Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, an environmental organization concerned with cleaning up and preserving Maryland's greatest environmental treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. It was most appropriate that on Monday, Earth Day, we turned our attention to the fine job done by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay is a national resource that has a profound effect on much of the east coast. Its 64,000-square mile drainage basin--from the Finger Lakes in New York to the Ports of Baltimore and Hampton Roads--provides millions of us with food, energy, recreation, and water. Since its inception in 1971, the alliance has been dedicated to creating a healthier, cleaner Bay. It has proven equal to the task. The alliance's nonadversarial approach has enabled it to work with a wide range of people for a better Bay. Over the years, the alliance has successfully rallied support from the business community, citizens groups, environmentalists, industry, scientists, farmers, sports enthusiasts, and others to preserve and restore the Chesapeake Bay. The alliance has accomplished its mission by establishing several important programs. The Alliance's Public Policy Program builds consensus on issues that directly affect the Bay. The Information Services Program provides unbiased information about issues. The Watershed Restoration Program gets people involved in hands-on habitat restoration work. I urge my colleagues to acknowledge the fine work of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and to commit themselves to preserving the important programs that are so vital to the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, in 1982 I had an experience similar to the gentleman from Maryland's of presiding over the session when Elijah Cummings became a member of the legislature, of the Maryland House of Delegates. I had the opportunity to serve with our new colleague in the House of Delegates, and I can tell each one of the Members that they are in for a treat: a person who is dedicated to public service and dedicated to helping people. Mr. Speaker, as we have already heard, the torch of leadership in the Seventh Congressional District has not passed very often in the last quarter of a century. Elijah is now the fourth person to hold that seat, with Parren Mitchell, who became a leader of this Nation on urban issues, on banking issues, and particularly small business. Kweisi Mfume was elected a decade ago to this body, the same time I was. We became and are very close friends. Kweisi became a national leader, chairman of the Black Caucus, and has spoken out so well on so many issues. I was very proud when Kweisi was selected as the head of the NAACP. It was a great decision for that organization and for this Nation, but I lost a colleague and a friend in this legislative body. Today I am very excited that Elijah Cummings is taking that position. He will follow in that tradition. He was an outstanding member of the House of Delegates, holding the vice chairmanships of two of our standing committees. Mr. Speaker, we only have six standing committees in the Maryland House of Delegates and Elijah has shown expertise in two of those. He went on to become the Speaker Pro Tem, very actively involved in the leadership of our General Assembly. So, Mr. Speaker, it is particularly a pleasure for me to say hello and welcome my colleague for so many years in the House of Delegates, now in the Congress of the United States. I know Elijah Cummings will add to the great tradition of the Seventh Congressional District. Over the past quarter century, the torch of leadership has not been passed often in Maryland's Seventh Congressional District. When it has passed, the Nation has come to know that it should take notice, because Maryland's Seventh District has sent leaders of stature and vision. In 1970, the voters of Baltimore sent Parren Mitchell to the Congress. Over 16 years in the House, Congressman Mitchell became an acknowledged expert and leader on issues finance, banking, and especially small business. A decade ago, Congressman Mitchell announced his decision to step down. Rising up to take his seat was a young, articulate, but little known city council member named Kweisi Mfume; 1986 marked my own election to the House. Over the past decade, Congressman Mfume and I forged a strong working relationship and close friendship. In his years in the House, Congressman Mfume rose to become a national spokesman on behalf of African-Americans and all Americans concerned about justice, fairness, and the realization of the American dream. Congressman Mfume rose, as Congressman Mitchell had before him, to chair the Congressional Black Caucus. From that post, he used his exceptional skills as a tactistian, an orator, and as a strategist to fight effectively for the people of his district and the Nation. Nobody was prouder than I when, this winter, the NAACP announced that Congressman Mfume would become its new CEO and President. While I miss my good friend in this body, I am excited over the prospect of serving with the newly elected Congressman from the Seventh. Elijah Cummings is an honorable and able successor as the representative of the Seventh District. He brings all the dedication, intelligence, and vision that distinguished his two predecessors, and I have no doubt he will follow in their footsteps as a national leader. Elijah and I have served together before, in Maryland's House of Delegates. I was delighted to welcome him to Annapolis in 1982 when he arrived as a new member. In his 14 years in the State legislature, he has demonstrated a talent for legislative craftsmanship and responsiveness to the concerns of the people he represents that will serve him--and the Nation--well here in Congress. He also has a gift for building consensus and bringing people together that this body desperately needs. His colleagues in Annapolis have recognized his leadership, as he has risen to be chairman of Maryland's Legislative Black Caucus, the youngest person ever to attain that position. As vice chairman of the House Constitutional and Administrative Law Committee and as vice chairman of the Economic Matters Committee, he has acquired a wealth of expertise and experience that he will now bring to bear on the considerable problems facing this Nation. Most recently, he became Speaker Pro Tem of the House of Delegates, the second highest position of leadership in that body. I am delighted to join my other colleagues in welcoming my neighbor to the House of Representatives. I am sure he will follow in the proud tradition of his district and enjoy a long and distinguished career here in the people's House.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, an environmental organization concerned with cleaning up and preserving Maryland's greatest environmental treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. It is very appropriate that today, Earth Day, we turn our attention to the fine job done by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. The bay is a national resource that has a profound affect on much of the east coast. It is 64,000-square-mile drainage basin--from the Finger Lakes in New York to the ports of Baltimore and Hampton Roads--provides millions of us with food, energy, recreation, and water. Since its inception in 1971, the alliance has been dedicated to creating a healthier, cleaner bay. It has proven equal to the task. The alliance's nonadversarial approach has enabled it to work with a wide range of people for a better, cleaner bay. Over the years, the alliance has successfully rallied support from the business community, citizens groups, environmentalists, industry, scientists, farmers, sports enthusiasts, and others to preserve and restore the Chesapeake Bay. The alliance has accomplished its mission by establishing several important programs. The alliance's public policy program builds consensus on issues that directly affect the bay; the Information Services Program provides unbiased information about issues; and the Watershed Restoration Program gets people involved in hands-on habitat restoration work. I urge my colleagues to acknowledge the fine work of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and to commit themselves to preserving the important programs that are so vital to the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment with the conference report on H.R. 956, the Product Liability Reform Act. I have long been a supporter of legal reform and in particular, product liability tort reform. Unfortunately, some of the measures in this bill are too extreme and therefore, I must vote ``no'' on final passage. I support a number of the provisions in the conference report including the abolishment of joint and several liability for noneconomic damages and the encouragement of alternative dispute resolution. In addition, the FDA defense proposed in the original House-passed bill was lifted in conference. Under the House bill, plaintiffs would have been barred from winning punitive damages for harm caused by products approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The conference agreement also contains a more workable legal standard for punitive damages. Under the House bill, plaintiffs would be required to prove that a product was specifically intended to cause harm. The conference languages, which sets a standard of clear and convincing evidence for punitive damages, is a much more reasonable standard. While the conference report improves on the House-passed legislation on punitive damages restrictions, I believe the language is still unacceptable. I support reasonable caps on punitive damages. However, the conference report allows a large number of businesses to be subject to an unreasonably low cap on punitive damages. In addition, an overall limit on $250,000, or two times compensatory damages, is also too low. I and many of my colleagues had suggested a cap of $500,000. I regret that the Conference Committee did not accept that recommendation. The additur language was a good attempt to ease the impact of the punitive damage cap. It would allow a judge to award punitive damages above the cap if the judge determines the defendant's conduct was egregious. Although this provision is an improvement, it is subject to constitutional challenge, and would not apply to small business. As I have indicated, I support many provisions in the conference report. However, there is much that I cannot support, including the preemption of States' rights, the statue of limitations, and lawsuit limits placed on victims of firearms violence. I find particularly offensive the inclusion of negligent entrustment cases under the limits of this legislation. Sensible product liability reform should not subject cases involving gun or alcohol sales to minors to these new lower punitive damage limits or higher standards of proof. Mr. Speaker, we can reform the legal system while still ensuring consumer protection. As a supporter of legal reform, I urge a ``no'' vote on this conference report so that it can be sent back to conference for further consideration.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule. I thought we were going to get a rule and a bill before us that will let us deal with health insurance portability and preexisting conditions, that will let us deal with the problems that our constituents are facing of losing their jobs and losing their health benefits, and being unable to get health insurance without preexisting condition restrictions. Democrats and Republicans agreed to deal with that issue. Yet this rule makes it less likely we will get to that day. This rule does not permit any amendments to be offered. Many amendments were suggested in the Committee on Rules, that would help improve the bill that has been brought forward. Let me just mention a couple of the areas that troubled me. The bill preempts State laws in many, many ways. I thought we were supposed to be returning power to our States. This bill makes it very difficult for our States to respond to health insurance problems. In my own State, we have adopted small group market reform. Yet the provisions in the underlying bill would seriously jeopardize Maryland's ability to continue that small market reform. I had offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules for fraud and abuse. There are new provisions in this bill that make it more difficult for the Justice Department to bring fraud cases against providers that are cheating. Yet the Committee on Rules did not make that amendment in order. The group-to-individual provisions need to be improved. They are too restrictive to a person who loses their health insurance and must provide an individual plan. This rule does not allow us the opportunity to go forward with the type of portability that we need. The only option before us is to support the Democratic substitute if we want portability and eliminating preexisting conditions.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this substitute, this alternative. It does two things, and it does them better than the original bill. First, it provides for portability. It does it better than the underlying bill, because if you lose your job and you lose your insurance and you try to find an individual plan, the substitute allows you to have some options and lets you be able to buy an affordable individual plan. The second thing this bill does is deal with the self-employed by allowing them to be able to deduct 80 percent of their premium, whereas the underlying bill is at 50 percent. It makes it better for the self- employed. Both of these issues enjoy strong bipartisan support. This bill, the alternate, if it is passed, will be signed quickly by the President, will be approved by the Senate. It can be a reality. It is stronger than the underlying bill, and it can be passed and enacted into law. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the substitute.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from California, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, this bill has certainly changed since it left the Committee on Ways and Means. That is unfortunate, because I know that the chairman agrees with me that we are trying to return power to our States. This bill moves in exactly the opposite direction. By preempting our States in health insurance, which has been a traditional role for State governments to regulate, this bill moves in the wrong direction. It preempts our States without providing adequate Federal protection. Mr. Speaker, let me just give one example of the impact that this bill will have, if it becomes law, on the State of Maryland. We enacted small market reform in our State. It covers employers that have employees, between 2 and 50 employees. It also covers the association plans, and now also covers our self-employed. The plan is working. Mr. Speaker, let me just read from a letter that I received from our State officials: The reforms went into effect July 1, 1994. . . . The small business community (the Maryland Chamber, Retail Merchants Association, individual businesses) and insurance agents report the reforms have stabilized the market, increased price competition, and increased choice of delivery systems. The reforms proved so successful to the general assembly that they expanded it to include the self-employed. Yet, the provisions that are included in this bill would seriously jeopardize our ability to continue that plan in Maryland, for, you see, companies would be able to come under Federal regulation and void the State plan, and therefore, defeat the purpose of the pooling arrangements in our State. That is unfortunate and it is wrong. Let me give a second example. My State has passed the emergency room care legislation, that uses the ``reasonable lay person'' definition on when that person should be reimbursed for care in an emergency room. We are not waiting for the Federal Government to act on it. The Federal Government has not acted on it. Do not penalize my State by allowing more and more insurance plans to be able to get out from under State regulation and be able to avoid their responsibility to cover emergency room care. That is what this bill will allow to happen. More and more companies will be able to avoid State regulation. That is wrong. It should not happen. We should allow the States to respond. Let me quote, if I might, from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners: Unfortunately, we continue to have grave concerns that subtitle C of title I of H.R. 3160 would significantly erode existing State level insurance reforms. The net effect of the final provisions relating to MEWA's is extremely damaging to States authority to govern their own insurance market. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why we are moving in the wrong direction by taking more power, rather than giving our States the ability to control health insurance. The National Association of State legislators opposed those provisions in the bill, and for good reason. I regret that the only option we have is to support the Democratic substitute if we want to deal with preexisting conditions.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, but it is interesting how we got here. We got here today because the Republican leadership and the Democrat administration worked together to bring this bill forward. We have Democrats and Republicans working together, and when we work together it is amazing what we can accomplish. This bill is important. It does deal with the Social Security earning limitation. For too long senior citizens have been penalized for working with outrageously high tax rates. This bill corrects that. The line-item veto is an important bill. It helps to spotlight individual appropriations. We pass these omnibus bills where none of us really have an opportunity to study each and every provision in that legislation. The line-item veto will give us an opportunity to look at these items individually and give the President a role as to whether they should become law. Small business regulatory relief, there are problems with small business. The oversight function of Congress should be to take a look at what regulations impact on small business, and this bill does that. Increasing the debt ceiling, we all know that we need to do that. We have already spent the money. We have got to honor our obligations. But it is interesting, why have we delayed for so long in bringing these bills forward? As I listened on the floor when we were considering other debt extension bills, the Republican leadership told us we could not consider it because we had to deal with deficit reduction. This bill does not deal with deficit reduction; it deals with extending the debt limit, as it should. Perhaps the only lesson that we can take out of this bill on deficit reduction and balancing the budget is if we use the process of Democrats and Republicans working together, then we can accomplish a balanced budget in this Congress. So I hope this legislation will spill over to other efforts between Democrats and Republicans to bring sound legislation to the floor, not in a vacuum by one party, but in cooperation by both parties, between the Congress and the President. If we do that, we will indeed serve our constituents well.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the different speakers all talk about different statistics, one saying one thing, another person saying another thing. That is why I am so disappointed that we have this rule on the floor and we are voting on the issue without having public hearings. We are not experts in law enforcement. The experts in law enforcement should have had an opportunity to come before this Congress and give us their best information as to how the assault weapon ban is working, so that we could vote intelligently on the subject so we could have that debate in our committees where we should have it. What are we afraid of? Bringing the experts before us? The assault weapon ban is a reasonable attempt at trying to get weapons out of the hands of people who want to cause harm and kill our citizens. It is a reasonable effort to have less guns on the street, less assault weapons on the street. It has saved lives and will continue to save lives. It represents a minimal inconvenience to law-abiding citizens, a minimal inconvenience to save lives on the streets. It was a reasonable effort. In my State of Maryland, we have statistics from our law enforcement people showing it has worked, that it has reduced the number of crimes in Baltimore. It has worked with State laws that we have passed working together to try to get guns out of the hands of criminals. That is what this is about. It is beyond me that we want to in a couple of hours repeal the assault weapon ban without giving the public an opportunity to be heard on the subject as to the specific legislation that we have before us. That is not what this legislation is all about. That is not what this Congress is all about. If we differ on the underlying facts, why do we not have the public hearings before this Congress in order to get the facts before us before we are called upon to vote? I think we all understand the reason why we are not going to be afforded that opportunity. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of amendment No. 11 to H.R. 2202, included in the en bloc amendment currently under consideration. The amendment is straightforward; it strengthens enforcement of employer sanctions. Despite the rhetoric on the issue, border enforcement will not solve the illegal immigration problem. The lure of high wages and plentiful job opportunities attracts thousands of illegal immigrants each year. If illegal workers could not secure employment, they would go home and fewer unauthorized aliens would attempt to enter the United States illegally. We must reduce the job magnet. We can do this by deterring employers who hire illegal immigrants in order to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over law-abiding employers. Those employers who do not abide by the law, pay lower wages, given no benefits, pay no taxes, and thereby, suppress wages and working conditions for our country's legal workers. In 1986, Congress, enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) prohibiting the employment of unauthorized aliens. Although the intent of Congress was clear, the INS admits, ``this law was not properly enforced, except immediately after passage of the Act, because the Federal Government until recently lacked the resources . . . [and] has not made employer sanctions a sufficiently high priority.'' The President should be commended for his efforts in this area. Not only has worksite enforcement become a high priority of his Administration, on February 13, 1996, the President issued an Executive Order, stating that ``in procuring goods, . . . contracting agencies should not contract with employers that have not compiled with section 274A of the IRCA . . . prohibiting the unlawful employment of aliens.'' Amendment No. 11 to H.R. 2202 would ensure that section 274A of the IRAC, and the Executive Order, can be enforced properly. The amendment states that worksite enforcement should be a high priority for the Immigration and naturalization Service. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to report to Congress whether there are any additional authorities or resources needed to enforce: the Immigration Reform and Control Act's employer sanctions; the Presidential Executive Order which states that employers who hire illegal immigrants are denied Federal contracts; and an expansion of the Executive Order so that employers who hire illegal immigrants are denied all federally subsidized assistance programs. I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment so that sanctions become a reality for those employers who break the law.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment in the conference report on H.R. 1561. I support many of the provisions in the bill and I had hoped that the conferees might fix H.R. 1561 so that I could support the conference report. For example: I believe that it is important to show, particularly at this time, our support for Taiwan; to support initiatives which require that organizations receiving United States assistance in Ireland abide by the MacBride principles; to continue to condemn China for its human rights record; and to prohibit assistance to any county that bars or obstructs delivery of United States humanitarian aid. Despite these favorable provisions in H.R. 1561, I cannot support the conference report. This bill seeks to consolidate the State Department and its related agencies. However, the House leadership decided to impose its reconfiguration instead of working in conjunction with the administration. The result is legislation that is very poorly draft as to how to achieve consolidation. In addition, this bill fails to authorize international family planning assistance spending which was required by the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. The appropriations bill stated that no monies for international family planning would be released unless authorized to do so in H.R. 1561. The failure to include such authorization is disastrous. Because of the lack of authorization language, it is projected that over 5,000 women will die over the next year from either self-induced abortions or unplanned pregnancies. Mr. Speaker, I voted ``no'' on the foreign relations authorization conference report. I hope that Congress will begin to work in cooperation with the administration regarding agency consolidation and pass on appropriate Foreign Relations Revitalization Act.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, again we are presented with a missed opportunity. H.R. 2703, as it was presented for a final passage vote, contains virtually no provisions necessary to aid law enforcement in stopping terrorist attacks which is the stated purpose of the legislation. I would have supported H.R. 2703 as it was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Unfortunately, the Barr amendment, as adopted, stripped the bill of its most important provisions including sections that might have helped protect law enforcement from killer bullets, helped trace explosives, and allowed law enforcement to trace terrorists' phone calls. In addition, the Barr amendment gutted the bill's sections requiring swift expulsion of foreign terrorists and the amendment weakened efforts to eliminate domestic fundraising support of terrorism overseas. For example, nothing in this bill would prevent Hamas, a terrorist group located in and around Israel, from fundraising in the United States. Had the Barr amendment failed, I would not have supported the Conyers-Nadler amendment. The Conyers-Nadler amendment removed important habeas corpus language and necessary law enforcement measures. The bill, as reported by the Judiciary Committee, is stronger than the Conyers-Nadler substitute. However, once the Barr amendment passed, I voted for the Conyers-Nadler substitute because it put a number of key provisions back into the bill. I opposed the Watt-Chenoweth amendment because it would have eliminated the bill's restrictions on habeas corpus appeals to Federal courts by death row prisoners. Habeas corpus reform is long overdue and, although not directly related to fighting terrorism, it is an important measure to pass. Mr. Chairman, I am extremely disappointed in the present form of H.R. 2073. Terrorism threatens innocent people, both in America and abroad. I hope that many of the significant measures in H.R. 2703, as reported by the Judiciary Committee, will be restored by the conference committee so that I will be able to support the conference report.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this process is outrageous. None of us wants to default on the obligations of this country. But we are now 6 months into the new year, and we still do not have a clean debt extension brought to the floor to get us through this year. The last time we took this up a couple weeks ago we were promised by the Republican leadership that this issue would be resolved, that they would make sure that we had a debt extension passed that was acceptable to the President, and that is why they asked for the short-term extension. Now we are back again with another short-term extension. Enough is enough. Let us pass a clean debt extension bill for the remainder of the year, and let us work together, Democrats and Republicans, in order to work out the budget issues. But do not hold hostage the creditworthiness of this Nation. That is what you are doing by another temporary extension for another 2-week extension. How much longer are we going to go through this? We are 6 months into the year. It is time to pass a debt extension for the remainder of this term. Then we can get together and work it out, and we should have done this earlier also, Democrats and Republicans, working together. Has there been any effort made in the last couple of weeks to bring us together? There has not been. But why are we holding the debtworthiness of this Nation hostage? Obviously, we have to support this legislation. It is the only thing before us, closed rule, cannot offer any alternatives. Is this the open process we were promised by the Republicans? I do not think so. I know my constituents do not think so. This is not the way that we should be doing business, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, the 104th Congress has made getting the Government off people's back and out of business' way a high priority. Given that goal, support for the Miller-Schumer amendment is the only possible decision for the House this evening. I represent one of the largest remaining cane sugar refineries in the United States. The Domino refinery, a landmark in Baltimore's Inner Harbor, directly employs 650 workers at an average wage of $40,000. These are exactly the kinds of jobs we all want to preserve in this Nation. Yet, since the current Government sugar program was put in place in 1981, 11 of 22 cane sugar refineries in this Nation have closed. And problems for the remaining refineries continue. Domino's Baltimore plant has had to shut down nine times over the past year because of a shortage of raw sugar supply. Each of the other remaining U.S. refineries has suffered similar, costly shortages. These problems have been caused directly by the ongoing Federal interference in the sugar industry. Over the past 15 years the sugar program has greatly aided the few wealthy corporations that raise sugar on huge farms and with foreign labor in this Nation. It has hurt the many Americans who work, or used to work, in domestic refineries, and it has indirectly hurt all American consumers. There are many reasons to end the sugar price support program tonight; saving the remaining U.S. refineries is only one. I urge my colleagues to support Miller-Schumer.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this special order.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to join, I know, all the Members of this House to acknowledge that in the next few days this House will be losing one of its most distinguished Members, a person who has contributed much to this Nation, who will be resigning to take on the presidency of the NAACP. I refer to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Maryland, Kweisi Mfume. When Congressman Mfume resigns from Congress, I will be losing one of my closest friends in this House, and one of my closest colleagues. Both of us were elected to Congress at the same time in the 100th Congress. Both of us were elected from Baltimore to represent that community in the Congress of the United States. He is my seatmate, he is my colleague, he is my advisor and friend, and I will miss him dearly here in the House. We share the same vision for our communities, and we have worked together in order to effectively represent those communities here in the Congress of the United States. What a record has Congressman Mfume achieved during his now 9 years in the Congress of the United States. He has been an articulate spokesperson for the Nation's cities. As a result of his work, we now have empowerment zone legislation that is working to renew America's cities. Because of Congressman Mfume's role, Baltimore is designated as one of those empowerment zones, and we are already seeing the fruits of that labor in Baltimore, thanks to Congressman Mfume's leadership here in the Congress of the United States. He serves on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and has been a frequent speaker on this floor, to speak out for the needs of our Nation's cities. Of course, I think most of us know him best for the leadership that he displayed as chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, particularly during the first 2 years of the Clinton administration. He brought forward the vision of so many Americans that we can do better for all of our communities. He was keenly responsible for much of the progress that we made during those 2 years. He united not just the Black Caucus, but he united all of us who were interested in renewing our commitment to America's urban areas and to all of our people. But you know what I think Kweisi's greatest legacy will be to this House will be the style in which he conducted his affairs. He brought the highest degree of integrity, hard work, coalition building, and what a communicator. What a way he has with words and can carry out on the floor in a very articulate way and get us all to work together. I could relate some stories in Baltimore where he brought communities together. He worked with me to build bridges between the African- American community of Baltimore and the Jewish community in Baltimore. We learned from former Congressman Gray of Philadelphia about efforts that he made in Philadelphia, which we copied in Baltimore, known as Operation Understanding, where we arranged for African-American students and Jewish students to travel together to Africa and Israel to better understand each other's roots, an historic reason why we work together on civil rights legislation. That program succeeded in bringing together children who are now good friends and are spreading, I think, an important message to our community that we must work together in order to move forward on areas such as civil rights and improvement in all ways of life. Mr. Speaker, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 was another accomplishment in which I know Congressman Mfume is very proud. He had a major part to play in that achievement. In minority businesses having greater opportunity, Congressman Mfume was there with legislation and gaining support throughout the Nation in order to infuse more capital, more dollars, more opportunities, and more jobs in our inner-cities. In Baltimore, we now see the Columbus Center, which was a dream a few years ago, become a reality where we will become the leader in marine biotech research in this country. It will mean jobs in Baltimore. It is good for this Nation, and it is another achievement that Congressman Mfume can be proud of, a proud legacy that he will leave when he resigns from this institution. The drug courts and law enforcement area was another idea that he brought forward. Mr. Speaker, let me say in conclusion that the loss of this Chamber will be the gain to the NAACP. I know I speak for all Members of the House to wish him only the best as he goes forward with this new challenge.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to thank the Speaker for his understanding in making this time available in this unusual process that we have used. You have been very understanding, and we thank you. It is a real occasion to celebrate Kweisi Mfume's service to his Nation and how we will all miss him. I know tomorrow we are going to have some additional time on the floor, and I would urge those Members who did not have a chance during this opportunity that we will have time tomorrow. I know that the time has passed for today. Once again, I want to thank the Speaker for his courtesy.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity to travel back to my district every day. I live close enough to home to be able to do that, and I have the chance to talk to my constituents every day and learn firsthand of the hardships that are being caused because of our failure to do our work and get our budget passed on time. I have had a chance to talk to the people at our veterans hospital, in which supplies are dangerously low, affecting the quality of health care for our veterans; where money for transportation for rehabilitation services is not available to take care of our veterans' needs. I received a telephone call from a constituent in Howard County, MD who has a FHA-insured mortgage and wants to participate in the mortgage assignment program but cannot find anyone at HUD to make that review because of the furloughs in that agency. I have talked to a small business owner who trains SSA employees, whose classrooms are closed because of our inability to fund appropriations for that agency. The small business owner is in danger of laying off many of his employees and closing his operation. This morning I had coffee with a law enforcement officer who is working without pay, whose life is on the line every day, who made some arrests yesterday. I talked to that law enforcement officer for some time. He explained to me the morale issues within his agency. How do you explain some people working without pay, some people not working without pay, and Federal taxpayers paying their taxes and not receiving Government services? You cannot explain that to our constituents. It is unfair, it is wrong. It is unfair to Federal workers, it is unfair to Federal taxpayers. And now we hear that the Committee on Rules has recommended a rule that will allow the Speaker to give recess authority so that we will go home with our Federal workers still on furlough, without getting our work done. That is wrong and should not be allowed. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time this evening to inform my colleagues of a resolution that I am filing. This resolution will prohibit us going into a recess or adjournment during any period of a lapsed appropriation for the Federal Government. We should not leave here until we have gotten our work done. It would be unconscionable for us to leave with the appropriations not available to keep Federal offices open. I hope my colleagues will join me and cosponsor this resolution to make it clear that we will stay here until we get our work done. Our first order should be to pass a continuing resolution. We should have done that 20 days ago. We should do that first, open up the Government offices, allow Federal taxpayers to get their services for the taxes that they have paid. That should be our first order. After we have done that, we should negotiate in good faith, be willing to compromise for a budget that, yes, is balanced in 7 years but also protects the priorities that are important to the people of this Nation. In doing that, I think we do have the framework to reach a bipartisan agreement on a budget. Look at the coalition budget that now is getting much praise. Many of us have been speaking for a long time in favor of that approach and have been looking for help for our colleagues in this House and the Senate. That particular budget provides the opportunity for us to balance the budget within 7 years and hold true to the priorities that are important to the American people. But we will never get that opportunity unless we restore decent order in our community. That requires us on a bipartisan basis tonight to pass a continuing resolution so that Federal workers can work and that our taxpayers can get the services that they have paid for. I hope that we can find that bipartisan cooperation in this House so that we can do the people's work, open Government back up and then move forward with the budget of this country.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of privilege, I think it is important to point out that rule IX refers to questions of privilege that affect the dignity and integrity of the House. We are a Government of the people. We have been back in our districts. Does anyone here think that the procedures that we have been using, that the people of our district do not believe that the dignity and integrity of this House is in question? I urge the Speaker to rule in favor of this matter being a matter of privilege so that we can uphold the great dignity of this House.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with some of my Federal workers from the Social Security Administration and see firsthand the hardships that we have caused because of our failure to get our work done. They are not interested in excuses. Enough is enough, as the leader of the other body said when legislation was passed to put our Federal workers back to work. It is now time for us to do the same. For 3 weeks, hundreds of thousands of American families have been held hostage to budget strategy. Some are at work without pay. Some are home not working without pay. Through all of this, millions of Americans have been denied services from their Government. The American people do not understand this and neither do I. We have all agreed that we are going to pay for Federal workers, yet we are denying people basic services which are going to cost our taxpayers more money. It does not make sense. Enough is enough. Let us get our job done.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I appreciate how sincere the gentleman is on the points concerning intellectual property. Is the gentleman aware we are only dealing with book royalties? All other forms of intellectual property returns are currently subject to the outside earned income limits. The only exception today is dealing with book royalties, not with intellectual property generally.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and really thank our chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] for what they have done to get a 10-to-0 vote in our committee on the recommendations and report. This is about supporting ethics. This is about supporting the bipartisan work of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I hope each Member will take into consideration the fact that the vote coming before you is the unanimous work of our committee in dealing with some very difficult issues. I wish we could go into more detail, but the rules of our committee do not permit that. But this is a very important vote, and it reflects the confidence that you have in this bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct process. The substance of the rule that we bring before you completes the commitment we made to the American people under the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. That act increased Members' salaries by a significant amount, 30 percent, in exchange for which we restricted our outside earned income, and eliminated honoraria. We did that, but we allowed one exception, and one exception only, and it dealt with book royalty contracts. We thought at that time that book royalty contracts would be a minor matter and it was not a major issue. We were wrong, as multimillion- dollar contracts have become available. We said in 1989, and we repeat today in our ethics manual, that we need to restrict outside earned income because it conflicts with our responsibilities as Members of Congress, private commitments that may infringe upon public obligations. The pressures upon publishers for us to do tours or to promote our book conflicts with our responsibilities here. The appearance that an individual is profiting from a position in Congress, that is in our ethics manual. Outside earned income raises those concerns. Multimillion-dollar book contracts can raise those concerns. The Solomon substitute will allow Members still to earn multimillion dollars in book contracts. That is wrong, and that is what the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is saying. The choice is clear. Please, support the work of our committee. It is also a matter of fairness. A farmer or a bricklayer or a doctor or a jewelrymaker, a performer or a football player who wants to have weekend youth camps, a person who records music or a person who develops software for computers are currently restricted to 15 percent, or $20,000. The only exception is book royalties. That is not right. We do not impede people from doing these activities. We say there is a limit as to how much they can earn. Originally, the Solomon substitute was promoted to make it similar to executive workers. Nothing could be further from accurate. High-level Federal officials cannot earn one dime from royalties that are in any way related to their official work. If we do not approve the Johnson resolution, we are allowing Congressmen to do much more than executive workers. The risk here is very real. We are telling you, in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, that we can not protect against abuses. Book contracts, book sales will take place. It will enrich Members. Support the work of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me try to respond to some of the comments that were made by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. First, the problem is that the current rules allow a person to be able to earn millions of dollars solely because of their office. That is the problem that we are dealing with. These multimillion-dollar book contracts are awarded because of our office. The second problem is enforceability. Nothing in our current rules gives the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the ability to enforce bulk sales, as the gentleman from Washington, [Mr. McDermott] mentioned. We can be with a group, and to show us appreciation they buy 500 copies of our book, distribute it to the conference, and we have personally benefited a couple thousand dollars. It is that type of problems that we have if we do not restrict the book royalty income, the same as we do all other earned income. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], let me point out that the President and senior executive officers cannot earn money like we do for books. In most cases, they cannot earn any money, and they certainly cannot relate it to their office. So we are allowing Congressmen much more flexibility than the President of the United States or senior Cabinet positions. We are dealing with earned income, not unearned income or investment income. I think that is totally inappropriate to mention that in this debate. Lastly, let me point out the issue is clear. If the Solomon substitute is adopted, we never get a chance to vote on the recommendation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Members will still be able to enter into multimillion-dollar contracts. It is that that we are trying to stop. Make no mistake about it, we have a clear choice on the floor of the House today. If you vote for Solomon, you are opposing the bipartisan report of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. You are opposing what we are trying to do in telling you that we cannot enforce the current rule. Please, support the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.