Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to request a colloquy with chairman regarding the fate of the ongoing restoration work at Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine. I would ask that the chairman engage in such a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the committee has cut a $2.5 million line item in the Park Service's construction budget for the completion of a project that is now underway at Fort McHenry. Last year, based upon a high priority request from the Park Service, $1.5 million was appropriated for work to preserve the underground bombproof rooms and power magazines at the fort as well as some of the more deteriorated walls and defenses of the structure. This year the Park Service requested $2.5 million to complete this project. The action of the committee threatens the timely completion of the work that is now underway at the birthplace of our national anthem. I understand the pressures your subcommittee is under this year, but this was a 2-year high priority project requested by the Park Service that is being cut off in the middle. I would greatly appreciate your reconsideration of this project as this bill moves forward in conference with the other body.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his comments. amendment offered by mr. goss

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations for yielding me this time and for the work that he has done in this area. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge all my colleagues to support the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. This is a tough bill. It is a bill that I think has been made smarter and tougher as a result of the negotiations that took place between the three committees that had jurisdiction on the bill: the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on Banking and Financial Affairs, and the Committee on Ways and Means. I am particularly pleased that we were able to strengthen the bill in a very important area. That is for a multinational approach to dealing with this issue. Mr. Speaker, we offer a carrot-stick approach to our allies to assume responsibility as to the terrorist activities that Iran and Libya are engaged in, to enter into an international effort to isolate these countries. Make no mistake about it, the investments that go into Iranian infrastructure for oil finance the money that are being used for terrorist activities. The President, the Secretary of State, the director of the CIA, have all identified Iran as the world's leading sponsor of international terrorism. This bill is directly aimed at dealing with that fact, it is indisputable, to dry up the dollars supporting international terrorist activities. That is in the security interests of the United States. The families of the victims of PanAmerican 103 keep us focused on the continued treachery of Libya. We must continue to strengthen the enforcement of sanctions against Libya as approved by the United Nations. All this bill does is to make it clear that we are going to isolate those two countries. It preserves the leadership of the United States in making it clear to countries that harbor terrorists that we will not allow them to participate in the international marketplace and to secure international investments. That is what this stands for. We, before, provided the leadership to the world in the actions that we did in the former Soviet Union. This is a bill that is worthy of the entire support of this membership and I urge Members to vote for it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, every day, we begin the session of the House of Representatives--the people's House--by reciting the pledge of allegiance. The House has been following this practice for nearly 8 years, since September 1988, and it has become part of the rhythm of this institution. There is a place, though, Mr. Speaker, where the pledge of allegiance and, indeed, the flag itself are even more at the center of attention than in this Chamber. I am speaking of Fort McHenry, in Baltimore, which stands as a monument honoring the history of the flag, and of our national anthem. As you know, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, June 14, is Flag Day and this week is National Flag Week. Each year, the National Flag Day Foundation, which I am proud to say say is located in Maryland's Third Congressional District, organizes and participates in a ``pause for the pledge'' at Fort McHenry, at exactly 7 in the evening on June 14. The National Flag Day Foundation encourages all Americans to join in the 7 o'clock pause for the pledge. This grassroots concept of national unity started in Baltimore in 1980. It is a wonderful, patriotic program. This simple ceremony provides an opportunity for all Americans, whenever they are, to display simultaneously their love and respect for our flag and our country. Fort McHenry, of course, is the point from which Francis Scott Key, during the War of 1812, watched ``By the Dawn's Early Light'' as the American Navy battled for the survival of the young country. Every year at the fort, thousands of Americans are thrilled to see ``that star- spangled banner yet wave, o'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.'' For any of my colleagues who have not had the opportunity to visit Fort McHenry, I strongly recommend it as a stirring experience. Tomorow evening, at 7 p.m., the National Flag Day Foundation will again celebrate the pause for the pledge. Had we been in session and voting tomorrow, I had hoped to lead the House in the pledge in conjunction with the celebration. Now, since the House will not conduct legislative business tomorrow, I would take this opportunity to urge all my colleagues to make the pause for the pledge part of their Flag Day observation. It is my pleasure at this point to include in the Congressional Record the simple, profound words that every American knows so well. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2754 and against the Bateman amendment, which would basically defeat the bill. First, I really want to compliment the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Gibbons, for the work that he has done for so many years to bring us to this point by bringing forward legislation in this Chamber that have brought our European friends to the table so that we could enter into this agreement. We are here today because of his good work and we all appreciate that very much. Mr. Chairman, the Port of Baltimore was once a great center for commercial shipbuilding. During the Second World War we were producing the Liberty ships after just a few days of work. We had many commercial shipyards located in the harbor area of Baltimore. Well, today, we have one major commercial shipbuilding yard that remains, and that yard basically competes for repair work. The reason why Baltimore lost its shipbuilding was not because it was inefficient; it lost its shipbuilding because of international subsidies. Other countries were willing to put up tremendous subsidies for their shipbuilding and we in this Nation thought that was wrong and we protested and protested, but the jobs were lost in this country. If we can return to an even playing field, remove the international subsidies, we can compete. We are finding commercial shipbuilding coming back in this Nation, but it will only come back if we remove the international subsidies. We cannot outcompete the Europeans and Korea and Japan in the amount of subsidies that they will put forward to their shipbuilding. We want a level playing field. This bill gives us that level playing field. If the Bateman amendment is adopted, we have lost this opportunity to eliminate the international subsidies in this area. Let our communities rebuild commercial shipbuilding. Support this legislation and vote against the Bateman amendment.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] for the work he has done on health care reform. I am pleased that we are finally going to conference on this health reform bill. Since the President's State of the Union Address, there has been bipartisan support in passing legislation that would eliminate preexisting conditions for people who lose their jobs and need to change from one group plan to another, or from a group plan to an individual plan. We have wanted portability, both Democrats and Republicans have asked for us to move this legislation, and I am pleased that at last we are going to conference in order to get this done. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion of the gentleman from Michigan to instruct the conferees, and let me give two reasons that I hope that the final bill that we will vote on will contain. First, mental health parity. Mental health parity is important to help start to remove the historical discrimination against mental illness in this Nation. There has been a lot of talk that that may increase the premium cost. Let me give the experience of the State of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, we have enacted mental health parity in our State that is effective against State-regulated health insurance plans. We have found no appreciable increase in premium costs as a result of establishing parity. Mr. Speaker, when consumers have reasonable access to health care, we find that we have more cost-effective health care; we do not force people into more costly circumstances. We have found in-patient care actually decline as a result of providing mental health parity. We would hope that the final bill that comes to the floor from conference will include mental health parity. The second reason I support the gentleman's proposal is the MEWA provision that allows employers to join together but preempts the abilities of our States to regulate. We talk about we want the States to do more, but the MEWA provisions in the House bill would prevent our States from regulating. The State of Maryland has enacted small market reforms. The MEWA provisions would prevent that. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the many achievements of Rodney A. Trump over his career with General Motors and the United Automobile Workers Union. I note with some sadness that Rodney will be retiring this month from his position as president of UAW Local 239 in Baltimore. When we reflect upon the revolution that has taken place in the American workplace over the last generation--what has returned American manufacturing to its place of global leadership in quality and technology--we must look to leaders such as Rodney Trump. Rodney has worked hard to make GM's Baltimore plant the best truck assembly facility in the Nation. The tremendous success of the mini-vans produced there in recent years can in large part be tied to the professionalism and commitment to the product exhibited by the work force. Rodney ensured that his workers were always at the table and leading the revolution at the plant. Rodney first arrived at Baltimore's General Motors plant on Broening Highway on February 11, 1965. Since that time he has served in increasingly responsible positions with the union at the plant, including: alternate committee person, district committee person, benefits representative, educational director, vice president, and president. Rodney has served as president of the local for the past 11 years. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to work with Rodney on a number of issues and I value his guidance, honesty, friendship, and insights tremendously. In perhaps the clearest demonstration of his stature with his people, to walk through the Broening Highway Plant with Rodney would be a lift for even the most successful politican. His people rush to reach out to him, turn to him with questions and problems, point to their successes on the line--almost cheering--as he slowing makes his rounds on the plant floor. It is a real inspiration for those of us fighting for the American worker. I wish my colleagues could join me for one more tour with Rodney before he retires. I would ask all Members to join me in wishing Rodney the best in a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the statement of the last speaker is just wrong. This is not a bipartisan proposal that is being brought up on Medicaid and welfare. The Democratic Governors have pointed out, although they worked very hard with Republican Governors to come out with a fair compromise on the subject of Medicaid and welfare, the proposal that the Republicans are bringing forward is not that compromise. Mr. Speaker, once again we find the Republicans trying to bring out a Presidential veto rather than getting anything done. At least we had the Democratic Governors and the Republican Governors working together, a lesson that we should learn here of working together. But instead, the Republican leadership is bringing out their bill, not the bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I regret that, because I think we had an opportunity to get something done. But, obviously, the Republican leadership does not want that to happen.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I want to thank my friend from Minnesota for yielding me this time and thank him for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I support this motion, but let me just give one reason, one part of the motion that deals with Medicare that I think is particularly important. The House budget resolution takes away the protection that our seniors have today, certain seniors, on their doctor or hospital being able to bill more than Medicare permits. That will require many seniors to pay a lot more for their health care as a result of that provision. Last year the Democrats pointed out to the Republicans in their budget resolution the mistakes that they were making in Medicare, that it would cost our seniors more, it would take away their choice, being done in order to give tax breaks to basically wealthy people. Let us not make the same mistake again this year. This motion gives us a chance, one chance, one part dealing with balance billing, to go along with the wisdom of the other body and to make sure that our seniors have the protection against balance billing. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this and vote for the motion that is accompanying the conference report. We have heard from the Republicans, we have heard from the Democrats. Let me quote, if I might, from two nonpartisan private commissions that report to Congress that work for us. These are nonpartisan commissions that look at the health care system. Both have evaluated the Republican Medicare proposal. PPRC has said ``The absence of balance billing limits for services delivered in private fee-for-service plans and plans associated with MSA's could leave beneficiaries exposed to substantial out of pocket liability.'' And PROPAC said ``PROPAC is concerned that beneficiaries who choose the Medicare Plus fee-for-service option will be subjected to unanticipated out-of-pocket liabilities.'' But then the commission goes on and says ``The Commission is also concerned about provider behavior resulting from these arrangements: Some providers may decide not to see those with traditional Medicare coverage by limiting their practice to patients who can pay high charges. This phenomenon could limit access of Medicare beneficiaries, particularly those with low incomes.'' The provision that is in the House budget resolution will lead to different levels of care for our seniors. Those that are wealthy will have one system. Those that have limited income, most of our seniors, are going to be denied full access and are going to be asked to pay more with less choice. That is not what we want. Our seniors already have the highest out- of-pocket health care cost of any group of Americans. The Republican budget resolution will add to that cost. The Senate, the other body, at least recognized on balance billing that we must maintain a provision that has been in the Medicare system for a long time, that protects against extra billings by doctors and hospitals that our seniors just cannot afford. I urge my colleagues to support the motion that is accompanying the conference report.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this time, and compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], for the work that he has done in the pension area, and I thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] for his comments. It has clearly been a bipartisan effort on the pension simplification, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] has done a great job this year in bringing this bill to the floor for the second time. I hope we are going to be able to get these pension simplifications enacted. We have moved many of the provisions in this bill on previous occasions. We have broad support both in this House, the other body, the Clinton administration, and the public for many provisions that are in this bill. We have seen most of these provisions included in the pension simplification in 1992 as passed by a Democratic Congress. It was vetoed by a Republican President for unrelated reasons. The provisions were passed again in 1995 by a Republican Congress and vetoed by a Democratic President for unrelated reasons. So I hope the third time is the charm and we will get this bill passed and signed into law, because it contains many important provisions for people in this Nation. We have already heard some of those reasons. We are restoring the exclusion for employer-provided education assistance. That is long overdue and good news many hundreds of thousands of Americans. Thousands more Americans will welcome the newly configured work opportunity tax credit, which will help businesses hire people and give them a chance to learn new skills. The reform in subchapter S, very important for American small businesses that will help them accumulate capital and prosper and raise the necessary funds in order to grow in our economy. And the expensing of capital from $17,500 to $25,000 for small business is a continuation of a process that we started in 1993 tax legislation. But as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] has pointed out, the provision I guess I am the most pleased to see us move forward is the pension simplification. All too frequently in the last 15 years in the name of simplification and reform, we made it impossible for many small businesses to have pension plans. The complicated test that Government required small businesses to go through prevented many small businesses financially from being able to offer pension plans. What this bill will do, by offering new opportunities and safe harbor provisions, will allow small companies to in fact have pension plans to provide for the future of their workers. I am extremely pleased that those provisions are included in this bill, and I trust that we will be able to get this to the President's desk in a form that it can be signed. Mr. Speaker, let me point out, when we work together, Democrats and Republicans, to craft legislation, it is in the best interest of the American people. I hope what we are doing tonight in this legislation we can do in many more bills throughout the year, work together on behalf of the American people.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is interesting that the proponents are talking about everything but the merits of the particular bill that is before us. My constituents understand this is election year politics and it is very expensive. Let me, if I might, quote from a letter I received from Henry Rosenberg, who happens to be the chairman and CEO of Crown Central Petroleum Corp., a producer and refiner of gasoline. Mr. Rosenberg states: I am writing to express opposition to the current proposal to reduce the Federal gasoline tax. The 4.3-cents-per-gallon tax, included in the 1993 budget, should remain as a deficit cutting measure. Long-term damage to U.S. economy, caused by repeal of the tax, would far outweigh any short-term gain to the consuming public. The rationale advanced by the sponsors of this legislation is that the motoring public needs help because of the recent increases in gasoline prices. Well, there are two problems with that. First, as has already been pointed out, the gasoline tax has nothing to do with the recent increase in gasoline prices. In fact, we have seen in recent years a decline in gasoline prices. The second problem is that the consumer will not get the benefit of the 4.3-cent gasoline tax cut. Economists before the Committee on Ways and Means indicated that it will not be passed through. This is only a 7-month repeal. It comes right back after the elections. The $2 a month a typical family will save will evaporate; will not even be there. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will do the right thing on this proposal. I want to quote from one more letter that was written in the Baltimore Sun by Mr. Jack Kinstlinger, who called the proposal to repeal the gasoline tax foolish and counterproductive. Let us understand what we are doing. Mr. Rosenberg of Crown Central said, and I want to just quote this, ``Congress should have the courage to support what is right, and that is to be fiscally responsible.'' I urge my colleagues to do that and to defeat this bill. Mr. Speaker, the letters referred to earlier follow: Crown Central Petroleum Corp., Baltimore, MD, May 8, 1996. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: I am writing to express opposition to the current proposals to reduce the federal gasoline tax. The 4.3 cents per gallon tax, included in the 1993 budget, should remain as a deficit cutting measure. Long-term damage to U.S. economy, caused by repeal of the tax, would far outweigh any short-term gain for the consuming public. Crown does not traditionally support increased gasoline taxes, especially when the revenue generated is not used directly for the building of highway infrastructure. In this case, however, the roughly $4.5 billion generated by this tax each year is essential to our efforts to reduce the deficit. Putting our economy back in balance is of far greater importance to both our industry and the country than returning a few dollars to motorists. We currently bequeath to our children a trillion dollars of debt every four years. It is our duty to change this situation, not to make matters worse. A knee-jerk political reaction to the temporary problem of higher gasoline prices is not an appropriate action for Congress. The market, when left to take its course, will correct any imbalances and will put the price of gasoline where it should be. In the meantime, Congress should have the courage to support what is right, and that is to be fiscally responsible. Sincerely, Henry A. Rosenberg, Jr.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues in the House to vote for the coalition budget. Let me suggest three reasons why they should. First, there is no question that the coalition budget reduces the Federal deficit greater than any of the other proposals before us. Just compare the facts. After 3 years under the Republican budget, the deficit will be reduced by just $35 billion, from $150 billion to $115 billion. Then they would have us believe that Congress is going to jump off a cliff in the next 3 years and eliminate that $115 billion deficit. Compare that to the coalition budget which reduces the deficit during the first 3 years by almost one half, down from $150 billion to $80 billion. The true measure as to whether we are serious about deficit reduction is what we do up front. The coalition budget does the best job of keeping us on a glide path to really get the budget deficit over with. Over the next 6 years the Republican committee budget will increase the national debt by $140 billion more than the coalition budget. The American people want us to end the flood of red ink. The coalition budget is the serious proposal to get that done. The CBO, OMB, and outside interest groups all agree that this is the best approach, if reducing the deficit is our top domestic priority. The second reason I urge my colleagues to support this approach is that this approach protects the priorities that are important to the American people. It protects priorities in education, environment, and health care. It protects student loans and provides $45 billion more for education and training programs to help prepare American children and workers for the economic challenges of the future. The third reason is that the coalition budget can pass. Democrats and Republicans can come together on the coalition budget and we can really get the job done. If we want to accomplish a balanced budget by the year 2002, this is the way to go. We can come together as Democrats and Republicans, and I urge my colleagues to support the coalition budget.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a bipartisan group of Representatives to introduce the Federal Health Program Benefit Change Accountability Act. This legislation would prevent the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] from making significant changes to Federal retirees' health benefits without first reporting to Congress what those changes will entail, how costs to retirees will be impacted, and how quality will be assured. This legislation comes in direct response to OPM's decision to allow Blue Cross/Blue Shield [BC/BS] to alter the prescription drug benefit of their standard benefit package for Federal retirees on Medicare. Prior to 1996, there was no cost-sharing for prescription drugs purchased at a network retail pharmacy or through the mail order pharmacy. Starting in January 1996, BC/BS began charging Federal retirees on Medicare a new 20 percent copayment for prescriptions purchased at their network retail pharmacies. The only way this new copayment can be avoided is to use the mail order pharmacy program offered by BC/BS. Many of us heard from constituents who opposed this change. Most seniors live on fixed incomes and are sensitive to sudden increases in the cost of prescription drugs. They are also the segment of our population that uses the most medications. At the same time, seniors tend to have long standing relationships with their local pharmacists who provide important health care services to them. A local retail pharmacist is often willing to perform services such as color-coding their prescriptions, providing special caps for easy opening, and offering important face-to-face counseling. In addition to being health care providers, local pharmacies play an important local economic role. Sending prescriptions to mail order pharmacies takes dollars and jobs out of our communities. The bottom line is that this benefit change by BC/BS hurts both our constituents' health and our local economies. More than 70 colleagues joined me in writing to OPM in December 1995 opposing this benefit change. We are still awaiting an important report from GAO that will detail the effect of various prescription drug policies on both enrollees and community pharmacies. We asked OPM to delay implementation of this benefit change until the GAO study was complete and until other cost-savings alternatives were investigated. That letter is attached at the end of this statement. OPM did not agree with our concerns and went ahead with implementing the benefit change as scheduled. What happened then was nothing short of chaos. The mail order pharmacy company was not prepared for the tremendous increase in business resulting from the new 20 percent copayment at retail pharmacies. We received reports of doctors attempting to submit prescriptions being told that the fax machines had been unplugged and they were not accepting new prescriptions, enrollees were reporting delays of several seeks before obtaining their prescriptions, and there were problems with incomplete or incorrect orders. A constituent of mine in Baltimore stated that she had ``literally spent one month on this phone with this company.'' She also said that when her order finally arrived, her bottle was seven pills short, and her husband's was shy two pills. To OPM's credit, they immediately moved to correct these severe inadequacies of the program. They allowed a limited number of enrollees to temporarily obtain their drugs at their local pharmacies without the copayment penalty. While it does appear that these extreme problems have been corrected, the fact remains that there are still problems and inequities. Mail order pharmacies are certainly an appropriate option to make available for enrollees. However, this new copayment structure does not result in a real choice for seniors--it simply increases their out-of-pocket costs. Mail order pharmacies are not an appropriate source for acute drugs because of the length of time it takes to obtain a prescription. This new BC/BS policy imposes a new 20 percent copayment--which can be a significant cost--on enrollees needing acute prescriptions. For them, the mail order pharmacy is not a viable option to avoid this new costs. If the 20 percent copayment is a serious impediment, then the senior may use the mail order option anyway. Their health could be seriously impacted by that decision. In addition, people have been unable to obtain color-coding for their prescriptions--an important service for a frail senior taking a strong regimen of prescriptions. I, along with several colleagues, have spent months looking into possible remedies to prevent OPM from making decisions on benefit changes in a vacuum as they do today. Our goal is to avoid any repeat performances of the problems we have seen this year. Our legislation is entitled ``The Federal Health Program Benefit Change Accountability Act.'' It details the multiple problems resulting from OPM's decision to make this benefit change and would institute a new reporting process. OPM would be required to provide an annual report to Congress that would describe any significant changes for the upcoming year in Federal retiree health benefits. The report would also provide Congress with the details that were missing this past year. It would explain what cost savings expected to be achieved, how enrollees would be financially affected by the change, and how quality of care would be impacted. Congress would then have time to react if there were concerns with the change. The bill has been endorsed by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the National Association of Retail Druggists, the National Council on Aging, and the National Council of Senior Citizens, The original cosponsors are: Representatives J.C. Watts, Hoyer, Gilman, Morella, Pickett, LaFalce, Cramer, Pomeroy, Brewster, Tim Johnson, Moran, Meek, and Ehrlich. We urge our colleagues to join us in preventing OPM from making new benefits changes that negatively impact seniors' health and our local communities. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, December 15, 1995. James B. King, Director, Office of Personnel Management, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. King: We are writing to raise concerns about the implementation of a new 20 percent copayment for prescriptions filled in local retail pharmacies under the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. As you know, beginning January 1, 1996, this change will make it more costly for almost one million Federal retirees with Medicare Part B coverage if they want to continue to obtain their prescriptions at their neighborhood pharmacy. The only way for Federal retirees to avoid the imposition of this new cost-sharing will be for them to leave their neighborhood pharmacy and send their prescriptions to an out- of-state mail order firm. The rationale for this change is that it is a cost-saving measure. While we commend efforts by BC/BS to lower costs for the Federal Government and their enrollees, we question whether these savings will be passed through to enrollees. Two aspects of these efforts are abundantly clear to us. Last year, BC/BS's use of a mail order operation diverted $400 million from our districts in sales, revenues and jobs from the local pharmacies. If this new change becomes effective, an estimated $600 million will leave our districts in 1996 and instead be invested in an out-of-state mail order firm. Many local pharmacies are small businesses that cannot afford a shift of their local business to out-of-state mail order firms. Second, Federal retirees, many of whom take multiple prescriptions that require face-to-face pharmacist counseling and close monitoring of prescription use, will lose the medical counseling of their local pharmacists when they switch to the mail order program due to financial constraints. We have strong reservations about cost-saving solutions that place an economic penalty on the use of local pharmacies. There are alternative approaches that BC/BS could take to achieve cost-savings in the area of prescription drug use. One solution would be to implement a mandatory generic drug program. Another solution could be a reasonable copayment, such as one or two dollars, per prescription drug. Neither of these alternatives would disadvantage our neighborhood pharmacies which play important health care and economic roles in our communities. You may be aware that the GAO has recently been asked to study the impact of BC/BS's FEHBP's prescription drug program policies on enrollees and community pharmacies. We believe that this is an important study and that the results should be known before this new policy is implemented. Therefore, we ask you to take action to postpone implementation of this change until the GAO study is complete and to consider alternative cost-saving approaches such as those mentioned in this letter. Sincerely, Benjamin L. Cardin and 68 Members of Congress.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, for yielding me this time, and really congratulate Mr. Sabo for working with Members on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, people of different persuasions, to try to get us together on a budget that will balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. I thought we were making progress and I thought Mr. Sabo had done a great job in bringing us closer together as we ended 1995. Unfortunately, as I look at the Republican budget that is being brought up under this resolution, it seems like we are no further together than we were a year ago. That is very unfortunate. A missed opportunity. The budget should speak to the framework on which we want to see the priorities of this Nation, on raising revenues and on spending priorities. Let me just talk, if I might, in the few minutes I have, on Medicare, one part of that budget. The Medicare proposal in the Republican budget will cost my seniors more, they are going to receive less care, and it seriously jeopardizes the quality of our Medicare system. Last year the Republicans suggested cutting $270 billion from the Medicare system in order to finance $245 billion of tax breaks. Well, we are not dealing with a 6-year budget rather than a 7-year budget, so this year the cut in Medicare is $168 billion, the tax breaks of $122 billion going basically to wealthier people. That is not what our seniors want. That is wrong. Instead, we should be looking at ways of preserving the Medicare system, which the Republicans talk about, but by their own admission they do nothing on the long-term solvency of the Medicare system and a large part of their savings do not go into the Medicare Part A Program. We talk about giving our seniors more choice, and they do if a person happens to be wealthy or healthy, under the Republican program. But the vast majority of my seniors do not fall into that category. They will not be able to choose a health care plan that will cover their needs. The Republican proposal removes the protections in Medicare about the plans charging more or the doctors charging more. Sure, if an individual is wealthy they can afford that extra money, but if they are of modest income, as most seniors are, they cannot and they will be forced into a plan where they do not have choice. We talk about people going into a private plan and returning the Medicare but we offer no protection on their Medigap plans. Most seniors rely on Medigap, and yet the Republicans have removed that from their proposal. We do have a choice. We do have a choice in order to preserve the Medicare system. We can vote for the President's budget, we can vote for the Congressional Black Caucus' budget. I favor the coalition budget because it is a responsible way to bring down the cost of Medicare without robbing our seniors to pay for tax breaks for wealthy people. It also preserves the quality of our Medicare system. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican proposal and support the coalition budget.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] has been one of the real champions in reforming our foster care system and encouraging more adoptions. Let me point out, I think people who have been watching this evening will see that there is bipartisan cooperation tonight in moving legislation that is very important to American families. This bill is supported by both the Democrats and Republicans, and I wish we could do that more on the floor of this House and get this type of working relationship where we can produce legislation that is very important to the American family. This bill and the central part of this bill is to remove an impediment to being adopted from many children who are in foster care, and that impediment is a financial burden. It is very costly in our system to adopt children. Many parents are not able to do that because of the costs. So the central part of this bill is to remove that financial burden, to reduce it significantly on the outset, to make it possible for more children to be adopted. Madam Speaker, I want to point out another feature of the bill, and that is special needs adoptions which are much more difficult children to place, that have disabilities, that are older, and it is more difficult to place these children in permanent adoption circumstances. This bill recognizes that and provides additional incentives for special needs adoption. So this legislation has been, I think, worked on in the right way in our committee, in the Committee on Ways and Means, with input from many different groups. It is an important bill, the central feature of which I think will very much help to find more homes for children who are currently in foster care. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chairman yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the $5,000 adoption credit. I would also like to engage the chairman in a colloquy about the definition of qualified adoption expenses under this legislation. The legislation provides that qualified adoption expenses are reasonable and necessary adoption fees, court costs, attorneys fees, and other expenses that are directly related to the legal adoption of an eligible child. Is it your understanding that the legislation that qualified adoption expenses includes any reasonable and necessary expenses required by the State where the expenses occur as a condition of the adoption?

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that this is notice to the local parties to the lawsuits that they need to consult with the local jurisdictions before going forward. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the process that should be used in settling lawsuits that involve local housing authorities and HUD. If I might just refer briefly to the recent settlement of the Baltimore litigation, initially the local parties entered into a tentative agreement without consultation with the surrounding counties that were affected by the lawsuit. Now, many of us have concern about the Baltimore settlement, the underlying policy of special aid certificates. The process used denied the surrounding jurisdictions the opportunity to be heard. HUD slowed that process down, giving the surrounding counties an opportunity to have input, and there were improvements that were made as the process went forward because of consultation with the surrounding jurisdictions. This amendment puts the local parties on notice that before they enter into any settlement involving the local housing authorities, that the jurisdictions that can be affected by that settlement need to be consulted and that HUD will consult with local jurisdictions before they enter into any settlement of such a lawsuit. Mr. Chairman, let me tell you, I do not believe this amendment is controversial. HUD has no objections to it. I would urge my colleagues to accept this amendment.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post 9083 in Parkville, MD which is celebrating its 50th anniversary. In 1946, as returning soldiers from World War II, these veterans found themselves informally meeting at neighborhood stores or on the street. It quickly became clear that they needed a more formal meeting place; somewhere to come together to be with others who had shared the same experiences that were so binding. The Parkville VFW post began with 15 charter members; today it boasts 1,851 members. The post has grown along with the Parkville neighborhood and through the years has done an outstanding job of serving both the community and its members. The VFW post has an impressive record of service. The post raised more than $10,000 for the Johns Hopkins Children's Cancer Fund in one of its most successful endeavors. The post sponsors events for high school students such as the VFW Voice of Democracy Oratory Contest, which awards a $25,000 scholarship to the national winner. Its assistance with local scout troops and ROTC groups also has benefited the youth of Parkville. The VFW post members have a strong bond with veterans in the area. Their longstanding tradition of sponsoring a monthly event at the Fort Howard Veterans Hospital has helped to lift the spirits of many sick and disabled veterans. This VFW post is marked by the caring assistance its members extend to fellow veterans and their families. Every meeting begins with the question: ``Is there a member of the post or a family member in distress?'' I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Parkville VFW post on its 50th anniversary. The veterans who fought to keep our country free have have worked hard to make our community a better place to live. The veterans of Post 9083 have shown an uncommon caring and dedication to others that truly make them a valued asset to our community.