Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, today, I come before the House to ask, ``have the Republicans done a U-turn?'' Their education record includes: opposing education funding increases; passing a year 2000 budget $2.9 billion short of the President's education proposal; and advocating for the abolishment of the Department of Education. Again, I ask, ``is this resolution a Republican U-turn?'' I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no U-turn. The Republican course is straight and does not lead to a true endorsement of education. I support Pell Grant increases. However, without language to state otherwise, I am left to surmise that this resolution may endanger initiatives to reduce class size, hire more teachers, and modernize schools. Let's set a better course and invest at every level of our children's education--preschool through postsecondary. Let's stand up for all worthwhile education inititives!

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 351.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the fundamental principle of one citizen, one vote. Sadly, high campaign costs and fund-raising abuses are eroding this essential feature of our democracy. In 1976, $540 million was spent on all elections and 20 years later, in 1996, that figure had risen to an alarming $4 billion. Our political process has become a marketplace where a higher value is placed on economic and fund-raising activities than on political ideology, accountability and service. The American people want political commitment, not a political market. They want a system where inequalities generated by the market economy do not undermine political equality. Let us give the American people what they want: Equal access and a commitment to service instead of campaigns. Let us pass bipartisan campaign finance reform and revive the guarantee of one citizen, one vote.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, Congressional Gold Medals are awarded to individuals who have made significant contributions to our Nation or humanity. Why bestow this honor on a woman who refused to give up her seat in the white section of a segregated Montgomery bus? The answer is very simple. Rosa Parks' selfless fortitude became the symbol of a commitment to freedom, equality and justice that paved the way to the end of legal segregation in America. As we salute our matriarch of civil rights, I am reminded of the words of Dr. King: ``We are caught up in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.'' Mrs. Parks recognized that in order for our Nation to move from what it has been to what it can be, our garment of destiny must be tightly woven with the policies of justice and inclusion as opposed to discrimination and separation. Again, I congratulate Mrs. Parks for her heroism, and challenge all Americans to embrace her concept of freedom and equality for all people.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have no additional speakers. In summary, Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased that this legislation is before us. I think it sends a very strong statement to our Federal employees and those who are considering possibly coming into the Federal Government, and that is that the Congress of the United States of America cares about them and cares about their security in retirement. Mr. Speaker, I just urge all of my colleagues to vote for this very, very important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton). We are very pleased, Mr. Speaker, at this point to recognize my distinguished colleague from the District of Columbia, and a member of our subcommittee who, too, has been at the forefront of protecting the rights of Federal employees, and one who has put forth her own legislation from time to time to make sure that those rights are protected. I am just so glad that she is on our subcommittee because she makes sure that we keep an institutional memory of the things that we should have been doing for Federal employees and the things that we must do.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), for sponsoring H.R. 208. I also want to thank our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the full committee chairman, and certainly our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for bringing this bill up so quickly. H.R. 208 makes significant reforms in the Thrift Savings Plan. This bill contains proposals that are contained in President Clinton's fiscal year 2000 budget. It would permit new Federal employees to begin contributing to their TSP immediately rather than waiting a year, as required under current law, and would let Federal employees transfer balances from other tax deferred savings plans, including private sector 401(k) accounts, to their TSP accounts. Early participation in the Federal Employees Retirement System, particularly in the Thrift Savings Plan, is critical if an employee is going to maximize the amount of savings earned for his retirement. The importance of saving for one's retirement is more evident to me as the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on Government Reform considers legislation to offer long-term care insurance as a benefit option to Federal and postal employees and military personnel and retirees. A study released at the beginning of this month shows that baby boomers are concerned about their retirement security, but are not saving adequately for their long-term care needs. H.R. 208 is one initiative that will help the Federal work force save money for their golden years. At the full committee markup of this bill, the Republicans offered an amendment to pay for the cost of the legislation by requiring agencies to divert money from their already hard-pressed salaries and expense accounts into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund. The Democrats strongly opposed this provision and worked in a swift and bipartisan manner to formulate an acceptable alternative that would require agencies to pay for the cost, but prohibit them from using salaries and benefit accounts for this purpose. I support this prohibition, Mr. Speaker, because Federal employees have been squeezed enough. Inadequate pay raises, increasing costs in health insurance premiums, and the constant threat of layoffs and contracting out have caused serious problems in Federal agencies. Enough is enough. I am pleased now to be able to support this legislation because it helps Federal employees save for their retirement and removes the possibility that any of them would have to lose their jobs to pay for it. Again, I congratulate the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), my colleague, and I urge all Members to join me in supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my distinguished colleague who has constantly been at the forefront of protecting the rights of Federal employees, and who has been constantly sensitive to their needs and their concerns. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the provision of long-term care insurance coverage to Federal employees is an important priority for me as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service. On January 6, I introduced H.R. 110, the Federal Employees Group Long-Term Care Insurance Act of 1999. My bill is one of four elements of the comprehensive long-term care package proposed earlier this year by President Clinton. H.R. 110 would authorize the Office of Personnel Management to purchase a policy or policies from one or more qualified private sector contractors to make long-term care insurance available to Federal employees, retirees and eligible family members at group rates. Coverage would be paid for entirely by those who elect it. The Clinton administration and I support modifying H.R. 110 to extend long-term care coverage to employees of the United States Postal Service, active duty military personnel, military retirees and their families. I believe that extending coverage to Postal employees and military personnel would make the risk larger and more diverse and would help keep costs down. All participants other than active employees and active duty military personnel would be fully underwritten, as is standard practice with products of this kind. Coverage made available to individuals would be guaranteed renewable and could not be canceled except for nonpayment of premiums. Though each participant would be responsible for paying the full amount of their premiums based on age at time of enrollment, group rates will save an estimated 15 to 20 percent off the costs of individual long-term insurance care policies. OPM will be responsible for the administrative costs of the program, which is estimated to be only $15 million over a 5-year period. This would include developing and implementing a program to educate employees about long-term care insurance. Extending OPM's market efforts to postal employees, active duty military personnel and retirees would, however, increase first year administrative costs above what is included in this estimate. To date, the Subcommittee on Civil Service has held three hearings on offering long-term care insurance as a benefit option for Federal employees. We have heard the testimony of people who have had to bear the tremendous costs of providing long-term care for a loved one. We have heard testimony from the Office of Personnel Management on long- term care insurance carriers, about the best approach for implementing a long-term care program for Federal employees. At the subcommittee's most recent hearing in Jacksonville, Florida, which was held just a week ago, I heard from witnesses who testified how important it is for Americans to invest in long-term care insurance, particularly women. A study last week found that women are more vulnerable to the financial and emotional strains associated with long-term care. Women live longer, generally earn less than men, save less for their retirement, receive lower Social Security payments, and are often caregivers when a family member becomes ill or infirm. The American Health Care Association commissioned a national telephone survey of 800 adult Americans between the ages of 34 and 52 years of age, baby boomers, in September of 1998. As it pertains to women, the study found the following: Among baby boomers, men save on the average of one-third more than women save for their retirement. More than one-third of all boomer women expect to be a caregiver for a family member. Female boomer caregivers are almost twice as likely to expect to provide care for a parent or in-law as they are to provide it for their husband. Half of the women in the study said that they had to reduce the number of hours they worked and give up space in their homes to provide this care. In addition, sizeable percentages said that they had to hire nursing help, incur large expenses, and quit their jobs or take a leave of absence as a result of their caregiving responsibilities. More than 7 in 10 female boomers say that they are concerned about saving enough for retirement, while nearly two-thirds say they are concerned about saving enough to pay for long-term care. Finally, 58 percent of boomers support the idea of offering quality long-term care insurance to Federal employees to set a national example to encourage businesses to offer this benefit to their employees. I believe that H.R. 110 will help to raise the general public's awareness of the need for long-term care insurance and underscore the limitations associated with the reliance on Medicaid for one's long- term care needs.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke quoted Mayor Archer of Detroit. Let us hear the rest of the story. Mayor Archer said, and I quote, ``This bill prevents Census counts from being tracked for the undercount by April 1, 2001, which is critical for distribution of Federal funds. I cannot support H.R. 472 in its current form.'' Going on, we have all agreed that the last Census was inundated with millions of errors. It is our duty to fix this problem. I am dismayed that H.R. 472, the Post Census Local Review Act, is still being considered as a solution to the miscount. The bill will continue a thoughtless practice of requiring the Census Bureau to set aside 9 unnecessary weeks after the field work is done to review the count of local addresses a second time. Most mayors who participated in this program in 1990 thought it was a disaster. Why are Republicans pushing to repeat the same mistakes? As a lawmaker, I have a responsibility to focus my energy on the impact this legislation will have on the people whom I am accountable to. As a result of the 1990 Census, 21,000 of my constituents were excluded from Federal funds for health care, education, transportation, economic development, and even child care. This must not happen again.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to participate in the celebration of Women's History Month and women of color. I applaud my distinguished colleague from California (Ms. Lee) who will later on this evening be conducting an hour discussion on this celebration. For more than 10 years, the month of March has been dedicated to the celebration of women in American history. This month affords us the opportunity to appreciate the accomplishments of women and the role they have played in history, American women and women of color who throughout history have proudly served in shaping the spirit of our Nation and shaping our lives, individually and collectively. Today, empowered by this great legacy, American women serve in every aspect of American life, from social services to space exploration. The opportunities for American women are growing, and their efforts as mothers and volunteers, corporate executives and Members of Congress, law enforcement officers and administrators, construction workers and soldiers, educators and scientists, enrich all of us and make our country great. Women continue to strengthen our Nation's social fabric as leaders in the home, the community, the workplace, and the government. The challenges facing women in the next century are many. They are increasingly called upon to serve as caregivers to children and elderly relatives and must bear the weight of providing economically for their families. However, through their endeavors, women are producing a heightened national consciousness to meet the needs of our people. As we honor the courageous legacy of our Nation's women of color and celebrate the diversity of their backgrounds, talents and contributions, I reflect upon one great woman that has placed her stamp on public service and who played an important role in my life, the Honorable Lena K. Lee, former Maryland House of Delegates member. A coal miner's daughter, Delegate Lee earned her prominence in Maryland through her indomitable intellect, compassion and character. Ms. Lee was the third woman to receive a law degree from the University of Maryland Law School, a founder of the Maryland Legislative Black Caucus, and a member of the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame. Teacher, principal, union leader, lawyer and legislator, Delegate Lee created a new vision of what African-American women could hope to achieve in Maryland and across this Nation. However, her impact would be much broader. She has touched the lives of many. Her leadership and noteworthy contributions in the fields of education, law and politics are well known in our State. In the summer of 1982, I received a call from this woman known only to me by reputation. She praised my work in assisting young African- American law graduates in their efforts to pass the bar exam, as well as my community involvement. I had been working in my small law practice wondering how my career would proceed when this renaissance woman and legend in our community was calling to compliment me. As the one that influenced my decision to begin a political career in the Maryland House of Delegates, Lena K. Lee was my teacher in public life. ``Mentor'' is defined as a wise and trusted guide. I can proudly say that Lena K. Lee is a mentor. I have served the citizens of the 44th District in Maryland as a member of the House of Delegates and then as Speaker Pro Tem of the Maryland General Assembly and now I stand on the floor of the United States Congress today as a Member of this body. She exemplifies the very idea that no matter what your background or circumstances, one can achieve great success. However, upon arrival, she believes that one is a public servant, with a first and fundamental responsibility to those who are unknown, unseen, unappreciated and unapplauded. Her life is a model of the old adage that ``to whom much is given, much is required.'' She is a champion of justice and dynamic legislator that was instrumental in getting Morgan State College changed to Morgan State University and saving the Orchard Street Church, a site of the underground railroad, from destruction. When we needed a black caucus and a women's caucus in the Maryland legislature, a new Provident Hospital or any other improvement in our community, it was her unselfish public service that was at the creation. Whether the cause was the health of Maryland prisoners or rebuilding of Orchard Street Church or Morgan State's university status, it was public service that was at the forefront of her agenda. Martin Luther King Sr. said, ``You cannot lead where you do not go and you cannot teach what you do not know.'' She may not have known her influence on other people's lives but Delegate Lee has led and taught a countless number of Baltimoreans how to stand and fight for justice. And so tonight I publicly thank her for all that she has done not only to touch my life but to touch the world.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and also thank her for her work with regard to this issue. The gentlewoman has definitely been at the forefront of this very important fight. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support an accurate and fair Census 2000. Experts at the Census Bureau have concluded that only by using modern scientific methods for the census can we achieve this result. I urge my colleagues to be mindful that conducting an accurate census is a complex task. The 1990 census was inundated with millions of errors, resulting in an error rate of over 10 percent. Approximately 101,000 Maryland residents were missed. Moreover, it is estimated that almost 21,000 constituents of the 7th Congressional District of Maryland were undercounted. This means that 21,000 of my constituents were not included in decisions made by the State and local governments that directly impact their lives, including the planning of schools, child care facilities, and the distribution of funds for health care. This is unacceptable and must be remedied. However, the answer is not H.R. 472, the Post Census Local Review Act. This bill requires the Census Bureau to set aside 9 unnecessary weeks after the field work is done to review the count of local addresses a second time. A local census review was conducted in 1990, and most mayors who participated in the program thought it was a disaster. Further, it would consume so much time that the Census Bureau would be unable to carry out its plans to use the more appropriate scientific manner to count our citizens. Because of these concerns, when the bill is considered on the floor tomorrow I intend to support a substitute offered by my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn Maloney), which will involve local governments in various aspects of the count, while also allowing the Census Bureau to proceed with its established plans. As lawmakers, we have an obligation to focus on the impact the census data has on every aspect of our constituents' lives: education, health, transportation and economic development. As such, I believe the task of providing an accurate and complete census is better left to the statistical experts with guidance from the Congress and not its micromanagement. I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I yield back to her.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Subcommittee on Civil Service has moved quickly to schedule floor action on H.R. 416, the Federal Retirement Coverage Corrections Act. Though this bill passed the House during the 105th Congress, the Senate failed to act on it or its own bill, S. 1710, before adjournment. By moving expeditiously this year, we can get the bill through the House and have ample time left to work with the Senate to enact legislation that will bring relief to the hundreds of Federal employees who find themselves in the wrong retirement system. I want to give special thanks to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the chairman of our subcommittee, for making sure that this bill came to the floor as fast as it has and for the bipartisan manner of cooperation that we have experienced. This is a complex bill that up to now has included essential Social Security and tax provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of other committees. Unfortunately, these provisions cannot go forward at this time. Nonetheless, the gentleman from Florida and I have elected to bring the core of the bill to the floor now and will continue to work with our colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance and Governmental Affairs Committees to iron out the differences between us. Few things in life are more important to a working person than having an adequate and secure retirement plan in place to provide for their future or that of their loved ones. When a worker's retirement security is jeopardized by an employer's administrative error, tremendous emotional and financial pain can result, unless a remedy is available that assures its prompt and fair correction and avoids economic harm. The Office of Personnel Management has a web site that explains the rationale for the Federal Government's establishment of the Civil Service Retirement System. It states, and I quote, ``A strong retirement system is a significant part of the attraction to work for an employer, and the Civil Service Retirement System has allowed the Federal Government to attract and retain a professional and dedicated workforce.'' The web site also conveys the words of a chairman of the former Civil Service Commission who noted that our retirement system should operate, and I quote, ``for the mutual benefit of the government and employees, contributing more effectively than ever to good government, to good working conditions, and to happy retirements.'' Employees caught in the wrong retirement system are far from happy. In 1997, the Subcommittee on Civil Service heard the testimony of four Federal employees who had been the victims of enrollment errors made by their employing agencies. In each case, the employee was initially placed in the Civil Service Retirement System, then years later informed that they should have been placed in the Federal Employees Retirement System. Afforded no recourse or options, these employees were dumped into FERS and confronted with the need to make thousands of dollars of retroactive payments into a newly established Thrift Savings Account. I have seen the hurt and the pain this problem has caused. Let me put a real face on the issue for my colleagues. The Federal Times, a trade newspaper for Federal employees, recently featured Michael Garcia, acting chief information officer at the Minority Business Development Agency. Mr. Garcia's story provides a clear example of how your life can change when you are placed in the wrong retirement system. Mr. Garcia planned to retire in July 2000 at the age of 57. But like an estimated 18,000 other employees, his plans to retire are now uncertain because of a mistake his former agency made when it hired him 14 years ago. Garcia's former agency placed him in FERS when it opened in 1987. Garcia should have been placed in the older of the two retirement systems, CSRS. When the error was detected in 1993, he was moved to FERS. FERS participants can invest up to 10 percent of their salaries in the thrift plan, which includes a stock fund. The government matches their contributions up to 5 percent. Under current law, once an error is discovered, agencies are not allowed to leave employees in the system they thought they were in. Many who were moved to FERS late into their careers cannot afford to make up their missed investments with a lump sum payment. Garcia had been willing to borrow money to pay a lump sum. He said that he could never make up for the lost years with incremental catch-up contributions. In the article, Mr. Garcia is quoted as saying, ``They were negligent. I'm just fed up.'' His agency was negligent, and he should be fed up. Why should he have to borrow money for a mistake not of his own making? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, a little earlier I mentioned Mr. Garcia, and Mr. Garcia had been placed, of course, in the wrong retirement system, and like numerous other federal employees, he had been forced to rearrange his life and his financial plans to address this problem. Many without financial means have had to work beyond their retirement dates to build a full annuity. The Federal Retirement System was created to prevent just that, employees working into what should be their golden years, the years they rest, the years they travel, the years they take time out to spend with their grandchildren. The Federal Retirement Coverage Corrections Act would essentially permit those who have been the victims of an enrollment error to remain in the retirement system they were mistakenly placed in or to be covered by the system they should have been in. It would also hold the government financially responsible for making whole an effected employee's thrift savings account. Together these provisions would end the harm now being done by the existing rules governing the correction of these errors. To address my concern that the unanticipated costs of making an employee whole might cause agencies to rif its employees, I included a provision in the bill requiring that offsetting savings be realized through attrition and limitations on hiring. There has been much debate over the cost to the government of making effected employees whole. The IRS Code requires that private sector employers bear the cost of correcting retirement errors. The Senate bill leaves it to the victimized employee to come up with the money to make themselves whole. That simply is not right. Our approach mirrors the private sector and is the fairest way to handle these problems. The longer it takes to enact this legislation, the more it is going to cause all effected parties. Federal employees who are in the wrong retirement system should not have to spend another year worrying about a problem that their agency created for them. Mr. Speaker, I am committed to working with the Senate to reach agreement on the legislation that addresses all parties' concerns. These employees are waiting for us to act. Let us do so today, and again I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) and all the members of our subcommittee, our chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), our ranking member of our full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the gentleman from Florida put a face on the issue because I think that is very, very important that we do that. It is interesting that he cited a story from Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), one of the hardest working members of our subcommittee.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, today, we honor Thurgood Marshall. Marshall was born and raised in the Congressional District I represent--Baltimore City, Maryland--and actually lived in a home which is about eight blocks from where I live now. We both attended Howard University and, more significantly, he was once turned away form the law school I attended and graduated from--the University of Maryland. As such, I am especially proud to honor Thurgood Marshall, as I share a common path with this historic figure. In designating the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City, the nation also honors and praises this man for his civil rights achievements as a lawyer and for reaching the pinnacle of the U.S. justice system as the first African American Supreme Court Justice. I believe, however, that he should be revered most for his courage and independent judiciary and for breathing life into the text of the Constitution. He worked tirelessly to guarantee all Americans equality and liberty in their individual choices concerning voting, housing, education, and travel. It is an honor to recognize a man whose career is a monument to the judiciary system, and who has inspired others to continue his quiet crusade. I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to protect American workers. Opponents of this bill focus on protectionism for the steel industry. Let us remember our duties to the American people. So protectionism is key. We must protect our home, American jobs and families from the irreparable harm caused by unprecedented and unfair levels of steel imports. The American steel industry is a $70 billion industry that employs 170,000 people nationwide. Moreover, the industry is critically interwoven into the fabric of our society. Steel is utilized in automobiles, medical equipment, homes and military systems. We must act now to provide the appropriate safeguards to prevent risk to these industries. Let us protect American families. Let us stop illegal dumping by voting in favor of this measure.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to protect American workers. The American steel industry is a $70 billion industry that employs 170,000 people nationwide. Steel is also at the heart of Maryland's industrial base and thousands of Maryland jobs depend upon the steel industry. Over the past 15 years, the U.S. Steel Industry has worked aggressively to streamline its operations, improve productivity and cut costs. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, which has long operated a plant at Sparrows Point in Baltimore, has been at the forefront of these efforts. Bethlehem Steel is also among twelve companies and the United Steelworkers of America who, in response to this crisis, have filed unfair trade cases. Workers at Sparrows Point, and many plants like it, are already feeling the dramatic effects of allowing this massive influx of foreign steel. Ultimately, this matter expands beyond the steel industry. Steel is critically interwoven into the fabric of our society. It is utilized in automobiles, medical equipment, homes, and military systems. Thus, we must act now to provide the appropriate safeguards to prevent risk to these industries. Opponents of H.R. 975, the ``Steel Import Reduction Act,'' have focused on protectionism for our steel industry. Let us remember, our duty is to the American people. So, protectionism is key. We must ``protect'' our home, American jobs, and families from the irreparable harm caused by unprecedented and unfair levels of steel imports. Join me in protecting American workers and families. Let's stop illegal ``dumping'' by voting in favor of H.R. 975.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, our nation's social security system has traditionally been a ``safety net'' to citizens hoping to lead long and fruitful lives. However, changes in our society's economic and social conditions warrant reform. The facts are clear. The Trust Fund will be depleted by 2032. As such, the current debate is not about the necessity of reform, but what structural revisions will preserve the system long term. I believe that reform should be synonymous with ``guarantee''-- guaranteed minimum benefits for decades to come. Reforms that do not ensure system solvency or include pension or private savings plans without such a guarantee are, frankly, indefensible. Today, I urge my colleagues to support reform that, as Franklin Roosevelt said best, ``. . . take[s] care of human needs'' throughout the next millennium.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's Social Security system has traditionally been a safety net for citizens hoping to live long and fruitful lives. However, changes in our society's economic and social conditions warrant reform. The facts are abundantly clear. The trust fund will be depleted by 2032. As such, the current debate is not about the necessity of reform, but what structural revisions will preserve the system long-term. I believe that reform should be synonymous with guarantee; that is, guaranteed minimum benefits for decades to come. Reforms that do not ensure system solvency or include pension or private savings plan without such a guarantee, frankly, are indefensible. Today I urge my colleagues to support reform that, as Franklin Roosevelt said, takes care of human needs throughout the next millennium.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I extend my thanks and the appreciation of the Congress to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), both of whom hail from the other city with a great baseball team, for introducing H. Res. 105 honoring Joe DiMaggio. Baseball Commissioner, Bud Selig, in commenting on the death of Joe DiMaggio, stated, and I quote: ``For several generations of baseball fans, Joe was the personification of grace, class and dignity on the baseball diamond. His persona extended beyond the playing field and touched all of our hearts. In many respects, as an immigrant's son, he represented the hopes and ideals of our great country.'' This high praise for a man born in a small fishing village 25 miles from northeast of San Francisco is indeed a wonderful tribute. But it was Emerson who said it best when he said, ``It is better to judge a man not by his station in life but what he has done to get there.'' And so the story of Joe DiMaggio is one that, by anybody's measuring stick, would have to be termed a great life. Joe DiMaggio's father expected him to become a fisherman, like his brothers, but Joe had different dreams. He dreamt of fields and diamonds. He dreamt of playing the game of baseball. In 1932, at the age of 17, he began his professional baseball career, playing in three games for the San Francisco Seals of the Pacific coast. He played his first major league game on May 3 of 1936 at Yankee Stadium against the St. Louis Browns. Joe DiMaggio served the Yankees as one of the best outfielders to play the game. Nicknamed the ``Yankee Clipper'', for his superb fielding ability, DiMaggio was a great offensive player as well. He set a major league record by establishing a 56 game hitting streak in 1941. And as one who loves the game of baseball, I can tell my colleagues that is a great, great feat. DiMaggio played in 10 World Series, and was the American League's most valuable player in 1939, 1941 and 1947. In 1948, he led the league with 39 home runs and 155 runs batted in. He ended his phenomenal baseball career with 361 runs in 1,736 games. He was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1955. In 1986, DiMaggio received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor for both his achievements on the baseball field as well as for being a worthy role model for past, present and future youth of America. In a recent interview on ``60 Minutes'', DiMaggio talked about his role as a role model, and he said that he felt blessed that so many people looked up to him and looked to him for strength and for a person who they could follow behind. For all his glory, Joe DiMaggio was a quiet man, who took pride in who he was and what he did. He had a basic set of values that went untainted by his celebrity status. DiMaggio's field of dreams took him from a fishing town in San Francisco to the bright lights of New York City and made him, indeed, a baseball great. He gave baseball fans around the world something to cheer about, but more importantly, he gave us all something to believe in, and it is simply called the American Dream. Joe DiMaggio was a true hero and a gentleman, and I am pleased to support this resolution in his honor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), one of my mentors and just one of our greatest Congressmen and an admirer of Joe DiMaggio.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) for moving swiftly to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor. Under current law, if an employee of the Federal Reserve Board leaves to work for another Federal agency, the employee is required to join FERS, the Federal Employees Retirement System. Under the current FERS statute, time spent working at the Board after 1988 does not count as credible service towards a FERS annuity. This is simply not fair. As a result, these employees will receive smaller pensions upon retirement. This outcome resulted from an oversight that occurred when the FERS statute was written in late 1980s. It affects Federal Reserve Board employees hired after 1983 who continued working at the Board after 1988. In human terms, the problem affects approximately 50 employees who have already left the Board for other agencies. But if not addressed, it will potentially affect approximately 1,000 people, translating into 60 percent of the Board's current workforce should they move to other agencies and then retire under FERS. In the long run, if the problem is left unaddressed, an ever-larger proportion of the Board's workforce will be potentially affected in the same manner. Last week, H.R. 807 was marked up by full committee, and two amendments were offered and approved by the committee that further enhanced the bill, and a bill that Congress passed last year, the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998. Due to an amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the bill will also allow current and future Federal employees who transfer to the Federal Reserve Board to transfer the funds from their FERS Thrift Savings accounts to the Federal Reserve through a savings plan. At present, current law dictates that Federal employees who participate in the TSP, then transfer to the Board, cannot withdraw funds from their TSP account. The affected employees can no longer contribute money to their TSP or transfer money from their TSP accounts to the Board's thrift plan. They also lose the option to borrow money from their TSP, which is an option that should be available to them as Federal employees. The Federal Reserve Board has requested this technical correction, and I am pleased to support it. During the last Congress, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), former chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, and myself, worked hard to see that the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 be enacted. I applaud him for all of his efforts. This Act improves the ability of veterans to compete during the Federal hiring process, extends veterans' preference to all branches of the Federal Government, and instructs the Secretary of Labor to maintain a database of contractors who have filed reports on the number of veterans they have hired. Since the enactment of this legislation, concerns have arisen regarding OPM's interpretation of a section of the Act providing for the hiring of veterans by Federal agencies. OPM interpreted the language in the act to mean that veterans could be hired for a Federal job as schedule B appointees rather than as career status appointees. Schedule B appointments are not afforded the same rights and privileges as career status employees. This issue was discussed with our counterparts in the Senate and with OPM. All parties agreed that language was needed to clarify the original intent of the Congress. This clarifying language is reflected in the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). Again I compliment him for that. The amendment will ensure American veterans are hired. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.