Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will take the time now to talk about the two other amendments that were made in order under the rule. One, I think Mr. Berman covered very adequately, about the automatic dismissal if a matter pending a vote on an investigation is not carried. If the matter is still pending for another 180 days, there would be an automatic dismissal. Under one of the amendments that was made in order. We should be aware that the current rules of the committee provide for no such action. Mr. Berman pointed out, and I concur, that when you put a deadline in a split vote causing a dismissal, you are encouraging that action. It is not difficult for a committee equally divided, Democrats and Republicans, to do nothing for 6 months, particularly if there is tremendous pressure from one of the political parties. If you have a person who is perceived to be the target of a political complaint, regardless of how meritorious that complaint might be, there will be tremendous pressure on the committee to break according to party line. Mr. Chairman, we had some difficult times over the past couple years; some very difficult matters appeared before our committee. But we were able to resolve all those issues, because we knew we had to get a bipartisan vote, that we could not just split along partisan lines. We resolved the issue. Should they have been done sooner? You bet they should have been done sooner, and our rule changes provide for much faster action. The chairman and ranking member must act within 14 days on a complaint. There is a limit as to when one must start in an investigation. So we provide for a more timely investigation. We deal with the problem. But if we just say it is going to be a dismissal, we have not dealt with the problem. In fact, we have done a disservice to the Member because it is likely there is going to be another complaint filed, another complaint filed, everybody is going to be yelling it is partisan. Does this institution look good in that circumstance? Does the Member look good? No. We need to resolve our issues. We have heard from the ranking member. We have heard from the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. They are going to work together. Let us have a little confidence that we can do our constitutional responsibility. I would urge Members to reject that amendment. There is a third amendment, which would take away from the subcommittee the ability to expand the scope of an investigation or to issue subpoenas. That would be a mistake. We have gone to great lengths to protect the bifurcation of the system. The people who do the investigation should be separated from those who sit in judgment. If we had to go back to those who sit in judgment in order to explain why we want to expand the scope, we are compromising the objectivity of those that ultimately will sit in judgment. Before we reached this point under the rules that we have, we will have passed at least three bipartisan hurdles, three bipartisan hurled else will already have been passed. First, there will be action of the chairman and ranking member that we have a legitimate complaint. Second, the chairman and ranking member will have gone through the initial factfinding and got even into an investigation through the approval of either the chairman or ranking member of the committee. And third, by a bipartisan vote of the investigative committee, we will have gone into an investigative stage. So this is not a situation of a partisan problem. This is a situation of protecting the integrity of the process. For the reasons stated, I would urge the Members to reject all three amendments on substance. They were rejected by the task force, and, just as importantly, they open up partisan wounds. That would be a mistake on this day when we can move forward on the ethics process in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to again agree with the points that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has made concerning what is in the resolution before us. It contains many, many changes that we think will improve the legislative process. I would like to spend a few minutes, if I might, on the three amendments that will be offered later, because I think if Members look at the changes that we have made, they will agree that these amendments should be rejected. The reason I say that is that we have in our task force considered each of these three issues and we rejected it. It is also important, as has been pointed out by Members on both sides of this aisle, that changes in the ethics process be made in a bipartisan way. There is clearly, clearly, a lack of bipartisan agreement on each of the three amendments that will be offered. For that reason alone, they should be rejected. The first, that would deny outside persons the opportunity to file an ethics complaint, would change the practice of this House since we instituted an ethics committee back in 1968. We have always allowed non-Members to file complaints. This would be the first time we would deny it. We are charged with the constitutional responsibility to judge the conduct of our Members. Are we so afraid to allow outsiders to bring charges that we deny them access to bring those charges before our committee? I would hope not. The resolution before Members provides a new standard for that issue. It requires that a non-Member have personal knowledge. The person must either know the information himself or herself or have received it directly from another. It is not adequate, as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has pointed out, to use a newspaper as a basis for a complaint by a non-Member. You just cannot use speculation or what might be in a newspaper article. We have raised the bar on non-Members. It would be wrong for us to deny them complete access. We also add additional protection for unjust charges brought against a Member. The chairman and ranking member are given additional powers to be able to stop a matter from being considered a complaint that clearly does not comply with our rules. So we have protected the institution, we have protected the Member, but we have allowed information to come forward as I hope all my colleagues would agree we should. If you adopt the amendment that is offered, you would not only be eliminating these new tests, you would not only be eliminating the current rule that allows for non-Member filing, you would also be raising the bar on a Member transmitting a complaint from a non-Member by adding an additional requirement. Mr. Chairman, that is a bit much, and I hope the Members would agree with me that is an overkill of a situation that would really be perceived, and rightly so, as us trying to close off this process to any outside people. I could give my colleagues several examples that could come to light that would show exactly why that amendment would be ill advised. Let us use as an example, and this is strictly an example, that suppose a staff member has been inappropriately approached by a Member asking sexual favors in exchange for promotion. What does that staff person do? Under the resolution before us, that staff person can bring that matter directly to the ethics committee. Do we want that staff member to have to shop for a Member of this House to certify that that is an appropriate complaint? And suppose it is a Democrat or a Republican. Is this a partisan issue? Where is the dignity of the process? Do we really want to close ourselves to that type of matter being brought to our ethics committee? I would hope not. I could give my colleagues many more examples as to why it would be wrong for us to close out legitimate problems coming to our ethics committee from non-Members. That amendment, as well intended as it may be, would do that. Reform should open up the process, not move backward. That amendment would take us backward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah]. (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to join the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] in the compliments he has paid to the Members of this body that have served on this joint committee on ethics reform and to the staff that helped us in order to reach this time. I am very proud of the result of the task force. We have an opportunity today to approve that product, and I hope that this body will take that opportunity and approve the work of our task force. The gentleman from Louisiana provided tremendous leadership in this body to bring together different people of different views. We worked very hard to compromise issues without compromising principles, and we think the end result is in the best interests of this House. The challenge that we have is to restore confidence with the public that we can carry out our constitutional responsibility to monitor the conduct of our Members. It is a difficult responsibility. This body owes a debt of gratitude to those Members who are willing to serve on the committee that sits in judgment. Several are on the floor here, and I applaud their efforts, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer], the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], and others who have stepped forward to carry out that awesome responsibility. Because, regardless of what rules we have, ultimately it depends upon the willingness of Members of this House to step forward, to serve this body, to judge its Members, and for us collectively to carry out that awesome responsibility. I believe that the recommendations of our bipartisan task force will make it easier for us to carry out that awesome responsibility. It makes improvements that are important to allow us to judge the conduct of our Members. Let me just, I guess, emphasize some of the points that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has already commented on. The recommendations, if approved, will make it easier for us to have a nonpartisan operation of the ethics process. The resolution specifically provides that the staff will be nonpartisan and cannot engage in partisan political activities. The recommendations give the chairman and ranking member equal opportunity to set the agenda of the committee. The recommendations improve the confidentiality of the work of the committee, which is so important to maintain the integrity of the process. The meetings of the investigative committees will be closed. All members of the committee and staff will be required to file confidentiality oaths. And for the first time, we will allow the committee to directly refer to a Federal agency, without having to come to the House floor and disclose matters, matters that should be referred to other Federal agencies that affect a Member, requiring an extraordinary vote of the committee itself. We have improved the system for filing of complaints. I know there is going to be an amendment offered later, and I would hope that each Member would understand the current rules and how we have improved them. I agree with the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] that the three-Member refusal does not make sense. But the answer is not to exclude outsiders the opportunity to submit information or complaints to our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The answer is to make it more rational to the need that is out there, and that is what we did in a compromise. In an appropriate compromise, we require that an outside individual, whether it be a staff person or whether it be an outside person, to bring a complaint must have personal knowledge, a higher standard. It is similar to the standard in the other body. We think that makes sense. By the way, we also raised the standard for a Member transmitting a complaint from a non-Member by requiring the Member to certify in good faith that this complaint should be reviewed by the committee. So we were mindful of the concerns that a complaint is a very serious matter against a Member, and we have improved the manner in which legitimate matters can come before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct by non-Members. We have improved the efficiency, the administration of the committee itself, the initial factfinding, which has been very difficult for the committee. It is now delegated to the Chair or ranking member, so they can get better control over getting information earlier to the committee and act earlier with the committee. The subpoenas and the expansion of scope of an investigation will be handled by the subcommittee where it should be handled. We have an amendment later that tries to reverse that. But let me remind my colleagues that the bifurcated system whereby one group of Members investigate another group, by requiring those that are doing the investigation to go back to those who ultimately have to make judgment and disclose information in order to justify an expansion of scope, compromises the objectivity of the process and the fairness of the adjudicative process. It also, by the way, compromises we think confidentiality and makes it more time consuming in order to reach conclusions, which is a major concern to the Members of this House. We improve the due process that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] spoke to, many new procedures that we put in so that people get adequate due process. A Member will have advanced notice on any statement of alleged violation that the subcommittee intends to propose. We give notice to Members at every phase of the ethics investigation or action. We have greater involvement by the Members of this House in the ethics process by having a pool of Members who can assist in investigations and by having a limit of 4-year service on the Ethics Committee. I know that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] and I would have hoped that that would be retroactive. But no, it cannot be retroactive, but at least a Member's term on the committee cannot exceed 4 years, and we have rotation to assure experienced Members will always be on the committee. And importantly, we have made the process move quicker, in a more timely way, by establishing a 14-day time limit on the initial action on a matter that is filed as a complaint by the chairman and ranking member, giving the chairman and ranking member much more discretion in managing the workload of the committee and in recommending early action on complaints that are filed and filing time limits on getting into initial factfinding. If we take a look at the full package, I believe we will find that it addresses the concerns that have been raised by the Members of this House. I agree with the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], we hope that our colleagues will not use a microscope to try to look at each individual section and say ``Why does this make sense?'' Look at the total package. The package makes sense. It should be approved by this body. I would hope that my colleagues would have confidence in the committee, the work that we did. Reject the three amendments that will be offered later on this debate. Those three amendments, and we will have a chance to talk about them a little bit later in general debate, each will compromise the manner in which this package was put together, and we will have a chance to talk about that a little later. It is a good product. I am proud to be associated with it. I hope it will be approved by the House, but I hope it will not be modified by the three amendments that will be offered. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], for not only yielding me this time but for the kind comments that he made about my service on this joint committee. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] served that task force with distinction, as did the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and we thank both of them for their help and leadership on these ethics issues. I think this body should understand that we had the services of leaders in this House on this bipartisan task force: The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], in addition to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and myself. It was a task force that took its work seriously. I am I proud of the work of our task force. I also want to compliment Mr. Leong and Mr. Laufman, our staff, for the excellent work that they did. We have a good product. I am pleased that we have a rule before the House that will allow us to vote on that package. And I am hopeful that if this rule is adopted, that the package from the task force will be approved, the three amendments that the rule makes in order will be rejected. I agree with the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] that these three amendments would do violence to the bipartisan spirit in which this package was developed. Every Member of this House had an opportunity to appear before our task force. Many Members took that opportunity to work with us, to submit their ideas and to work with the task force. It is interesting to point out that the three controversial amendments that would be made in order by this rule, each of those amendments were discussed in full by the task force and rejected by the task force. We did not take that lightly. We tried to bring out a package that makes sense, that moves forward the ethics process, that deals with the bipartisan nature in which the committee needs to operate, that deals with a more efficient committee, that adds time limits so that the Members are not hanging out there with complaints against them, that gives the chairman and ranking member more power in order to manage the workload, involves more Members of the House in the process. We went through each of these points and we had different views. The leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] was critical in bringing Democrats and Republicans together and focusing us on our final product. I said yesterday in the Committee on Rules, and I will repeat here, there are not many fringe benefits for serving on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or the task force, but one that I enjoyed was getting to know and respect the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and his leadership and love for this institution. The two of us worked together so that we could come forward with a package that makes sense. And what we asked the membership to do, we had 3 months to read the report, these amendments will do violence to the ethics recommendations. We have always worked in a bipartisan manner. We need to continue to work in a bipartisan manner. Let me just, if I might, in the time that has been allotted to me, talk about one of the amendments that would be made in order. It would prohibit any direct filing by any outside individual. Since we adopted ethics rules in this house in 1968, we have allowed outsiders to file complaints with our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. If that amendment were to be adopted, it would be the first time that we would shut out outsiders from bringing matters before us. The current rule is one that I particularly do not like, where you need to get three Members to refuse to file a complaint for an outsider to be able to file directly. Our task force said that does not make a lot of sense; let us come up with a better way to do it. So we looked to the other body and we developed their procedure, where we require a person not a Member to have personal knowledge before that person can file a matter with us, or they must have information directly from another source. We make it specific that a person cannot use a newspaper article to file a complaint if they are not a Member of this house. Then we give the chairman and ranking member, any one of them can stop the matter from being considered as a complaint if it does not meet the standards. We are mindful of the concern about abuse of the process, so we put those provisions in our package. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that in the time that the Members have today to consider these issues with this rule making that amendment in order, some Members, well-intended, may cast their votes for that amendment not realizing the history of this institution, not realizing what is in the body of our report. It is for those reasons that we are concerned that this rule makes in order amendments that may sound like they improve the process, but will do violence to the process. Let me just give you an example. Let us say that one of our staff people alleges that a Member asks sexual favors in order for that staff person to get a promotion. How does that staff person bring that matter to our attention? How does that staff person bring that matter forward, if that amendment that is made in order were to be adopted? Does she have to shop to get another Member of the House to certify it is being filed in good faith? Do we really want to put that requirement on that staff person? That is what that amendment would do that was made in order by this rule. That is wrong. We should allow for direct filing of complaints if the person has personal knowledge. We are saying, yes, that we want to be able to judge our own Members; we want to represent to the American public that we can police ourselves. But should we shut everybody else out the process? No. That is why we get concerned about the amendments that were made in order under this rule. I am not so sure that we are going to have enough time to articulate those changes. I could go on to another amendment, I will, I guess, in the 1\1/2\ minutes that remains; an amendment that would call for automatic dismissal for matters pending 180 days after a vote in the committee. That is just going to encourage partisan action in this House. It is very easy to delay when we have a matter that has gotten divided on a partisan basis. It would not be difficult for a committee that has equal membership of Democrats and Republicans to delay a matter 180 days in order to get a dismissal. We are not doing a favor to this institution or to this Member if we allow the ethics process to have an automatic dismissal on a tie vote. Let me remind my colleagues, on the most difficult days of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the most difficult days, we were able to resolve every matter that was brought before us because we went back and worked together. If we had a time limit it would have been dismissed and there would be a cloud hanging over a Member. That is not right. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of the House, we have a historic opportunity to improve the ethics process today. I hope we will take advantage of that opportunity and approve the work of our task force without the amendments that would be made in order by this rule.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] for his work on the conference report. The bill that we are going to vote on today is far different than the partisan Republican bill that passed this House just a few months ago. Let me give my colleagues five changes, and there are many more, why this bill is a much better bill than we had when it passed the House originally. First: In regard to the child credit, we have changed the child credit so that now working families that make $30,000 a year can benefit from the child credit. That was not the case when the bill left this House. Reason No. 2: The estate tax provisions are targeted to give most of the relief to families that have small businesses or farmers. That is a major improvement that I congratulate my colleague on. Third: the education relief. When the bill left this House, it provided relief for the first and second year of a college education, but no more. We have now provided relief for college education beyond just the first 2 years and have provided relief for interest costs to those who had to borrow money to send their children to college. And we protected the tuition waiver program so employers can provide education help to families. Major improvement from when this bill left the House. Fourth reason: The initiatives for the brownfield that will help our cities, empowerment zone that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] was responsible initially to get through this House have now been incorporated into the bill that we will vote on today. Major improvement. Fifth reason: The gentleman has modified the IRA proposals, got rid of indexing of capital gains so that we do not have exploding deficits in the future. We now have a bipartisan bill that, with the bill that we passed yesterday, will balance the budget and protect the priorities that are important for the future growth of our Nation. I congratulate the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] because we now have a bipartisan bill that deserves the support of this House. I intend to support it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first I want to concur in the comments that the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] made a little earlier, and that is we need to look first to 1993, to the Deficit Reduction Act that was passed under the leadership of President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress, for why we are able to reach this point today. I am very pleased that the final chapter we are doing in a bipartisan manner, the passage of these two bills. There are many reasons to support it. We are at last going to have a balanced budget, and we are going to protect the priorities that are important for the future growth of this Nation. Let me just mention some of the specifics that are in this bill for why the Members should support it: First, the Medicare, we are providing for 10-year solvency, additional solvency of the Medicare system, improving benefits to our seniors in preventive health care and access to emergency care. Our academic centers will be getting some badly needed relief to make sure that we have excellence in health care in this country. Twenty-four billion dollars to expand health care for our children. This bill acknowledges the special needs of Amtrak and capital involvement, and the welfare bill from last year has changed to provide more resources for welfare to work and to remove some of the punitive aspects against legal immigrants. It is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the bill does not include funding for the Advanced Self Protection Jammer which is recognized as the finest self-protection jamming system in production today. Following the 1995 shootdown of the Navy pilot Scott O'Grady in Bosnia, ASPJ were deployed in aircraft in the Bosnian theater to correct the self protection deficiency under which our pilots were operating. Mr. Chairman, the ASPJ proved to be an effective tactical aircraft countermeasure in the Bosnian theater. Additional purchases of the system were recently authorized by the Committee on National Security. Shortage of the ASPJ's means that the Navy cannot equip all of its F-14D and F/A-18C/D planes with this system widely demanded by the Navy and Marine Corps pilots. Most of these planes, which will be in the fleet well into the next century, are now vulnerable. The Navy can only equip 72 aircraft with the ASPJ, although it has a requirement for deployment of this system on over 500 F-14D's and F/A-18C/D's. I hope the chairman will consider providing the Navy and Marine Corps with the funds necessary to equip the forward-deployed F-14D and F/A-18C/D squadrons with this system.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to request a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] regarding the fate of the Advanced Self Protection Jammer radar system.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the amendment. Our current sugar program is costing us money and it is costing us jobs. It restricts the amount of sugar that can come into this country by having an arbitrarily high price for sugar. That means American consumers are paying twice what they should for the cost of sugar. That is corporate welfare. That is not what it should be. Talk about costing jobs. In my district, Domino Sugar Refinery has a plant. Seven times within a year they had to close because they could not get enough sugar at a competitive price in order to refine that sugar. There are 800 jobs there. That is jobs for this country. So whether my colleagues are interested in the American consumer or they are interested in American jobs, they cannot justify our current sugar program. The nonrecourse loan program allows sugar production here to guarantee a certain price. As the gentleman from Florida explained, the government does not want to get the sugar for the debt. Therefore the price of sugar is kept at an arbitrarily high level. For the sake of our consumers, for the sake of jobs, for the sake of fairness, support the Miller-Schumer amendment. It is in the interests of our constituents.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership in this area. I know of the gentleman's commitment to rail service in this country and the importance to the Northeast corridor as well as to other regions of our Nation. The gentleman has provided some significant help for Amtrak, and that is appreciated. I think the area of major concern right now is the operating issue and whether there are adequate operating subsidies in this budget in order to meet the transition until the high-speed trains are on line. As the gentleman knows, Amtrak has incurred some additional capital debt obligations through its borrowing that now must be met through Amtrak, and I hope that we can continue to work together to make sure that there are adequate resources during this transitional period.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to express my concern that the bill we have before us does not have adequate funding for Amtrak in the coming year. Amtrak is in an extremely tenuous position in the short term. The railroad has invested heavily in developing high-speed rail for the Northeast corridor, and once these new trains are in place, the high- speed trains, we have to make sure that there is significant revenue in order for the system to operate efficiently. Amtrak has borrowed heavily to make the investment in high-speed rail, and the railroad, without support from Congress over the next 2 years and an adequate amount of money, will be overwhelmed by that debt. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, has recognized this bind but has left the railroad $61 million short from what the President has requested to support the program. Let me just quote from the statement of the administration policy for the transportation appropriations bill: The administration is deeply concerned about the level of funding provided for Amtrak. The Federal operating subsidy supports Amtrak's day-to-day operations. Even at the funding levels proposed by the President, Amtrak will be able to remain solvent only by further increasing revenues and reducing costs. If Congress appropriates an amount for operating grants that is less than the $344 million requested by the President, it is questionable whether Amtrak would have cash reserves sufficient to meet its obligations. In light of these considerations, we strongly urge the House to provide Amtrak with operating grants of $344 million in fiscal year 1998. Mr. Chairman, we have fallen short of this hurdle for Amtrak, and I am concerned that because of the relatively small shortfall this year, we are jeopardizing a realistically promising plan for Amtrak's self- sufficiency by the year 2002. All this occurs at a time when Amtrak has begun to see the benefits of its reengineering and cost-cutting efforts of the past 3 years. To date, Amtrak has made nearly $400 million in bottom line improvements on an annualized basis to increase the efficiency of its rolling stock, eliminated poorly performing routes, reduced head counts, retired old equipment, reinvested in new equipment, including high-speed rail, and improved its operating ratio. This was done at a time of declining Federal support. For fiscal year 1995, passenger related revenues were $874 million, last year they climbed to $901 million, and they are expected to be $977 million in the current year. In addition, despite operating fewer trains, ridership is moving up for the first time in several years. Travel industry projections indicate that the economy and travel expect to remain strong through 1998. This is fairly remarkable. Amtrak's ridership is up nearly 2.5 percent at a time when airline travel is up 0.2 percent to 1.2 percent for the Nation's four largest airlines. And revenue is up this year over the previous year by 9 percent. In late 1999, Amtrak will introduce North America's first high-speed rail service, which will generate nearly $150 million in net bottom line improvements. Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on to tell my colleagues the good things that are happening with Amtrak, but it needs the Federal operating subsidies. Next week the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will mark up a sweeping Amtrak reform and reauthorization bill which should generate further cost savings for Amtrak. At a time when things seem to be turning around for Amtrak, we would be unwise to underfund their operating needs. I would hope that we could work with the Senate to restore the funding so that Amtrak can continue to reduce its dependency on Federal support, strengthen its infrastructure, and retain a viable national route structure.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. The gentleman is correct. When we look at the tax proposals when fully implemented, under the Republican bill less than one-third of the tax relief goes to those that are of middle income, no matter what definition we use for middle income.

Mr. CARDIN. I appreciate the gentleman asking me that question. What the Republicans are doing in making their presentation is that they are using 5-year numbers. They are not using the data that reflects the total implementation of the tax changes. Therefore, the indexing of the capital gains is not reflected, which basically will help wealthier individuals. The backloaded IRA's are not included in their recommendation. Again, that will help basically higher income people. The estate tax provisions that are implemented over a long period of time, if we use the tax provisions that they recommend as fully implemented, less than one-third of the tax relief goes to those between 20 percent and 80 percent, the middle-income taxpayer.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] for the motion to instruct because it points out one of the most important differences between the Republican tax bills and the Democratic position. That is, we want a tax bill but we want one that is fair, that provides tax relief to the people who need tax relief. Both parties profess a desire to help middle-income taxpayers. We differ on the definition of what is middle income. That is understandable. But if we take the middle-income taxpayers, those that are between 20 percent of the income and 80 percent, so we eliminate those at the bottom quintile and the top quintile and then find where the tax relief is going, there is no dispute that under the Democrat position, over two-thirds of the tax relief will go to those that are in the middle income.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the bill does not provide the $1.8 million needed by the Park Service for high priority construction work to complete the restoration of Fort McHenry. Last year Congress appropriated $800,000 for the work on the fort. This was part of a $2.6 million project designed to preserve the birthplace of our National Anthem. To date significant work has been undertaken to repair and repoint the fort's main exterior brick walls, dating back to the War of 1812. Additional funding is needed to complete preservation of underground bombproof rooms, powder magazines and Civil War period defense works at the site. I am concerned that the action of the committee threatens the timely and efficient completion of the necessary work. Finding sources of historically compatible bricks and artisans skilled at this restoration work has been difficult, but the project is now underway and we should complete it.

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

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman.