Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I was going to yield time for closing to the gentleman from Illinois from our side; but instead, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to express appreciation to President Clinton for bringing together the prime minister of Israel, Mr. Barak, and Mr. Arafat at Camp David. I know that we all hope and pray for peace in the Middle East. Mr. Barak has shown tremendous courage in putting peace first, in trying to find a way in which we can find true and lasting peace in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, I hope that Mr. Arafat and Mr. Barak will understand the historical significance of this meeting and will take advantage of this opportunity so that at least we can look forward to the future of peace in the Middle East.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the approximately 100,000 people who live in the Third Congressional District of Maryland that are affected by this bill are going to be somewhat perplexed by the debate that is taking place. About half of this 100,000 are currently paying a marriage penalty for being married. That is wrong. And they have their Congressman here today speaking up and saying that we should do something to help that approximately 50,000 that are paying a marriage penalty for being married. These are couples that have approximately the same income that are paying a penalty under our tax code for being married. The other half are receiving a bonus today. These are individuals that are actually paying less taxes by being married than they would if they were filing single returns. These are couples in which one spouse has a much higher income than the other spouse. If they were living together without the benefit of marriage, they would actually be paying more taxes. They have a marriage bonus. They are not calling me. They are not writing me asking me to provide more relief because they are married. They are already getting the bonus. The problem with the Republican bill is that it spends $182 billion and one-half of that is going to the people that are already receiving a marriage bonus. This is not the first tax bill that we are considering in this body. We have already been considering estate tax repeal that spends $69 billion over 10 years and then explodes in cost. And the list goes on and on and on. The problem is we cannot afford to continue to spend money to deal with a problem that spends much more than we need to to deal with the issue. We have seniors who need prescription medicine coverage under Medicare. We have schools that we need to reduce class size and modernize. There are other priorities that we need to deal with. This Congressman is interested in helping the people who pay a marriage penalty that live in my district. We can do that for one-half the cost of this bill. It is in the interest of all of my taxpayers, those that are paying a penalty, those that are receiving a bonus, that we do it right. The Democratic substitute is better targeted. We should be working together, Democrats and Republicans, to figure out how we can target the relief to those that are paying the penalty and, therefore, we can do other priorities in addition to just this one. That is what we should be doing. But unfortunately this is more about a political message than it is about helping the 50,000 plus people in the Third Congressional District of Maryland that are truly paying a marriage penalty and deserve some relief by this body and unfortunately will not get it because of our inability to work together on a bill that could be signed by the President.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the legislation which I am introducing, which is a companion bill to the one introduced by Senator Sarbanes, would provide NOAA with additional resources and authority necessary to ensure its continued full participation in the Bay's restoration and in meeting with goals and objectives of the recently signed Chesapeake 2000. First, this measure would move administration and oversight of the NOAA Bay Office from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to the Office of the Undersecretary to help facilitate the pooling of all of NOAA's talents and take better advantage of NOAA's multiple capabilities. In addition to NMFS there are four other line offices within NOAA with programs and responsibilities critical to the Bay restoration effort--the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Ocean Service, National Weather Service, and National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service. Getting these different line offices to pool their resources and coordinate their activities is a serious challenge when they do not have a direct stake or clear line of responsibility to the Chesapeake Bay Program. Placing the NOAA Bay office within the Under Secretary's Office will help assure the coordination of activities across all line organizations of NOAA. Second, the legislation authorizes and directs NOAA to undertake a special five-year study, in cooperation with the scientific community of the Chesapeake Bay and appropriate other federal agencies, to develop the knowledge base required for understanding multi-species interactions and developing multi-species management plans. To date, fisheries management in Chesapeake Bay and other waters, has been largely based upon single-species plans that often ignore the critical relationships between water and habitat quality, ecosystem health and the food webs that support the Bay's living resources. There is a growing consensus between scientific leaders and managers alike that we must move beyond the single species approach toward a wider, multi-species and ecosystem perspective. Chesapeake 2000 calls for developing multi-species management plans for targeted species by the year 2005 and implementing the plans by 2007. In order to achieve these goals, NOAA must take a leadership role and support a sustained research and monitoring program. The Chesapeake Bay NOAA multi-species plans can, in fact, provide important information to other fisheries programs throughout the United States. Third, the legislation authorizes NOAA to carry out a small-scale fishery and habitat restoration grant and technical assistance program to help citizens organizations and local governments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed undertake habitat, fish and shellfish restoration projects. Experience has shown that, with the proper tools and training, citizens' groups and local communities can play a tremendous role in fisheries and habitat protection and restoration efforts. The new Bay Agreement has identified a critical need to not only expand and promote community-based programs but to restore historic levels of oyster production, restore living resource habitat and submerged aquatic vegetation. The NOAA small-grants program, which this bill would authorize, would complement EPA's Chesapeake Bay small watershed program, and make ``seed'' grants available on a competitive, cost- sharing basis to local governments and nonprofit organizations to implement hands-on projects such as improvement of fish passageways, creating artificial or natural reefs, restoring wetlands and sea-grass beds, and producing oysters for restoration projects. Fourth, the legislation would establish an internet-based Coastal Predictions Center for the Chesapeake Bay. Resource managers and scientists alike agree that we must make better use of the various modeling and monitoring systems and new technologies to improve prediction capabilities and response to physical and chemical events within the Bay and tributary rivers. There are substantial amounts of data collected and compiled by Federal, state and local government agencies and academic institutions including information on weather, tides, currents, circulation, climate, land use, coastal environmental quality, aquatic living resources and habitat conditions. Unfortunately, little of this data is coordinated and organized in a manner that is useful to the wide range of potential users. The Coastal Predictions Center would serve as a knowledge bank for assembling monitoring and modeling data from relevant government agencies and academic institutions, interpreting that data, and organizing it into products that are useful to resource managers, scientists and the public. Finally, the legislation would increase the authorization for the NOAA Bay Program from the current level of $2.5 million to $6 million per year to enhance current activities and to carry out these new initiatives. For more than a decade, funding for NOAA's Bay Program has remained static at an annual average of $1.9 million. If we are to achieve the ultimate, long-term goal of the Bay Program--protecting, restoring and maintaining the health of the living resources of the Bay--additional financial resources must be provided. The Chesapeake Bay Program, with the important participation of the NOAA Bay Office, has exhibited leadership utilizing the marine sciences to provide guidance for decision makers in the restoration and protection of this unique natural resource. This bill will not only continue that leadership but will significantly advance the knowledge generated from the additional functions called for in the reauthorization. This bill is supported by a number of Bay organizations and members of the scientific community.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the Sun Papers, my local paper, in looking at a plan that solely relies upon private insurance, said in this morning's editorial, ``Some Congressional Republicans concede it is an unworkable approach. Even health insurance companies oppose this plan. They know there is little or no profit in it for them, but plenty of administrative headaches. The best way to handle a prescription drug program is through the existing Medicare system.'' Mr. Speaker, that is a system that works on a 3 percent overhead versus private insurance at 25 percent overhead, one that guarantees benefits to our seniors, unlike the Republican bill, that does not guarantee any specific benefit or any specific premium to our seniors. Mr. Speaker, the Sun Papers goes on to say, ``The Republican plan should be rejected. A more sensible approach championed by the Democrats would be tying prescription drug subsidies to the existing Medicare program.'' The Sun Papers called the Republican plan ``a placebo, which the dictionary defines as a substance containing no medication and given merely to humor a patient.'' This is an apt description of the Republican plan. It should be rejected.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I seek time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, first let me say to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), if we get a ship that is moving through the S-turn that happens to go aground and starts spilling oil, I think then all of us are going to say why did we let this happen. I am thinking about what I can say to my colleagues who are listening to this debate to try to impress upon them why they should reject this amendment. Sure, I can go through the safety considerations, and we have gone through that. I can read to them a letter signed by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) that says the Tolchester project involves safety-related modifications of the existing channel which makes five course changes within 3 miles. The Corps of Engineers is completing a safety-related study of the project. We request that the committee indicate support for the execution of the project as a safety improvement using operation and maintenance funding authority. This was signed by our entire delegation, including the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). I could tell my colleagues that this does meet the standards to be funded, otherwise the distinguished chairman and ranking member would not have included it in the bill they brought forward. The administration would not have included it in its funding. This is not an add-on. This is authorized funding and has met all of the standards. I could talk about the need, about the pilots, the bay pilots that have been in my office that tell us of the safety hazards and the time delays that are caused because of the S-turn and how this change should be made from the point of view of the efficiency and safety of our port. I could tell my colleagues about the environmental issues; that all of us are very concerned about the environment and we have worked very hard. Our entire delegation will stand by the Army Corps' findings. And if this is not consistent with the environmental standards, that we are not going to support any type of activity that jeopardizes the progress that we have made in the last 25 years for the Port of Baltimore. I could tell my colleagues all these things, but let me just maybe make one point. This has followed the orderly process. And if my colleagues believe there should be a process in approving these projects, reject the gentleman's amendment. We have four Members of our delegation on the floor that represent this area, two Democrats, one Republican, opposing the gentleman's amendment. We all are concerned about the area; but we recognize that in order to make progress, in order for safety, in order for the efficiency of this port and in order for the environment of our area, we must reject the gentleman's amendment. As well intended as it is, the gentleman is opposed to dredging. He is opposed to any new dump sites. I understand his position, but it is not the orderly process that we followed. We have complied with all of the requests that have been asked of us. Allow the study to go forward. Let the Army Corps reach its judgment. We are all satisfied to be controlled by how the Army Corps reaches that decision. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from the Eastern Shore might represent the area around the C&D Canal, whereas I represent, along with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the Port of Baltimore. Although none of us can judge what the Army Corps will or will not do in their studies, we all acknowledge, those of us who represent the Port of Baltimore, how important it is to maintain and strengthen the entry into the Baltimore port. The Baltimore port is unique. It is more inland than the East Coast ports, but because of that, it takes more time to get to the Port of Baltimore. The fact that we have two days to enter and exit the port is one of the key advantages to the Port of Baltimore. The maintenance of the C&D Canal is absolutely essential to the health of the Port of Baltimore. The Port of Baltimore represents 18,000 direct jobs, 87,000 port-related jobs, 69,000 indirect jobs in our region, and $1.3 billion annually to Maryland. Business revenues are affected by the Port of Baltimore, $40 million in U.S. custom receipts. So, Mr. Chairman, the majority of our delegation, the overwhelming majority of our delegation, is going to ask this body to reject the Gilchrest amendment because it could jeopardize very much the health of the Port of Baltimore. As my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) pointed out, we authorized this project several years ago by unanimous support within our delegation. Democrats, Republicans, support the maintenance of our channels. My colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) mentioned the environmental issues, the Chesapeake Bay. We are all working very hard on the Chesapeake Bay, Mr. Chairman. I am proud of the work that my constituents are doing on the streams that lead into the Bay. We have worked very hard at the State level and the national level to deal with the Bay. But to raise the issue of maintaining decent entry or exits to our ports as compromising the Bay is an insult to the Army Corps, an insult to those of us who worked very hard on this issue. The Army Corps is going to release its report, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is absolutely correct. My colleague is more concerned, I think, about where the dredge materials are being placed than the actual dredging within the C&D Canal. All of us in our delegation strongly support the independence of the Army Corps in reaching the right decision as to the environmental risks involved. We also believe it is the Army Corps' responsibility to go through the economics of it and come out with the right conclusion. We set up the Army Corps as our agents in this matter, and now the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) is saying we cannot trust the Army Corps. Let us at least let the process move forward. This is not a local project that affects one congressional district in this country, this is a project that affects the health of our region. That is why we are going to find that the overwhelming majority, Democrats and Republicans, in our region, in our State, are going to oppose the Gilchrest amendment. We ask Members to respect our delegation's point of view, respect the fact that we need to maintain a healthy and competitive and safe port. Safety is very much at issue here. We will do nothing to compromise our environment. We are all committed to it. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I ask my colleagues to support the chairman of the subcommittee, to support the majority of the Maryland delegation, and to support common sense and fair play and allow this project to move forward and reject the Gilchrest amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the dean of the Maryland delegation.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), my colleague from Baltimore.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it would be irresponsible for us to support this resolution and to withdraw from international trade community, and I certainly oppose this resolution. But let me point out, I think we can do a better job in this body in monitoring our participation in the World Trade Organization. Let me just point out a couple points if I might. First, we could improve our antisurge provisions in our own trade laws, our antidumping and countervailing duty provisions in our section 201 relief. Last year, we had a surge of steel, cheap steel, subsidized steel into the United States which costs us many jobs around our country. We could have done a better job. In fact, we did a better job with the recently negotiated agreement with China. We have a better provision in our current law. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) was instrumental in incorporating that into statute in the legislation that we approved the permanent NTR. So we could do a better job with all of our trading partners in protecting our industries from illegally imported subsidized products. Secondly, we could do a better job on the review process. A 5-year review without much preparation and advance is not the way we should be reviewing our participation with the WTO. Today, Mr. Speaker, I filed legislation, and I would like my colleagues to review it and hopefully join me in supporting, that incorporates the suggestion of Senator Dole and supported by the USTR that would set up a commission composed of five Federal appellate judges to review the WTO dispute settlement reports and to make a report to Congress. This Commission would, if they found that the WTO exceeded its authority, affected our rights under the Uruguay Rounds, acted arbitrarily or decided a case outside of the applicable standards, if that happened, and it has happened that the WTO has made, in the view of legal experts, decisions that do not hold with the precedent and the laws and the obligations under the WTO and Uruguay Rounds, they would make that report to Congress. Any one of us could file a joint resolution requesting the President to negotiate dispute resolutions within the WTO that address these concerns. If there were three such adverse rulings in a 5-year period, any one of us could file a joint resolution of disapproval of participation in the WTO. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a more effective way to deal with the review than voting on this every 5 years, when it would be irresponsible to vote in favor of it. If we did that, I think we are showing the WTO that we are watching their decision making very carefully and expect that their decisions will be in compliance with the international standards and the obligations that every Nation with the WTO has agreed to. It would be a more effective review process for us to decide whether we want to continue in the WTO. I urge my colleagues to support that approach and to reject this resolution. Today the House will consider H.J. Res. 90, a resolution to withdraw Congressional approval of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). I voted against this measure in the Ways and Means Committee, and I urge you to join me in voting against this resolution today on the floor. The United States' role as the clear leader in advancing the cause of free and fair trade demands our continued participation in the WTO. At the same time, there are serious problems in the operations and deliberations of the WTO that we should seek to address. Toward that end, I ask today that you join as a co-sponsor on legislation I have prepared which would create a WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission. The need for this legislation is clear. Over the past several years, we have witnessed too many instances in which unfounded interpretations of international trade law have led to WTO decisions that adversely impacted U.S. workers and industries. Specific cases involving lead bars, Korean DRAM's, and Japanese film all raised serious issues regarding the processes and conclusions of WTO actions. We need to provide a process by which these decisions can be reviewed by an impartial, nonpartisan panel that has the responsibility to inform the Congress and the American people of its findings. In 1994 the United States Trade Representative (USTR) wrote to then- Senator Bob Dole to endorse the establishment of a WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission. The bill I am introducing would revive a proposal made by Senator Dole to create a mechanism to provide that WTO decisions are carefully reviewed to assure the fair and sensible application of the rules of international trade. The Commission would consist of five federal appellate judges, and would review all final and adopted WTO dispute settlement reports. The Commission would review adverse WTO findings, using the following set of four criteria to determine whether the WTO panel: (1) demonstrably exceeded its authority or its terms of reference; (2) added to the obligations, or diminished the rights, of the United States under the Uruguay Round; (3) acted arbitrarily or capriciously, engaged in misconduct, or demonstrably departed from established panel or appellate procedure in the applicable Uruguay Round Agreement; and (4) deviated from the applicable standard of review, including in antidumping cases, set forth in the 1994 GATT agreement. The Commission would issue its determination within 120 days after the report is adopted. Upon the issuance of any affirmative determination by the Commission, any Member of each House would be able to introduce a joint resolution calling on the President to negotiate new dispute settlement rules that would address and correct the problem identified by the Commission. The resolution would be privileged and considered under expedited committee and floor procedures. If there are three affirmative determinations in any five-year period, any Member of each House would be able to introduce a joint resolution to disapprove U.S. participation in the Uruguay Round agreements, again using expedited procedures. While we may disagree on the appropriate remedy for responding to an adverse WTO panel decision, we all agree WTO panel decisions must treat American economic interests fairly. The Review Commission would raise the visibility of important WTO decisions that have a profound effect on the economy of the United States. I hope that the Commission would also reinvigorate the Congressional oversight role regarding trade policy, and encourage Members of Congress to seriously reflect on WTO decisions and their impact on the United States.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on this date, in 1777, 223 years ago, the Continental Congress approved the first flag of our Nation. June 14 is now known as Flag Day. It also represents today the 21st anniversary of the annual national pause for the pledge of allegiance that will take place this evening 7 p.m. at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland. I think my colleagues are aware of the importance of Fort McHenry in our national history and the importance of our flag, particularly as an inspiration to Francis Scott Key and writing our national anthem. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Americans to join those that will be gathered at Fort McHenry this evening at 7 p.m. to pause for one moment and pledge allegiance to our flag.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern regarding the level of funding including in this bill for the Social Security Administration's (SSA) administrative expenses. This bill reduces the President's request by $156 million. Compared to the Commissioner's request, this is a reduction of $378 million. These reductions will force SSA to reduce staff at the same time that the SSA is facing its own wave of retirements from its own employees in the next five to ten years as well. The reductions will also result in decreased service to individuals with disabilities and the nation's seniors, and reduced oversight of the integrity of the Agency's programs. I fear that these reductions will put a strain on the agency's ability to carry out its mission. I believe that the SSA faces these funding shortfalls because it is subject to the allocation required by the spending caps, even though Social Security benefit payments are considered off-budget and not subject to spending cap restrictions. Since we are not able to fund the SSA properly, we should take Social Security's administrative expenses out of the caps. We could fund the Agency based on the size and scope of its programs--subject to the approval of the Committee on Appropriations, but not subject to the Section 302 allocation--rather than what we are able to find without our allocation. Even though most of the administrative funding for SSA is derived from the Trust Funds--funds that cannot be used for any other program-- we are limited in the allocation required by the budget caps. The demands on the Agency are greater than our allocation can fund that will grow as the baby-boom generation is quickly moving into its disability-prone years, with retirement not far behind. I believe that the SSA should be funded at $7.356 billion, the Commissioner's request, and that we need to work together, with the Administration, to find a solution to this structural anomaly which classifies administrative costs to run Social Security programs as under the discretionary caps. We should let the Agency use Social Security money for Social Security purposes.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me just speak to one part of the Hoyer amendment which deals with the Child Care and Development Block Grant. The Hoyer amendment would provide an additional $418 million for this program. This is flexible funds to our States to provide for child care for our children. The Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means has held a hearing, and we found that affordable quality day-care is not available to too many children in our country. Only five States set the eligibility for the funds at the maximum allowed under Federal law, 85 percent of the median income. Forty-five States are below that. My own State of Maryland set it at 40 percent. Only one out of every 10 children who are eligible today for the funds can get the money because of the lack of Federal funds. The Hoyer amendment provides help for 80,000 children in this category. We should be supporting this amendment today.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano). (Mr. CAPUANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)