Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to my colleagues debate this issue for the last 2 hours. I marvel more about the fine work that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) have done. They have given us a bipartisan bill, a consensus bill, that will move forward on the Patients' Bill of Rights. It is a good bill. It will make a lot of progress in areas that we need to do. The first question is, why do we need to pass Federal legislation in this area? There is a very simple explanation. It is called Employee Retirement Income Security Act. We at the Federal level have prevented our States from effectively providing protection to many people in our own State. We have preempted the States, and yet we provide no protection at the Federal level for many of our people who are insured under Employee Retirement Income Security Act plans. Therefore, we need to enact Federal legislation. The concerns out there are great. We know that in too many cases, medical decisions are being made by insurance company bureaucrats, not health care professionals. We know that HMOs are putting roadblocks in the way of our constituents needing necessary medical services by requiring them to go across town to see a primary care doctor before they can see a specialist, over and over and over again. The Norwood-Dingell bill is a reasonable bill that establishes national standards to protect our constituents. Let me just mention a few of the provisions I am particularly pleased with, that I have worked on for many years with many of my colleagues in this body. There is access to emergency care. We have been working on this bill for many years. I thank my friend, the gentleman from California, for the work that he did in expanding these protections to our Federal health care plans, including Medicare and Medicaid. Many States have already enacted access to emergency care, as my own State of Maryland has. But the Maryland law does not apply to over half the people in Maryland because of the preemption under Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Access to emergency care will say that if your symptoms dictate that you need emergency care, the HMO must pay for that emergency care. That is reasonable. Too many times a day HMOs are denying payments of emergency needs because the final diagnosis was not life-threatening. Sometimes we think that they want you to die before they are willing to acknowledge that there is an emergency. Then there is the independent appeal that I have been working on with many of my colleagues for many years to guarantee that if you disagree with your HMO, you have the ability to have a review of that decision by individuals that do not have a financial stake in the outcome of that review. That is only fair. We have that, again, in many of our States, we have that in our Federal health care plans, but it is not there for Employee Retirement Income Security Act plans, because we have preempted the States' ability to act. The use of clinical trials. In many cases it is the best health care available for our constituents. The gentlewoman from Connecticut who was on the floor has been very instrumental in moving forward with the clinical trials issues. This bill will provide basic protection to our constituents to be able to participate in clinical trials. There are many, many other provisions in the bill that go to eliminating the gag provisions, the availability of specialists. Let me deal with some of the issues that the opponents have raised, because I do think they are without merit, and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) have both done an excellent job in explaining that. As far as compliance, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act shields the HMOs from liability. We cannot bring cases against them today for the consequences of their negligent acts. We all agree that that is wrong, so the Norwood-Dingell bill says, okay, let us do it this way. First, we are not going to hold employers liable unless they are directly involved in the management of the plan. Secondly, in regard to the insurance company, if they follow their appeals process, we protect them from punitive damages. That seems like a reasonable compromise on compliance. Let me deal with the issue of cost. We have heard over and over again, this is going to increase costs. Mr. Chairman, we have these reforms in place, including the compliance provisions, in many States in the Nation. We have not seen any dramatic escalation of costs. Many of these reforms are already in our Federal health care plans, and we have not seen an escalation of costs. I think good health care will reduce costs, not increase costs. Mr. Chairman, we have heard it is going to be tough for a multi-State company to comply with laws in different States. Mr. Chairman, historically insurance has been subject to State regulation. That is what we thought was best. A multi-State company has to comply with the different State laws on workers' comp and unemployment compensation. This is not a burden for them to understand how the local court systems work. After all, they are located in these States. It is for all these reasons and many more that over 300 groups, including health care professionals, consumer groups, the League of Women Voters, urge us to pass the Norwood-Dingell bill, and I urge my colleagues to do that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to clarify what the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) was saying. Not only does the bill specifically provide that there is no cause of action if they do not provide a particular benefit, but what the Norwood-Dingell bill does is say that, if we have a plan of 50 employees in the State of Maryland, that is currently subject to State law, and one that is creative enough to come under ERISA, then we are going to treat both of the plans the same as far as their responsibility is concerned. I think that is a matter of basic fairness. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I think the choice here is very clear. There have been many groups and many Members working for many years to get an effective patient bill of rights enacted by this Congress. Three hundred groups have endorsed the Norwood-Dingell-Ganske bill. They understand who has been working to make sure we pass a bill that will be effective, that does the right thing. It is very interesting to see the eleventh hour efforts to try to confuse what we should do. It is very interesting that the Norwood-Dingell bill has been available. People have looked at it. It has been worked on. It has been given the public airing necessary in order to make sure it is drafted properly. Now, we saw last year those who did not want to see a Patients' Bill of Rights pass but they did, and bringing out a bill without any real effort made to deal with the issues. Now we see this year an eleventh hour effort in order to confuse the people, but the people are not confused. They know where the advocates are. They know where the people are who have been working on this issue, and it is the Norwood-Dingell bill. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). (Mr. Hoyer asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, every Member here is concerned about the rising number of uninsured Americans, now more than 43 million; and we recognize that steps must be taken to address this problem. But H.R. 2990 is not the answer. This bill does very little to reduce the number of uninsured. Instead, its sponsors are proposing a new set of tax breaks that would help those that are least likely to be currently uninsured, as my friend from California pointed out. It also contains many provisions that will hurt us in covering people with insurance. The Health Association Plans that the sponsors brag about, there is a reason why the National Governors' Association and the National Conference of State Legislators are opposed to it, for it preempts these plans from State reform. Under the guise of helping small business be able to find health insurance, instead what we are doing is preempting State reform. And I could tell my colleagues in my own State of Maryland we have a small market reform; it is working. Small employers can find affordable health insurance. If we pass this provision, we have destroyed the Maryland small market reform, and we are going to have less people insured by small employers in our State if that provision becomes law. But let me tell my colleagues the real reason, the most important reason, why we should oppose this effort. If we want to pass a patients' protection bill in this Congress, if we want to provide help to our constituents from the practices of HMOs, then we need to defeat this bill. The unfair rule that we are operating under marries this proposal with the Patients' Bill of Rights, and if this becomes part of the Patients' Bill of Rights, it is much less likely that we are going to enact a Patients' Bill of Rights in this Congress. That is why this rule was passed in the way it was, and that is why this bill is on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about expanding access, let us work together to do it. This bill will not do it. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this resolution certainly is a feel-good resolution expressing the desire of the House of Representatives not to spend any of the budget surplus created by Social Security receipts and to continue to retire debt held by the public. It sounds good but the problem we have is that in 2 days, when we start the new fiscal year, we are going to start to spend the Social Security-generated surplus. That is because of the programs that the Republicans have brought forward. First, they wanted to spend 100 percent of the on-budget surplus with a tax cut. Thank goodness the President vetoed that. Then they bust the spending caps. The projections are based upon adhering to the spending caps; but when regular spending is called emergency, such as our census that is going to come up, and we start to advance fund projects and say, well, we will pay for something in the other fiscal year that really occurs in one fiscal year, the Social Security surplus is being spent. Do not take my word for it. The Congressional Budget Office has already told us that the Republican fiscal plan will spend the Social Security-generated surplus. Now, I understand what my friend from California wants to do. He wants to have a responsible budget. So do I. Rather than spending time today, 2 days before we start a fiscal year, on this resolution, why are not we meeting to bring out a budget that protects Social Security and Medicare, that makes sure we do not spend the Social Security money, that retires debt, rather than doing this resolution which will have no impact? It is only our Chamber that is doing it, and we are going to start the next fiscal year in 2 days.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the President for vetoing this reckless tax bill. It was not easy for us to get the deficit down and to get our economy growing at a very strong rate. The issue is not whether we are going to be spending more money here in Washington. The issue is what is our priority, whether our priority is to cut taxes, or whether our priority is to reduce the deficit in order to preserve Social Security and Medicare so we can meet our obligations in the future. When we passed this tax bill over a month ago, many of us said that we would be spending the projected surplus before we even produced the surplus, and that is still true. We said that the bill would explode in costs in the outyears, that we did not pay for it, adding to the potential deficits of our Nation. That is still true. We said we had a choice, but when those deficits explode, we would not have the money to pay for the baby boomer generation, and we would not be able to preserve Social Security and Medicare. That is still true. The choice is whether we want the tax cut, whether we want to pay down the deficit and protect Social Security and Medicare. The President made the right choice for the American people. I agree with the President. Now, the projected surplus was based upon us adhering to the spending caps in our appropriation bills, and we were told when we passed this tax bill that we were going to adhere to those caps. Well, now, the majority has conceded that we are not going to adhere to those spending caps. We do not even have the projected surplus that was projected when this bill was passed. This irresponsible tax bill was based upon adhering to those spending caps. So what is going to happen? It is a formula for large deficits. The public understands that. That is why there has been no support for this tax bill that the Republicans hoped to generate during the August recess. Instead, they are looking for gimmicks to meet the spending bills of this session. They are calling ``emergency spending'' things like the census. They are advancing funding over and over again, knowing full well you are just taking from next year to pay for this year and having a bigger problem next year. And now, the suggestion on using the welfare money. We are going to take the money away from the governors this year, but we will give it back to you next year when the caps are even more difficult, while what we should be doing is reaching a bipartisan agreement with the President to put deficit reduction first, preserving Social Security and Medicare, and then we can deal with the tax issues and have an adequate amount of money to meet the spending needs of this Nation. We can do it all if we want to be reasonable about it. But we first must be honest with the American people. This irresponsible tax bill was not honest with the American people. I applaud the President in vetoing it. I ask my colleagues to sustain the veto so that we can get to a bipartisan agreement.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate. I have listened to each of my colleagues address the various amendments and now the substitutes. I think there is broad consensus that we need to reform our current campaign finance system. Let me just give my colleagues my short list of the problems. We spend too much time raising money. We spend too much money in campaigns. We spend too much unreported money in campaigns. There are too many loopholes in the system. It is corrupting the system, and we are losing more and more public confidence that our system is truly objective. Now, each one of us could craft what we think is the perfect bill. Each one of us could develop what we think would be the answer. But if we are going to be able to accomplish campaign finance reform, I agree with the author of this substitute. We need to support the campaign finance reform that has the only chance of being enacted this year and that is the Shays-Meehan bill. This is the bill that the public understands and supports. I believe each of us understands that if we had any chance to pass campaign finance reform this year, we need to support the Shays-Meehan bill. It is a comprehensive bill that deals with the under-regulated soft money. Each of us understands why we need to deal with that. In a letter written to our Speaker just recently by business leaders, they indicated that soft money distorts the process. It is more than doubling every 2 years the amount of money being spent on soft money. We need to do something about it. It is out of control. We need to close the loophole on so-called issue advocacy expenditures. We know that is wrong. We need to improve the Federal disclosure laws. So if my colleagues are for comprehensive campaign finance reform, they really have only one choice, and that choice is to defeat the substitutes and support Shays-Meehan. If we do that, we have our best chance this year of listening to our constituents and doing something about the system to make it work for public confidence.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Loyola College in Baltimore took the occasion to honor one of its most distinguished sons, and one of Baltimore's most distinguished citizens. On May 18, Loyola presented its President's Medal for 1999 to Thomas J. D'Alesandro III. Baltimore has a rich and proud political history, full of leaders who have served our community with distinction. It is no small honor, then, to be designated as the ``First Political Family of Baltimore.'' Yet the D'Alesandro's would certainly be at the top of any list of nominees. Tommy D'Alesandro, Jr., the father of Tommy III served as Mayor of Baltimore, and later was elected to this House. His wife Nancy was a political force in her own right, and a major player in Democratic politics in the city. When it came time for the next generation to step up, they did so with energy and dedication. Tommy was elected to the City Council, served as its president, and then was elected Mayor of Baltimore. During his time of leadership in city government, Baltimore, like most major cities across the country, went through trying times as the civil rights movement expanded. The major civil rights legislation of the mid-60s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 represented an earthquake in American politics, and nowhere was this more true than in our great urban centers. Municipal leaders across the country faced challenges that required courage and a firm adherence to principles of democratic government. As Mayor and as president of the city council, Tommy D'Alesandro showed himself to be up to the task. He shepherded Baltimore's own Civil Rights Act through the city council. In this action, as in so many of his decisions in public life, he was guided by the moral principles that were instilled in him during his years studying under the Jesuits at Loyola College. Mr. Speaker, any discussion of the political accomplishments of the D'Alesandro family would be sadly incomplete without an accounting of the family's spread across the continent. As a son of Baltimore, I am proud to note that the D'Alesandro family's talent for leadership, which we have long come to appreciate in our city, are now well known on the West Coast. I am speaking, of course, of our distinguished colleague from the San Francisco Bay area. Nancy Pelosi, my good friend, who represents California's Eighth Congressional District, is the sister of Tommy D'Alesandro. In her commitment to human rights and democracy around the world, and her fierce adherence to the values of working class Americans, she shows the same approach to politics that served her brother and her father so well in Baltimore. It is truly the case that the ``D'Alesandro Way''-- the ``Baltimore Way''--has undergone a successful transplant in northern California. In honoring Tommy D'Alesandro III with the President's Medal, Loyola College bestowed a great and well-deserved honor on a great son of a great Baltimore political family. The text that accompanied the presentation of the President's Medal cited Tommy D'Alesandro for ``his historic contributions to civic life in Baltimore, for the integrity and conviction of his principles, and for his life lived by the highest ideals of service to humankind.'' The words are true, and the honor is richly deserved. I am truly pleased to take this opportunity to join in offering my heart-felt congratulations to Tommy and to the entire D'Alesandro family.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to laud the life and accomplishments of my constituent and friend, Lawrence M. Katz, who retires today as a partner at the Baltimore law firm of Piper and Marbury. Larry and I met at University of Maryland Law School where he distinguished himself as Articles Editor of the Maryland Law Review. After graduating from Maryland, Larry went on to complete an LL.M. degree in Taxation at New York University. Experienced in all areas of federal income taxation, Larry has taught and advised me personally and professionally. While Larry serves on the Tax Advisory Committee of the American Law Institute, he also finds time to advise me as part of my constituent Tax Advisory Committee that meets a couple of times a year to hear about what Congress is proposing and to advise me about the virtues and possible pitfalls of these decisions. I can always count on him for a concise explanation of how the tax laws work, as well as straight-forward, common sense advice on how, in a rational world, they should work. Larry's knowledge and expertise in the law is exceeded only by the remarkable range of his curiosity, interest, exceptional good judgment. His fascination with the workings of the political system, and the Congress in particular, has significant consequences for me as his representative and his friend. Larry regularly shares with me articles he has read--from various tax journals--on matters of tax policy from the most arcane aspects of partnerships law to the need for comprehensive reform of our federal tax system. His questions and comments on the latest legislative and political actions demonstrate an acute understanding of Washington--I am sure it is this understanding which has kept him quite happily in Baltimore all these years. I have been fortunate to have the benefit of Larry's legal counsel for the past thirty years. Even when Myrna and I vacation with Larry and his wife, Ann, down in Long Boat Key, I can count on Larry to bring his files with him--that way he gets to bill me and vacation with me at the same time. Before Myrna and I make vacation plans, we check with Larry, who serves as our amateur travel agent and photographer. Before we plant anything in our garden, we consult our resident horticulturist. Before we make any investment decisions, we check with our special financial adviser. Larry Katz is listed in The Best Lawyers in America, a designation he richly deserves. I am grateful to know first-hand that if they publish The Best Friends in America, he has earned the right to be listed in the first chapter. As he retires, I thank Larry Katz for being a trusted adviser and friend and to congratulate him on a job well done.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, if one looks at this conference report and one supports it, one is going back to the days of large deficits for our country. That is why the Democrats want an economic program that will continue our economic prosperity into the future. We think, and I think the American public will agree, that the approval of this conference report is reckless, and it is an unreasonable risk for our future. Let me explain why. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, explains that we are projecting a $3 trillion, projecting a $3 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. Now two-thirds of that, approximately $2 trillion is generated because of Social Security. Now we have all agreed we should not touch that money. We cannot use that. We have got to protect it for Social Security, and I agree. But that gives us a $1 trillion surplus to work with. We have not gotten one dime of it yet. Yet this conference report would spend just about all of that projected surplus. Not a dime would be available for Medicare. No money would be available for the programs that already are being spent by calling them emergency spending. That is why we believe this is reckless and wrong. We think priorities should be set. The surplus should first be used to preserve Social Security and Medicare. Then we should pay down the debt. The conference report is estimated to provide the average family in this Nation 10 years from now when it is fully implemented a little over $200 a year in tax relief. But, yet, what the proponents are not telling us, is that because of the recklessness of the bill, interest rates were likely to go up, and we are going to take away more in increased interest costs to the average taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to reject the conference report.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I appreciate the desire of the chairman to set a reasonable time limit. But I think there are probably more Members here wishing to speak. So if he would amend his unanimous consent request to, I think, an hour, that may be satisfactory.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first let me compliment the ranking member on this amendment which I support which would restore the moneys that have been cut or recommended to be cut from the Legal Services Corporation. It is interesting. I listened to some of the opponents, and the Legal Services Corporation has enjoyed bipartisan support throughout its history and for good reason. There are many Republicans and Democrats who are coming to the well today to speak in favor of this amendment because we understand the importance of equal access to our legal system in our rule of law. We are looked upon around the world as the beacon of hope for democracy and freedom, in part because of our rule of law. Our rule of law does not mean anything unless we have equal access to justice, and the Legal Services Corporation helps provide that equal access to justice. The Legal Service Corporation is a conduit of funds that go into our local communities. They are used for basic services in our legal system, to get child support payments, or to get protective orders against abuse, or to help get benefits that people are entitled to, low-income Americans; they are entitled to that rule of law, to the access to our legal system. Now the bill before us, Mr. Chairman, would cut the funding to the Legal Service Corporation by 53 percent, to $141 million. Mr. Chairman, for a period of time I chaired the Maryland Legal Services Corporation, and as a private attorney I handled pro bono cases; and, yes, there is a responsibility on the private sector to help make access to justice a reality for all people in our community, but government must play a principal role. The last time that we had a major cut in 1995, I can tell my colleagues what happened in my own State of Maryland. The Maryland Legal Services had to close two offices, and there was drastic cuts which necessitated further closings, eliminating about 20 attorney positions, forcing Legal Aid to handle about 6,000 fewer cases. I can tell my colleagues today that we can handle about 30 percent of the need in our community of people who come forward for help, and in many of those cases we have to conclude those issues through legal advice only because we do not have the support necessary to pursue a court remedy. That is not equal access to our justice system. That is wrong. We should do better, and we can do better. We have looked at the Maryland statistics, and this is true around the Nation. We know that we are not meeting the need that is there. We know in every State in the country there are people being turned away today, and let me remind my colleagues the Legal Service Corporation provides some of the funds for the local programs, and we want to penalize the local programs and our constituents and penalize our system of justice because of an audit report that quite frankly I do not think is the real reason why this cut is being brought forward. Many of the people that are supporting it have never supported the Legal Services Corporation. They will look for any reason to reduce that budget. Mr. Chairman, access to our legal system by every American, no matter how poor, is vital to the liberties that this Congress is supposed to protect and promote. If my colleagues will vote against this amendment, they are voting against fairness and access to our justice for people in this country who are most in need. It would be a shameful stance for this body to provide such a drastic cut. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, continuing to reserve my right to object, I believe we have too many Members on the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first, let me correct the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) in that we do not have a balanced budget. We do not have a balanced budget today unless they count the surplus for Social Security generated income, and none of us want to do that. They talk about $3 trillion over the next 10 years. We do not have that. If they look at what is the on-budget surplus that we all acknowledge is money that could be used, we have a projected $1 trillion surplus over the next 10 years; and we have not seen dime one of it yet. Yet, the Republicans want to spend the surplus before we get the surplus. That is not responsible. We are talking about what should the priorities be, and the Democratic motion makes it clear that our priorities should first meet our current responsibilities under Social Security and Medicare, not an expanded role, but they meet our current responsibilities. We think that should be our first priority. Why do we say that? If they look at the Republican bill to pass this House, it not only spends the trillion dollars during the first 10 years, but then it explodes after that, because it is backloaded. It shoots up to $4 trillion over the next 10 years. Just as the baby boomers are reaching the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare, we are not going to be able to meet our obligations for Social Security and Medicare. That is why we say they cannot do both. We cannot do both. Our priority is to protect Social Security and Medicare. And how about paying off some of the debt? That will help everybody. The Republicans on one hand offer tax relief, they say; and then, on the other hand, they are going to increase interest rates because of their irresponsibility. That couple that was so nice that they are trying to help, they are going to lose all that money by increased interest costs if they have any credit responsibility under any charge accounts or financing a car. They are going to end up paying back more that is in the Republican tax bill. This is an irresponsible and reckless proposal. That is why our motion to instruct is an attempt to try to bring some sanity to what left this House as far as the tax relief is concerned. Fortunately, this bill will not become law. That is the good news. The President is going to veto it if it passes anywhere near its current form. We do not believe that we should go back to the 1980s when we tried trickle-down economics and we were told that tax cuts were going to help our economy, and all it did was grow our debt. Now, I understand the Republicans did not support the 1993 economic program that brought about our prosperity. We understand that. But do not turn the clock backwards and try to accumulate large debt again. We do have projected surpluses in the future. Let us use that to pay down our debt so that we can continue the economic prosperity that we have. Let us meet our obligations under Social Security and Medicare. Let us invest in the priorities that are important, including responsible tax legislation. This bill is irresponsible. The motion to instruct corrects it. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, China's human rights record ranks with the former Soviet Union and the former apartheid government of South Africa. One of the proudest moments in the history of our Nation is when we used trade to bring about change in the Soviet Union, when we used trade to bring about change in South Africa, and we can do it again. The reason is quite clear. China needs the U.S. consumer. It gives us leverage to bring about change. It has worked in the past and it will work again. U.S. consumers should not be financing the oppressive regime in China, and that is exactly what they do if we extend the Most Favored Nation status to China. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval so that we can speak with a clear voice as to what is happening today in China.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my friend. I believe in the Contract with America there was the provision that it is wrong for us to enact laws that apply to the private sector and do not apply to us. One of those laws is truth in advertising. If we are going to comply with that law, this bill should not be called the Financial Freedom Act of 1999. It should be called the Financial Irresponsibility Act of 1999. Let us talk about debt reduction. My Republican friends say they are using two out of every three dollars for debt reduction, assuming there is $3 trillion in surplus in the next 10 years. There is only $1 trillion in surplus. The other $1.9 trillion is in Social Security and we all agree that needs to be lockboxed. However, the Republican bill spends it. We do not have it. Then they spend the $1 trillion before we even receive it. There is not a dime for deficit reduction in their proposals. Truth in advertising. They jeopardize our economy. Then they talk about the thousands of dollars on a per capita basis that my constituent is going to receive. Why do they not tell everybody that that is a 10-year cumulative number? Their tax year of 10 percent does not become real this year; only 1 percent during the next 3 years. We have to wait for 9 years for half of that to come into effect. Truth in advertising. Tell the people what they are doing. The height of irresponsibility is what happens in the out-years. They advertise this to be $1 trillion with interest during the first 10 years, but it balloons to another $3 trillion in the next 10 years, just as the baby boomers are reaching age for Medicare and Social Security. They cannot do this bill and Social Security and Medicare. It cannot be done. They spend the Social Security money. They spend the surplus money twice. That is irresponsible. Then the Speaker tells us there is a provision in this bill to deal with the earnings limit, giving our seniors hope they can earn more. That is not in this bill. Truth in advertising. I know we have a speech and debate clause that protects us for our truthfulness on the floor, but let us be honest with our constituents. We have a chance to do it in the motion to recommit. It speaks to the priorities that we should be talking about. Fifty percent for deficit reduction; 25 percent for tax relief; and 25 percent for the other priorities, Social Security, Medicare, and veterans benefits. Support the motion to recommit.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for authoring this amendment. It is a very important amendment. It does carry out what we have done in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Mr. Chairman, international organizations, including U.N. officials, have reported that between 1,500 to 5,000 prisoners were transferred from Kosovo to jails in Serbia around the time of the entry of international forces into Kosovo and that the Serbian Ministry of Justice has acknowledged that such transfers were made. International humanitarian law requires humane treatment of all prisoners seized in conjunction with the Kosovo crisis, and Red Cross access to such prisoners is guaranteed under international law. They must be released without delay after the cessation of active hostilities. That has not occurred. The Belgrade authorities have provided inaccurate lists and have not allowed access by the Red Cross. The illegal detention of these individuals is unacceptable. The OSCE has adopted a resolution that I authored on behalf of the United States delegation, a very similar resolution. It is time that the United States Congress also acts. I encourage my colleagues to approve this resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank my friend, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), for yielding me this time and for his help in marshalling this bill through the committee. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), for his work on this issue. This is an important bill. I want to compliment the speed in which this matter was handled in the committee. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and I filed this legislation on February 23, and we were later joined by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) in moving this bill to, we hope, the establishment of this trail. I also want to acknowledge the hard work of the Senate sponsor, Senator Sarbanes, who is marshalling this bill in the other body. We are working together. I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) bringing this up to our constituents. I represent a district that is rich in history in Baltimore, and I want to thank the historians in my community who have been working with us on this trail. I have the honor of representing the district that includes Ft. McHenry and, of course, the great history that was accomplished in that particular spot. I want to thank the people from Ft. McHenry for their help in bringing us to this motion that we can now act on, H.R. 791, the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Study Act of 1999. I think it is highly appropriate that on the eve of the last July 4 celebration before we start the new century this body is considering a bill that would recognize the sacrifices and contributions of American patriots from the previous one. This legislation would authorize a study to designate the route of the War of 1812 British invasion of Maryland and Washington, D.C., as well as the route of the American defense, a National Historic Trail. Mr. Chairman, we have done this on many occasions, established historic trails in our country. We have done it for the Appalacian Trail, the Continental Divide, the National Scenic Trail, the Florida National Scenic Trail, and many, many others. I think it is altogether fitting and appropriate, in the interest of our Nation, that we do likewise for the War of 1812. This War of 1812 was important for many reasons in the history of this Nation, and my colleagues have already commented on many of the important aspects of this particular battle. One that my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), mentioned is it the only time in the history of our Nation that we were invaded by a foreign power. Of course, we successfully were able to defend ourselves. But for a good part of this particular war, it was uncertain as to whether we were going to be able to defend our Nation. It was clearly our second war of independence, and it bode well for the future of this Nation in developing a defense that has been able to protect our citizens against all foreign tyrants. The story of the War of 1812 goes beyond just stopping the British from invading our young Nation. But the heroics of many of our citizens at many different battles along the way will go down as part of the heritage of our Nation. We hope that this trail will be able to allow people in our country to better appreciate what our patriots have done during the history of our Nation. Whether it was at Bladensburg, where we were not successful, or North Point, where we were successful, or Ft. McHenry, where we were successful, heroism was the order of the day. Of course, we are all very proud of Francis Scott Key, a young attorney who took upon a mission of mercy to have released a young doctor that was being held by the British. The doctor had helped young British soldiers, and Francis Scott Key was able to implore the British to release this particular soldier from captivity. But, as was Francis Scott Key's luck, he was on a British boat at the time that they were ready to invade Baltimore and Ft. McHenry, so he was required to stay on the ship during the battle of Ft. McHenry. He was so inspired by what he saw that he wrote the poem that has become our national anthem. So there is a great deal to be learned from the War of 1812. There is a lot that we all can learn from it. I applaud the committee for setting in motion the way that we will be able to establish an historic trail that will allow our citizens a better understanding of the history of this Nation and what makes this Nation so great, the people who are willing to give of their lives to protect the freedom that we all enjoy today. This is a fitting monument to their work, and I applaud this House for taking it up today. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.