope it is an effort that will allow us to enact some very important legislation. I listened to the explanation on the lockbox, and I must tell my colleagues that I am confused on the explanation on the lockbox. As I understand, it is a 1-year bill. And we are going to be judged by our actions on the appropriation bills and on the tax bills, not on the lockbox. Let us be clear about that. I hope at the end of the day that we can say as Democrats and Republicans that we have put as our first priority retiring our debt, which is exactly what the President of the United States has asked us to do, to make the top priority the reduction of our debt with the surplus funds. Let me speak for a moment, if I might, about the pension legislation. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is correct, this bill has been worked very carefully on a bipartisan basis. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), for his leadership on this. Democrats and Republicans joined together in crafting this bill and in passing this bill by 401 votes. I would hope that by bringing it up again today it is a message that we intend to send to the President of the United States a bill that deals with pensions and is not loaded up with other issues that would make it impossible for us to get it enacted this year. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has pointed out, it is important legislation because it is very comprehensive legislation that will not only increase the limits but will help employers provide employer-sponsored pension plans for their employees, which help lower- wage workers because the employer puts the money on the table, making it easier for low-wage workers to put money away for their own retirement. We deal with portability and the realization that the current workforce holds people that will work for more than one employer in their work life, so they need to be able to combine their funds. We remove a lot of the obstacles that make it difficult for employers to sponsor pension plans. We make it easier for individuals to put more money away for themselves to address the critical need in this Nation to increase the savings rates. So I hope at the end of the day that we will be able to come together with a bill that is enacted and sent to the President. And if we can keep it to the pension issues alone, if we do not get confused with some of the other politics around here, I think we can achieve that. But I would urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to work with us on the process issues. It is somewhat confusing to us to wake up in the morning only to find legislation that we thought already was completed in this body has once again been brought up for initial action rather than being sent to the President for signature.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a very special community located in Maryland's 3rd Congressional District. The Perry Hall community is celebrating its 225th anniversary this year. Perry Hall is a thriving, suburban community of 40,000 residents located 10 miles northeast of Baltimore City. It was founded in 1775 by Harry Dorsey Gough, who purchased a 1,000-acre estate called The Adventure. He renamed it Perry Hall after his family's home near Birmingham, England. On that site he built a mansion that became known for magnificent gardens and distinctive architecture. In the years during and after the Civil War, German and Irish families began to settle in the community surrounding the mansion. These families worked hard and developed a thriving dairy and nursery industry. In 1875, Eli Slifer and William Meredith bought the ``Perry Hall'' property, divided it and sold lots to immigrant families, who then began raising ``stoop crops'' such as celery and carrots. Perry Hall began its transformation from rural hamlet to suburban community in the years following World War II. Brick bungalows were built for returning GI's and their brides. New schools were built to serve their growing families and the first shopping center arrived in 1961. In 1981, the transformation was completed with construction of White Marsh Mall. While the farms and forests of Perry Hall have been replaced by housing developments, shopping centers and new businesses, the most important part of Perry Hall still remains: its friendliness and warmth. This year, Perry Hall has celebrated it's 225th year with a series of events, picnics and concerts. The Perry Hall Improvement Association will cap off this anniversary year with the Millennium Ball on Nov. 3, 2000. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing congratulations to all who live in Perry Hall, Maryland, and in wishing them the best on this historic anniversary.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives recently voted on H.R. 4892, a bill to repeal the federal charter of the Boy Scouts of America. I voted against the bill, and would like to take this opportunity to explain my reasons. My vote against this legislation should not in any way be interpreted as a weakeming in my support for banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I deplore discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I will continue to work to meaningfully expand our nation's civil rights protections for gays and lesbians. At the same time, I share the concerns raised by others about the policy of discrimination that gave rise to the Supreme Court case in Boy Scouts of America versus Dale. Certainly we all recognize the high regard the Boy Scouts of America are held in by millions of Americans. The organization has played a positive role in the lives of millions of young Americans. In June, a sharply divided Supreme Court held that applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit a homosexual member violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association. As a practical matter, therefore, the Boy Scouts will be permitted to exclude citizens from participating in their organization solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. I regret the Supreme Court's decision. Unfortunately, a Congressional review of the federal charter given to the Boy Scouts, and the process the Republican leadership has employed in bringing this bill to the House floor, is not the appropriate venue to address this issue. I am disappointed that the Judiciary Committee did not fulfill its responsibility to hold hearings on this legislation. I strongly believe that the Republican leadership has not properly reviewed the underlying legal and constitutional issues at stake in this bill, and I regret that the bill has been brought up under the suspension of the rules. Under this procedure, members have no opportunity to ask questions or offer amendments. Rather than considering legislation to revoke the federal charter of the Boy Scouts--which in and of itself will do nothing to protect our society from discrimination--this Congress should be considering substantive legislation to strengthen anti-discrimination laws based on one's sexual preference. I also believe that Congress should conduct a comprehensive review of its system of granting charters to private organizations. As you know, Congress has chartered roughly 90 nonprofit corporations over the years, including many well-known patriotic, charitable, historical, or educational purpose organizations. I share the concems of my colleagues that the public may misinterpret the granting of a federal charter as a sign of Congressional or governmental approval of an organization. In 1989, the House Judiciary Committee decided to place a moratorium on federal charters. I believe the Committee should examine whether Congress should allow existing federal charters to lapse, so that Congress is no longer in the business of seeming to endorse private organizations. Let me reiterate that I believe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unacceptable. I will continue to support H.R. 1082, to expand federal criminal law protection to extend to sexual orientation, and I will continue to work for the enactment of the Employment Non- Discrimination Act (ENDA). I believe that the Congress must take concrete steps to revise government policies that would bring about a more inclusive American family, which embraces all of our citizens as individuals worthy of equal protection of the law.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the former ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, and a person who has been extremely active on child support issues.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there are different views in this House in regards to this particular issue. I happen to agree with the position of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and will support the motion. However, regardless of what happens on the motion, I urge my colleagues to support the final passage of this legislation. I am joined in this request by all the Democratic members of our subcommittee: the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). This is an extremely important bill. Let the House work its will on this motion, but please support final passage.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear, there is no disagreement on either side of the aisle or that I know of any Member of this body, that the participation of the faith-based groups in the programs we are talking about. They are an instrumental part of the fabric of our Nation and are extremely important in the delivery of services. The question is, it must be consistent with the Constitution establishment clause and separation of church and State. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for bringing forward two amendments or two opportunities for us to clarify that issue. And we are going to have a healthy debate on it. At the end of the day, the House, this body will work its will; and whatever the results are, I am prepared to abide by. I urge at the end of the day that we all join together as we have during this debate and support the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I support the Scott amendment. I think it is a common sense approach, and I hope that this body will approve that amendment. But I want to make it clear, regardless of what happens on the Scott amendment, it is important that we approve this legislation. Let me point out that all the Democratic Members of the subcommittee, which include the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and myself sent a letter out to make it clear that if the Scott amendment does not pass, we urge support for H.R. 4678 because the bill takes real steps to lift low-income mothers and their children out of poverty. This is very important legislation. Secondly, let me just quote, if I might, from Governor Glendening of Maryland, when I asked him about the pass through issue in my own State, he said in the last session, the Maryland general assembly considered this issue, but decided not to take action on such a significant and costly policy change without a clear knowledge of how the Federal Government will approach this issue and share in the costs involved. It is important that we pass legislation clarifying child support pass through, so that our States can take advantage of the pass through issues to help low-income families. I urge my colleagues that, regardless of what position my colleagues take on the Scott amendment, to please support the final passage of the legislation.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to first start by thanking my colleague and friend, the Chair of our subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), for bringing this legislation forward. It has not been an easy process and rarely is important legislation moved forward without the hard work of our Chair. The gentlewoman from Connecticut deserves a lot of credit for her tenacity in staying with this issue. The legislation before us moves our Nation forward on a policy that will help children by getting more child support to the family. While that might sound like common sense, current law actually penalizes States that want to send child support collections to families struggling to leave welfare and in some cases to families that have already left public assistance. I can tell my colleagues in my own State of Maryland our legislature has struggled with this issue. Because of the penalties imposed by Federal law, they have been unable to reach agreement to pass more child support through to the families. If a State sends child support collections to a family on welfare, they still owe the Federal Government between half to three-quarters of that same child support payment. This has discouraged States from sending child support to families and encouraged them to adopt an effective 100 percent tax rate on child support payments to certain families. The Child Support Distribution Act as modified by the amendment included in the rule would end this disincentive for States to send child support to families. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) pointed out that when this bill is fully implemented, $1 billion a year in child support will go to low-income families. During the 10-year phase-in period, $6.3 billion of child support collections will actually go to the families. That is good news for families in our Nation. This bipartisan measure would provide States with various options to send child support to low- income families with the Federal Government acting as a partner rather than a financial barrier for the States to do what they believe is best for the families in their own States. For example, a State would be able to permit the pass-through of $400 a month to families receiving cash welfare as long as that amount is disregarded for welfare payment purposes. In addition, States could send all support to families that have left cash assistance. Now, there are three primary reasons why this makes good policy sense. The first and the most obvious that we have talked about is that more resources are going to go into low-income families. There is a better chance that families will actually be able to succeed and get off of welfare and be able to take care of their own financial needs. That is the obvious reason why this legislation makes sense. The second, it encourages the noncustodial parent to be more involved in the upbringing of his or her child. In most cases it is the father. But it connects the father to the family when the money goes directly to the needs of the child. It makes it easier to collect child support. A father is going to be more willing to pay the money when the money actually goes to the family. And the third is that it simplifies the administration of our child support system. Our committees have had hearings and have listened to child support enforcement people at our State level about the complexity of our current system. This legislation, in fact, will simplify that system. In addition to the child support provisions that are included in this legislation, we have also put into this legislation the fatherhood initiative that already passed this body by an overwhelming vote last year; $150 million in grants to community-based organizations to promote marriage, encourage the payment of child support, and enhance the employment prospect of low-income parents. I am particularly pleased that that legislation has been modified. We continue to learn. We have put additional provisions in that legislation to prevent domestic violence. That is certainly a welcome addition that we were able to include in the legislation. We have also included in the legislation before my colleagues improvements in our child support enforcement provisions as it relates to the issuance of passports and visas for those who are delinquent in the payment of child support. Mr. Speaker, child support for families is common sense. Now we must make it the law of the land. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. We are very pleased that many of the outside groups, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the National Women's Law Center, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the Children's Defense Fund, all urge a favorable vote on this legislation because, as they state in their letter to us dated July 26, it will distribute more support to families to help them maintain employment and reduce welfare, it simplifies the State child support system, and it provides the needed services to low-income noncustodial parents to help them support and raise their children. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me point out that this legislation has had a rough going through our committee. I particularly want to thank Ron Haskins of the majority staff and Nick Gwyn of the Democratic staff for putting children first and finding a way that we could bridge our differences so that we could bring forward the legislation today that enjoys strong bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) who has been one of our real champions on helping us understand the issues concerning child support and who has done a great job in helping our committee.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank my friends, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), for bringing forward this legislation that honors Judge Watts. I can think of no person more appropriate to be honored than Judge Watts. He was my friend. He was my mentor. As my colleagues have pointed out, yes, he was responsible for breaking many barriers. He was an outstanding jurist. He was a colleague of my father on the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City and a close friend of my father and our family. I remember sharing many dinners together with Judge Watts and his family. He was an extraordinary individual. But I think his greatest accomplishment was the way that Judge Watts was able to bring communities and people together. He could mediate problems in a neighborhood. He could mediate problems in a city. He could mediate problems in our State. He was called upon by governors, by legislators, by jurists, by attorneys to help bring his wisdom to improve our community. And as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) pointed out, he never turned down a request, serving on 14 boards at one time. Let me just share with my colleagues one example of one board that he agreed to serve on. He served with me as a trustee at St. Mary's College in St. Mary's City, Maryland, not exactly close to his hometown of Baltimore. It was about a 2-hour commute in order to attend the trustees meetings. Now, Judge Watts was well known in Baltimore, but he was willing to take his knowledge and expertise and use it to help a small liberal arts college in a rural part of our State. He never missed a meeting that I can remember. He was always an active participant. We had a very sensitive issue that, quite frankly, I do not think anyone but Judge Watts could have resolved. St. Mary's College is one of the finest public liberal arts colleges in this Nation. And this is a tribute also to Judge Watts' talent, leadership, and willingness to get involved in community activities. Mr. Speaker, he spent his life serving his community. I am proud that today we are going to be able to honor his community by the naming of this facility. I congratulate all involved.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my friends on both sides of the aisle, I think some good points have been made here. I think there are some facts that we should at least get on the table as to where we are. There is a marriage penalty. Married couples pay some more taxes than they would if they were not married. That is wrong and we should correct it. Fact number two, the conference report that is before us will spend a lot of money that will not go to people who are presently paying a penalty for being married. Let us acknowledge that. The Joint Committee on Taxation has scored the conference report before us. It spends $292 billion over the next 10 years. Half of that relief, $145 billion, goes to taxpayers who presently pay less taxes because they are married rather than more taxes. Fact number three, when $292 billion is added to the other tax bills that have been passed by this body, we are now up to $874 billion in tax bills that we have passed. Now let us put that to the economic conditions in a budget that we are trying to deal with. We have projected surpluses. We have not realized those surpluses yet. We had demographic changes in this country that are going to put real pressure on our Social Security and Medicare system. We all understand that. So passing an $874 billion tax bill is reckless. It is wrong. It jeopardizes the economic progress that everybody is proud of in this body. Democrats and Republicans are proud of the progress that we have made in strengthening our economy, but our top priority should be to pay down the national debt, to make sure that we can meet our obligations in Social Security and in Medicare. That should be our top priority, but instead we are passing tax bill after tax bill that in total is irresponsible. The sad tragedy of the bill before us is that we acknowledge there is a problem that we should deal with, but we could deal with it for one half the cost of what we are spending in this bill. We are spending $150 billion more than we need to spend. That $150 billion, if we could use that we could have a prescription drug plan in Medicare that really makes some sense, that will really help our seniors deal with the high cost of medicines. $150 billion will help us reduce the deficit faster, which pays off big dividends to everyone. The national debt is a tax on all of us, every one of our constituents, whether they are married or not married, whether they have a marriage penalty, do not have a marriage penalty. Yes, those that pay a penalty want relief, but all taxpayers want to see our national debt retired. All of our citizens want to make sure that we live up to our obligations in Social Security and Medicare. I have heard both Democrats and Republicans talk about strengthening Medicare with a prescription drug benefit. So let us have a budget. Let us follow regular order. Let us have a budget that makes sense. Yes, it should provide tax relief, but it should make sure that we are going to pay down the debt. It should make sure that we can comply with the other obligations, and it should target the relief that deals with the people that really have a marriage penalty. This bill does not do it. We can do better. We can work in a true bipartisan way so that we can get relief to those who need it this year. There is still time that remains. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report and work in a bipartisan way to produce a bill that will help those who pay the penalty.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first, if I might, let me thank my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, particularly the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) for his long work on pension issues, on his interest in improving retirement savings accounts for all workers; the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who has been one of the real spokespersons for pension reform since his first day in the House; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), who has been a key player on the pension reform issues; and I know the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), who is not on the floor, he will be here later; and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) who has a provision in this bill as it relates to ESOPs. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) pointed out, this is truly a bipartisan bill. But I particularly want to recognize the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership on this issue. The gentleman has demonstrated amazing patience in working with all elements, not only here in Congress, but the different interest groups so that we could fashion the bill that could truly be a bill that all of us should be proud of and a bill that has been developed in a very bipartisan way. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has reached out to all of us, and I thank him for that. The process that has been used for this legislation is the right process. Each provision has been well vetted. We have had public hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means. We have established the record. We have had a mark-up in the committee. We have brought forward a bill that is deserving Members' support. Why do we need this legislation? Well, it is pretty self-obvious. We brag about the economic progress of our Nation, low inflation rates, high economic growth, stock market still growing; but our saving ratios over the last 2 decades have steadily declined. In fact, we have had negative quarters. We actually spend more money than we earn as a Nation. That is certainly nothing that we can be proud of. We understand that income security retirement requires, not only a strong Social Security system, but a strong private retirement system; and this is what the legislation is aimed at doing. So what do we do? Well, we adjust limits to try to bring it back to where they used to be. Let me just give my colleagues a couple of examples. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) mentioned the defined benefit. In 1982, that was $136,000. If we adjusted for inflation, it would be $242,000. Instead, it is $135,000 and we raise it to $160,000. How about the 401(k)'s that many of our constituents are well aware of. In 1986, that was $30,000. If we adjust it for inflation, it would be $47,000 today. Instead, it is $10,500. We make a modest change to $5,000. Why do we do this? Well, it is interesting. When we reduce the limits, and we did reduce the compensation limit in 1993, we reduced it from 235,000 to 170,000. What happened? What happened? We found that employers dropped their plans. They went to nonqualified plans. We had a threefold increase in nonqualified plans that year. These compensation limits are important if employers are going to be sponsoring plans for all of their employees. We provide special benefits for women. Women many times enter the workforce; later they take time out of the workforce. We reduce the vesting so that workers can be entitled to defined contribution benefits by their employers earlier, 3 years rather than 6. We allow for catch-up contributions, because many times one is a little bit older before one is able to put money away, so we allow an extra $5,000 contribution when someone reaches the age of 50. One is finished paying one's children's college education bills, maybe one has got the mortgage down to a more realistic level. Now one can start thinking about retirement; we allow one to do that. We put the 415 provisions in there for people who work for labor unions. We help all workers. Mr. Speaker, I am still somewhat disappointed by criticisms that this bill is aimed at wealthy high-paid workers. It is not. It is aimed at allowing employers to continue pension plans that help all workers. If one has an employer-sponsored plan, the employer puts money on the table. That helps the lower-wage workers. We want to encourage those types of pension plans. The IRA provisions, most of the money goes into the IRA provisions. That goes to workers basically who are making less than $60,000 a year. These provisions are well targeted. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) pointed out the top-heavy changes. We do not eliminate top-heavy rules; we make them work. We make them effective. The one provision we change in top heavy is, say, that if an employer has a matched contribution, that should count towards the 3 percent. For my colleagues see, if a pension plan is top heavy, the employer is required to make a 3 percent contribution. Under current law, that employer cannot count their matched contributions. What does that do? Employers drop their matched contribution. This encourages employers to continue to put money on the table which helps lower-wage workers and younger workers actually participate in a pension plan. It is a well-balanced approach. Sure, one might want to pick at one provision and say, does this not help one special group? All of the provisions help all of our workers. It will help us plan for people's retirement. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the Democratic substitute is an add-on to the underlying Portman-Cardin H.R. 1102 legislation. By that I mean that all of the provisions of H.R. 1102 remain if one votes for the Democratic substitute. It adds some additional provisions to provide more incentives for particularly low-wage workers to be able to put money away for their retirement. When the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and I started working on this legislation 3 years ago, we were very sensitive to the fact that we had not balanced the Federal budget and that we should be very cautious on the use of tax revenues. We were very conservative in our approach. Quite frankly, we did not think that there would be as much money available for savings incentives as now appears to be the case as we start considering legislation, not only to reform our pension laws but to reform Social Security and the ability of individuals to have private accounts, whether they are part of Social Security or independent add-ons to Social Security. So I think the discussion has changed somewhat. The Democratic substitute provides for retirement savings accounts. That will help low-wage workers. Let me indicate some of the problems that we encountered as we worked on H.R. 1102. We were looking for ways to help low-wage workers and to help young workers, because the truth is young workers and low-wage workers are very difficult to get their attention to put money away for savings. I am proud of the provisions in the underlying bill that will help low-wage workers and will help young workers, because the underlying bill encourages employers to sponsor retirement plans and to use some of the same tools that we use in the thrift savings by offering employer contribution to retirement and to offer match by employer. That is good and that will help, and that is why this is an important bill. The RSAs go to the next step and say let us have the government as a partner in providing incentives for particularly lower-wage workers to set up their own retirement funds. There is another important part to the Democratic substitute I would like to mention, and that is the provision that deals with small business, small business credits. It was actually in the Portman-Cardin bill, H.R. 1102; and as has been pointed out in a little bit earlier debate, I hope it does make its way into the bill as it works its way through Congress. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) first introduced this bill, H.R. 1021, that provides this credit. We have incorporated it in the Democratic substitute. It was in H.R. 1102, and I think it is an improvement to add an additional tool for small business to set up pension plans. There is already important provisions in H.R. 1102 that are going to help small business. This improves it. So, basically, the substitute is an improvement of the underlying bill and spends a lot more money than the underlying bill that we did not want to do when we originally looked at H.R. 1102. So I hope my colleagues will look favorably upon this substitute. I think it does provide a bridge for us to ultimately work out an arrangement with the White House on tax legislation. I hope regardless of how one feels on the Democratic substitute, and I do hope that they will support it, I hope they will support the underlying bill. I think this legislation is extremely important. I think we can improve it with the substitute; but regardless of what happens with the substitute, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation so that we can move forward to help secure retirement for those people when they retire.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on the bill H.R. 4810.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out what this motion to recommit does. It is very simple. One, it says maximize relief to low- and middle- income people. It does not says 100 percent, exclusive, it says to maximize. Second, it says minimize the relief to those achieving a bonus. It does not say zero or no relief, it says give the relief to those who had the penalty. Third, it says be fiscally responsible. Mr. Speaker, there is a chance for us to work in a bipartisan way. I would urge my colleagues to accept this motion to instruct so the conferees can work in a bipartisan way, bring a bill out that can pass this body and the other body and be signed by the President. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think we did debate this issue when the bill was before us and the chairman is correct, we do have a motion to instruct that we would like to offer at the appropriate time. 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, let me just point out what the motion to instruct says. In regards to the effective dates and phase-in amounts, we suggest that it be done in a fiscally responsible way. I do not know why any Member of this body would oppose the conference committee acting in a fiscally responsible way. That is part of our responsibility here. However, the main point of the motion to instruct, the main point is, yes, we want to help those people who are being penalized because they are married. Because they have a basically equivalent or similar income, they are paying a higher tax rate than they would if they were two individuals. Approximately half of our married couples are affected by the marriage penalty; about 50 percent fall into that category. The problem is that the legislation that passed this body provides an equal amount of relief to every person who is married, regardless of whether they are in the penalty position or the bonus position. So the motion to instruct simply says to the conferees, target the relief to those that are penalized by their marital status. Use the tax relief in the most cost-effective way. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this body would agree with this motion to instruct. If we are able to do that, then I think we can have a strong bipartisan vote and get a bill not only that will come out of conference and will pass this body and the other body, but will also be signed by the President. It is for those reasons that this motion to instruct is offered. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just point out that the other body gave a more generous provision in regards to the bonuses; and, therefore, it is within the scope of the conference. But, Mr. Speaker, I think the key point here, and what we are trying to do by this motion to instruct, is target the relief to those who pay the penalty and to try to work out a bill that could be signed into law that will provide relief to our taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back my time; however, I do not know whether the gentleman from Texas has any other speakers or not.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct makes it very clear that the conferees should try to resolve the differences between the two bodies so that the maximum amount of relief goes to those who need the relief, those that are of low- and middle income, rather than going to the higher income taxpayers. Secondly, it points out what we believe to be a major problem with the legislation that was passed by this body, and that is the legislation that was passed by this body cost about $180 billion, of which about 50 percent of that relief went to individuals who actually had a marriage bonus; that is, their taxes were actually less as a result of them being married. They were able to take advantage of lower rates because the husband and wife filed a joint return. That happens frequently, where one of the spouses has the majority of the income. What we are suggesting to the conferees is that we agree that we should try to deal with those that have the penalty; therefore, we should minimize the amount of tax relief that goes to those who are already receiving a bonus. Let us put the relief to those that are actually paying the penalty rather than putting the relief to those who are already getting a bonus for being married. Lastly, we would point out that we have to resolve the effective dates and phase-in amounts in a way that takes into account fiscal responsibility. I would hope that all of us would agree that that is one of the issues that we would hope our conferees would resolve. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)