Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there is much good in this bill. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has pointed out, there are a lot of provisions in here that are extremely important to the Customs Service. H.R. 1833 provides additional resources needed for the U.S. Customs Service to combat illegal drug activities across our border; it will provide additional equipment with the latest technology for the antidrug enforcement provisions. It provides additional funds for the Child Cyber-Smuggling Center to assist in our efforts to prevent child pornography. So there is a lot of good in this bill. We are going to support it. I think it is going to get a large vote. But there is bad in this bill. There are provisions that should not be in here. It amends existing laws concerning the payment of night- shift pay for our Customs officers. Let me talk a little bit about what this Congress did before, why we put shift pay differential in the law. Congress found that these odd hour shifts that Customs officials are assigned, they do not volunteer, are assigned as part of their work, have an adverse impact on the quality of life of Customs officials who are required to work regularly scheduled shifts at night, on Sundays or holidays. We found, as a body, that the shift differential compensation levels are substantially greater than applied generally to other Federal employees for such regularly scheduled work. So what this legislation is doing is altering the balance that we took in 1993, and that is just wrong. U.S. Customs Service performs vital functions of both law enforcement and preserving the integrity of U.S. trade laws with foreign nations. The current compensation structure was designed to take account of the unusual stresses of their job, both on-job safety risks and irregular work hours. We should honor that, and I agree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the process should provide us an opportunity as a body to express our will on the subject. But the process that has been used by the majority will deny that opportunity today. Yes, we will support the bill because of the important provisions in it, but the provision concerning pay differential is wrong; it should be removed from the bill. This bill alters the balanced approached crafted in 1993 in two ways. First, the provision restricts the hours that qualify for the night shift differential to hours between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. Second, the provision compensates Customs officers at the differential rate only for those hours that occur between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. (with one limited exception), and not the entire shirt. Effectively, these changes will mean that a Customs officer who works a shift starting at 3 a.m. and ending at 11 a.m. will receive the shift differential for only 3 hours of that shift. To offset some of the loss in pay likely to occur, section 121 of the bill adjusts the overtime cap that, under current law, restricts the amount of overtime pay a Customs officer may earn in one year. In effect, this adjustment would allow Customs officers to work more overtime to compensate for lost wages, or put another way, Customs officers will have to work more to get the same pay. Such a result seems unfair, given that no one (including Customs) has alleged that Customs officers are overcompensated. Moreover, only a small percentage of officers currently reach the overtime cap, and therefore would even benefit from the new provision. A single report, done in 1996 by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), has been offered to support this change to night shift differential pay. That report purportedly reviews the operation of the night pay differential and the overtime cap since COPRA. The report, which concludes that the COPRA resulted in an increase in overall premium night shift differential payments, is, however, seriously flawed. First, the OIG report merely calculated the absolute increase in night differential pay over a three year period. The report did not investigate the cause of the increase. The OIG's report did not investigate whether the increase was due to an overall increase in the number of hours being worked, whether there was an increase in the number of late shifts being worked due to increased trade, or whether the increase in cost was attributable to an increase in base wages. Rather, the OIG report merely concludes that the increase was due to COPRA without investigating, entertaining or otherwise considering any other possible reasons for the increase. Second, the OIG report did not assess the impact on Customs employees' salaries. As discussed above, the 1993 changes to the methods of calculating premium night shift differential payments was part of a comprehensive package of reforms intended to ensure that Customs officers would receive pay adequate compensation for the hard and, often dangerous, work they perform. Altering the carefully crafted package Congress created in 1993 without assessing the impact on Customs officers' overall pay is irresponsible, and could result in an unwarranted pay cut for many of these officers. Such a result seems unfair, given that no one, including OIG and Customs, has alleged that Customs employees are overpaid. Third, OIG did not find any evidence of abuse in this system. In fact, to the contrary, the OIG report specifically states that Customs management did not change work schedules to allow employees to earn more shift differential pay. Rather, Customs management continued to schedule shifts to fit customer's demand. We are not opposed to considering amendments to Customs officers pay, if a credible study evaluates and recommends that legislative changes be made. However, we are opposed to cutting someone's wages based on report that shows nothing. The men and women of the U.S. Customs Service perform vital functions with respect to both law enforcement-- keeping drugs and other contraband from crossing our borders--and preserving the integrity of U.S. trade with foreign nations. Their current compensation structure was designed to take account of the unusual stresses of their job--both the on-the-job safety risks and the irregular hours. We do not believe that there is clear evidence that those aspects of a Customs officer's job have changed in a way that would justify reducing their pay, which is precisely what H.R. 1833 will do. It's too bad, Mr. Speaker. We have a good bill here. We found a flaw and I believe there would have been a way to address this issue that would have made both sides of this Congress happy and would have been supported by the men and women who will actually be affected by our vote today. I am sorry we missed an opportunity.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Let me just if I might in concluding, it is important for us to act on private retirement for many reasons. One is that yes, we are very pleased with the growth of our economy. We are projecting budget surpluses. We have low rates of inflation, low unemployment rates. We are very pleased by the signs that we see in our economy. But there is one statistic that the gentleman from Ohio pointed out which is not good for our future and, that is, the amount of savings that we have as a Nation. Among the industrial nations, we rank near the bottom on the amount that we save on a per capita basis. The chart that the gentleman used earlier showed that we are actually saving less today than we did 10 years ago. We should be saving more, particularly when we look at how strong our economy is. We need to adopt here in this body policies that will make it easier for Americans to save for the future, that is good for their security when they retire. It is good for economic growth in this Nation. It makes sense. It is not a partisan issue. It is a bipartisan issue. I urge this body during this session to take up legislation that will make it easier for Americans to save for their future. The Portman-Cardin bill is a major step forward in this direction. We hope that we would consider it this year.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. First let me thank the gentleman from Ohio for taking this time. I know we do not have much time tonight. The point that he makes which is so important that, yes, we need to resolve Social Security, that is very important. But we also need to deal with private retirement in our community. I congratulate the gentleman on the work on the legislation that he introduced. His point is so well taken, that we have to make it easier for small business to provide employer- sponsored retirement plans for their employees. We have to increase the limits, not reduce, in which people can put away for their personal retirement. We must make it easier for portability in today's market where people change jobs to be able to combine their pension plans to make it easier for them. We have got to remove a lot of these complexities that we have put in the law that are preventing employers from even having pension plans to help their employees. I just really wanted to emphasize the point that he was making that we need to act in this Congress on private retirement as well as Social Security.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise along with my colleagues Frank Pallone, Jim McCrery, and Richard Burr, to introduce the Medicare Rehabilitation Benefit Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation is an urgently needed, common sense approach that will help repair a damaging provision passed by Congress nearly two years ago. In recent years, cost pressures on the Medicare program have resulted in Congress imposing $115 billion in cuts on the Medicare program through the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. As a result, we have seen sharp reductions in payments for the elderly's care. Some of these cuts can be absorbed by our health care system. Others, however, cannot, and are having a devastating impact on the quality of patient care being delivered to the most frail, sickest Medicare beneficiaries. The Congressional Budget Office has just reported that actual BBA cuts to Medicare will exceed by billions of dollars what Congress intended for the five years from 1998 through 2002. It is time to look at what Congress actually did, and where appropriate, make necessary changes. BBA imposed annual $1,500 caps on Part B outpatient rehabilitative services--one for physical therapy and speech-language pathology, and one for occupational therapy--provided outside the hospital setting. In practice, these limits ignore a patient's clinical requirements and restrict care for those who suffer from the most debilitating diseases, such as stroke, hip fracture, or ALS, and those who incur multiple injuries in a given year. And because the caps are not adjusted for cost variations across the nation, they disproportionately harm beneficiaries in high cost areas. Finally, because the new consolidated billing rules imposed by BBA require all filing for patients in skilled nursing facilities to be done by the facility itself, those facilities that provide adequate therapy services to their sickest patients feel the brunt of the payment limits. When BBA was being written and debated, Congress held no hearings to examine what the impact of these arbitrary limits might be on patient care. The caps were a crude budget cutting measure designed to deliver savings--$1.7 billion over five years. And in that regard, they were successful. The therapy caps were implemented on January 1, 1999. Since that time, I have heard that in my district, some Medicare beneficiaries in SNFs have already exceeded their limit. Some estimates indicate that one of every six beneficiaries who receive rehabilitative care outside a hospital setting will need in excess of $1,500 in services in a given year. The Health Care Financing Administration's own words in the regulation implementing the cap, from the Federal Register of November 2, 1998, illustrate the problem: The $1,500 limits will reduce the amount of therapy services paid for by Medicare. The patients most affected are likely to be those with diagnoses such as stroke, certain fractures, and amputation, where the number of therapy visits needed by a patient may exceed those that can be reimbursed by Medicare under the statutory limits. Services not paid for by Medicare, however may be paid for by other payers. But what about Medicare enrollees who cannot afford high-priced supplemental insurance policies to cover the balances? Clearly, some relief is necessary so that all patients with serious conditions have access to adequate therapy services and the opportunity to resume normal activities of daily living. In the last Congress, I introduced bipartisan legislation that would eliminate the arbitrary therapy cap and instead pay for outpatient rehabilitative services based on the patient's diagnosis. But Congress adjourned without holding hearings on that bill. This year, we are beginning to witness the consequences of our failure to act. So today, I am pleased to join my colleagues in sponsoring the ``Medicare Rehabilitation Benefit Improvement Act,'' which is specifically designed to provide relief to beneficiaries who need greater levels of care. This bill creates limited exceptions to the $1,500 cap so that those patients who need additional care the most will be able to continue to receive it. The bill also requires the Secretary of HHS to study the impact of this legislation on beneficiaries and to develop alternatives to the $1,500 limits. This will help Congress determine if the caps for rehabilitative therapy services should continue. This legislation is a common sense approach that will permit Medicare patients who need intensive therapy services to secure the appropriate level of care for their conditions. It has the strong endorsement of several organizations, including the American Health Care Association, the American Occupational Therapy Association the American Speech- Language-Hearing Association, the National Association of Rehabilitation Agencies, and the Private Practice Section of the American Physical Therapy Association. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this essential measure to restore adequate therapy outpatient rehabilitative coverage to those beneficiaries most in need.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that addresses one of the most pressing problems facing America's older and disabled citizens today--access to comprehensive medical care. Medicare, the federal health insurance program for the elderly and disabled, covers a large number of medical services, Inpatient care, physician services, skilled nursing facilities, and home health and hospice care are all covered by the Medicare program. Despite the success of this program in eliminating illness as a potential cause of financial ruin, the burden of high prescription drug costs remains a source of hardship for many beneficiaries. When Congress created Medicare in 1965, prescription drugs were not a standard feature of most private insurance policies. But health care in the United States has evolved considerably in the last 34 years. Now most private health plans cover drugs because they are an essential component of modern health care. They are viewed as integral in the treatment and prevention of diseases. But Medicare, for all its achievements, has not kept pace with America's health care system. It's time for Medicare to modernize. Because Medicare does not pay for prescription drugs, Medicare beneficiaries, 80% of whom use a prescription drug every day, must either rely on Medicaid if they qualify, purchase private supplemental coverage, join a Medicare HMO that offers drug benefits, or pay for them out-of-pocket. Medicaid does provide prescription drug coverage. But nearly 60% of Medicare beneficiaries with incomes below the federal poverty level were not enrolled in Medicaid as recently as 1997. And even Medicaid enrollees with drug benefits must forgo some medications. For example, eleven state Medicaid programs have imposed caps on the number of prescriptions covered each month. The drug coverage available through Medigap leaves much to be desired. Only 3 of the 10 standardized Medigap plans offer drug coverage, and the plans that do have limits on the benefits and high cost sharing. Two plans have caps of $1250, and the third has a cap of $3000. In addition, all three policies require that beneficiaries pay a 50% coinsurance for prescription drugs. The high cost of Medigap policies puts them out of reach for most low-to-moderate income Medicare enrollees. In my home state of Maryland, a 70 year-old beneficiary buying a Medigap policy with drug benefits would have to pay between $1100 and $3550 per year. Some beneficiaries get drug benefits through employer-sponsored retiree plans. Although between 60 and 70% of large employers offered retiree health benefits in the 1980s, fewer than 40% do so today. Of these, nearly one-third do not provide drug benefits to their retirees. So that leaves Medicare HMOs. Nearly one-quarter of Medicare+Choice enrollees--1.5 million beneficiaries--do not have drug benefits today. Nine of ten plans that do offer drugs impose annual caps, some of which are as low as $600. In fact, some seniors in Medicare HMOs are relying on pharmaceutical samples from their physicians to get sufficient supplies of medications. Twenty-five percent of enrollees with drug coverage pay a monthly premium to join the HMO, and these premiums are certain to rise next year. Last October, four of the eight HMOs offering Medicare coverage in Maryland exited the program, abandoning 34,600 seniors. In all but the metropolitan areas, only one HMO was left and it went from a zero premium to $75 a month. Finally, the benefits offered by Medicare+Choice plans are not permanent. Because they are not part of the basic Medicare benefit package, which by law must be included in Medicare+Choice plans, drug benefits are considered ``extra'' and as such can change from year to year. On July 1, just 50 days from now, HMOs will submit their proposals to the Health Care Financing Administration for 2000. HCFA estimates that 16 million seniors, or 40% of all beneficiaries, will lack drug coverage as of next year. All of these statistics make us painfully aware of the gaping hole in Medicare's safety net. This Congress can move now to patch it before more elderly and disabled citizens fall through. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation to accomplish this. My bill, the Medicare Chronic Disease Prescription Drug Benefit Act, recognizes the importance of preventive care and provides coverage for drugs that have been determined to show progress in treating chronic diseases. Why chronic diseases? Because the average drug expenditures for elderly persons with just one chronic disease are more than twice as high than for those without any chronic conditions. And because we know from years of advanced medical research that treating these conditions will reduce costly inpatient hospitalizations and expensive follow-up care. Furthermore, this bill addresses those beneficiaries who need assistance with their medications: a review of the Medicare+Choice program reveals that seniors who join HMOs--whom HMOs market to--are younger and healthier than those in fee-for-service Medicare. This tells us that the older, sicker seniors are not getting drug benefits. My bill addresses their needs. It begins with five chronic diseases that have high prevalence among seniors and whose treatment will show improvement in beneficiaries' quality of life and reduce Medicare's overall expenditures. This bill provides coverage after an annual $250 deductible is met, with no copayment for generics and a 20% copayment for brand-name drugs. The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research will review available data on the effectiveness of drugs in treating these conditions, and based on AHCPR's review, the Department of health and Human Services will determine the drugs to be covered. Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM) under contract on a regional basis with the Health Care Financing Administration will negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to purchase these drugs and will administer the benefit. This bill covers five major chronic conditions, but we know that there are others that should be covered as well. The legislation provides a process for the Institute of Medicine to determine the effectiveness of this benefit and the Medicare savings it produces, and to recommend additional diagnoses and medications that should be considered for coverage. Mr. Speaker, modern medicine has the capability of doing extraordinary things. But no medical breakthrough, no matter how remarkable, can benefit patients if they can't get access to it. This bill is a matter of common sense: if Medicare beneficiaries can secure the medications they need, they will be able to managed their conditions, and will be much less likely to require extended and costly inpatient care. This legislation is a first step, a major step, toward making this happen. I urge my colleagues to join me in providing a solid package of prescription drug benefits that will modernize Medicare for the 21st century for the millions of Americans who depend on it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and could not be here to vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to the Intelligence Authorization Appropriation. If I had been present, I would have voted no.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I join with the other Members who have been on the floor today to talk about the problems we are confronting in steel. I recently had a chance to visit Bethlehem Steel's Sparrows Point division. I had a chance to meet with many of the 4,000 dedicated workers at this facility. I also had a chance to talk with management, to go over the investment that management is making in the most modern steel equipment, hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Speaker, at Sparrows Point our workers can compete with any worker around the world. All they ask from us is a level playing field. They are not asking us to protect the steel industry from competition, but they are asking us to protect the steel industry from illegally dumped steel that is still coming into this country. Yes, what we need to do, we need to enact the legislation, that passed, that rolls back the level of steel imports to the pre-crisis level. We need to reform our antidumping and counterveiling duty laws to protect from the surge of illegal steel or any product coming into this country, so we can act decisively. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and I have filed such legislation. We also need the ITC to take decisive action in their meetings today. This is sort of like a Whack-a-Mole game, where you hit one country on the head that is dealing with illegal steel and another country pops up. But for the 10,000 steel workers' jobs that we have lost, this is not a game. It is time for us to take decisive action.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the war powers resolution. It provides for congressional action in committing and maintaining our men and women in harm's way. I oppose this rule because it compromises the ability of Congress to exercise its responsibility under the war powers resolution. I believe it is appropriate for this body to consider Senate Concurrent Resolution 21. It supports the President's decision to join NATO in air strikes. I will support that resolution, considering the atrocities being committed by Mr. Milosevic. For many reasons, I have serious concerns about ground troops. If the President believes it is necessary to use ground troops, I believe he must come to Congress in compliance with the war powers resolution. H.R. 1569 by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) goes well beyond the war powers resolution. It compromises the safety of our military operation. I will oppose H.R. 1569.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, to ensure the long-term success of welfare reform, we must confront two hard truths. First, as welfare rolls decline, those remaining on assistance are increasingly likely to be those who have multiple barriers to employment, such as low levels of education, language barriers, disabilities, and substance abuse problems. These barriers will require major investments to overcome-- certainly far greater resources than provided to many of those who have left welfare over the last few years. This issue becomes even more important when you consider that by the end of 1999, recipients and their children will have reached welfare time limits in 19 states. And second, the primary responsibility for raising low-income children is too often left solely to mothers. It is true the welfare reform law strengthened our Nation's child support enforcement system, but that does not address situations in which non-custodial fathers want to support their children but do not have a job. In short, our current programs and policies do not make a clear enough distinction between deadbeat dads and dead broke dads. To address these two critical issues, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Welfare to Work program. The bill would provide $1 billion in FY 2000 to help long-term and hard-to-employ welfare recipients join the work force and to help non-custodial parents support their children. The legislation would extend the Welfare to Work (WtW) program established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which provided $1.5 billion a year in FY 1998 and FY 1999 for states and local communities to help move a long-term welfare recipients in high poverty areas into jobs and help them succeed in the work force. By providing greater flexibility to States and localities, the legislation would make substantial improvements to the original WtW program. The focus would continue to be on long-term recipients or the fathers of their children, but the program would be considerably simpler to operate. For example, under this proposal, eligible participants would be those which meet at least one, rather than two, barriers to employment. Furthermore, the list of barriers would be expanded to include with disabilities, those who are homeless, or those who have been victims of domestic violence. In addition, the first barrier listed in current law, which requires that the recipient not have a high school diploma and have low skills in reading or math would be split into two categories in order to serve those who gained a degree but whose low skills still form a major barrier to employment. And finally, the bill would allow States to offer vocational education to WtW participants and allow services to be provided to children aging out of the foster care system. Noncustodial fathers will also face simpler eligibility requirements, so long as they agree to establish paternity and to pay child support once they are employed. The importance of non-custodial fathers in children's lives is often forgotten, except when it is time to collect child support. The majority of children on welfare live with a single parent, and only about 20% of them receive child support from their noncustodial parent. The vast majority of these noncustodial parents are either unemployed or only able to obtain intermittent, low-wage employment. Assisting these fathers in finding and keeping employment and increasing their earnings is therefore critical to enhancing child support payments and to increasing their involvement in their children's lives. For these reasons, at least 20% of new formula funds would be targeted to noncustodial parents. Under this proposal, as under current law, about 75 percent of Welfare-to-Work funds will be allocated to States on a formula basis, with 85 percent of these funds passed through to local Private Industry Councils of Workforce Boards. The remaining 25 percent of the funds will continue to be awarded on a competitive basis by the Department of Labor to support innovative projects by a variety of private and public organizations. In 1998, the first year of the WtW program, 44 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands received Welfare-to-Work formula grants. Approximately $368 million in competitive grants have also been awarded by the Department of Labor to 126 grantees in communities throughout the country. A third round of competitive grants will be awarded in 1999, with high priority for applications which focus on recipients or noncustodial parents with limited English proficiency, disabilities, substance abuse problems, or a history of domestic violence. It is worth noting that there was only sufficient resources to fund one out of every ten applications for the first two rounds of the competitive grant program. In Baltimore, Maryland, part of which I represent in Congress, the City Office of Employment Development received a 1998 competitive grant of $3.3 million to provide comprehensive services to recipients and noncustodial fathers in public housing. Participants will work for 6 months in supported jobs (while also getting life skills training), and then be placed in unsubsidized employment. Baltimore is also the headquarters for three major national efforts supported by $16.5 million in Welfare-to-Work competitive funds. The efforts are managed by Marriot International, by Johns Hopkins University, and by the Enterprise Foundation. In each case, these nationally recognized organizations will be testing innovative, work-oriented strategies focused on job retention, skills development and career advancement. Mr. Speaker, the Welfare to Work program helps the hardest-to-employ welfare recipients make the transition to employment. I urge all of my colleagues to support this extension of the program to ensure the long- term success of welfare reform not only in reducing dependency but also in reducing poverty.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time and congratulate him on the work that he has done in the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this constitutional amendment. It reminds me of the debate that we had on another constitutional change that would have provided for a balanced Federal budget. During that debate, many of us pointed out that the Constitution is not the problem, that we have all the tools here in this body where we can do what is right, we can pass the necessary laws to make the necessary corrections. In 1993, we acted, we acted on the imbalance in our Federal budget. We passed a new economic program for this Nation; and as a result of the action that we took in 1993, we are enjoying a balanced Federal budget, we are enjoying economic prosperity, we are able to have more rational budget debates now in these halls. But, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that if this constitutional change would have been in the Constitution in 1993, we would not have been able to put this Nation back on a path of a balanced Federal budget, for it was a controversial bill. It passed by only one vote in this body or in the other body. We were able to do that because democracy worked, majority worked, and we could benefit as a result of that action. The Constitution is not the problem with our Tax Code. Yes, Americans are rightly upset with the taxes they have to pay and the way in which we collect those taxes. We need tax reform. The current majority has been talking about that during the last 4 years, and yet we have not had a single moment of debate in this body, on this floor, on tax reform. Bring out what the public really wants. Let us change our Tax Code. We have the power to do that. But instead, one day a year, on April 15 each year, we debate a constitutional change. The Constitution is not the problem. As my colleague from Virginia pointed out, this will not work. We reserve supermajorities in the Constitution for process issues, not to enact substantive legislation. To override a presidential veto, to pass a constitutional amendment, to expel a Member, that is what we reserve extraordinary supermajority votes for, not policy determinations. My friend from Virginia pointed out that in the 104th Congress, 4 years ago, the Republican majority put this in our rules. It has not worked. It did not work. Every time that there was an opportunity for the rule to prevent congressional action, we waived it. As the gentleman from Texas pointed out, well, we changed that. Yes, we changed it 2 years later. It did not work, so we changed the rule. We could do that when it is a rule. You cannot do it when it is a constitutional change. You cannot just go back and say, ``Oh, we made a mistake, let's change it.'' It will not work. We know that. Yet every April 15 we come to the floor and tell the American people we are trying to do something about their frustration with paying taxes. We have the tools. As we had the tools to deal with the balanced budget, we have the tools to deal with tax reform. Why are we not spending today debating what type of a tax structure we should have for this Nation? Why have you not brought out in 4 years a bill that would reform our tax structure? Then we could have the debate that the American people would like us to have. Let us stop blaming the Constitution of the United States. It is our responsibility, and let us use our time to have a constructive debate.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the All-Payer Graduate Medical Education Act, legislation that improves the funding of America's teaching hospitals and eases the burden on the Medicare Trust Fund. We have recently learned that medical care costs will double in the next ten years. Health care budgets, including Medicare, will be caught in the vise of increasing costs and limited resources. We must try to restrain the growth of Medicare spending, while protecting our teaching hospitals that rely on Medicare and Medicaid as major sources of funding for graduate medical education (GME). America's 125 academic medical centers and their affiliated hospitals are vital to the nation's health. These centers train each new generation of physicians, nurses and allied health professionals, conduct the research and clinical trials that lead to advances in medicine, including new treatments and cures for disease, and care for the most medically complex patients. To place their contributions in perspective, academic medical centers constitute only two percent of the nation's non-federal hospital beds, yet they conduct 42% of all of the health research and development in the United States, provide 33% of all trauma units and 31% of all AIDS units. Academic medical centers also treat a disproportionate share of the nation's indigent patients. To pay for training the nation's health professionals, our academic medical centers must rely on the Medicare program. But Medicare's contribution does not fully cover the costs of residents' salaries, and more importantly, this funding system fails to recognize that graduate medical education benefits all segments of society, not just Medicare beneficiaries. At a time when Congress is revising the Medicare program to ensure that the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund can remain solvent for future generations, GME costs are threatening to break the bank. The All-Payer Graduate Medical Education Act distributes the expense of graduate medical education more fairly by establishing a Trust funded by a 1% fee on all private health care premiums. Teaching hospitals receive approximately $3 billion annually in additional GME payments from the Trust, while Medicare's annual contribution to GME decreases by $1 billion. The current formula for direct graduate medical education payments is based upon cost reports generated more than 15 years ago, and it unfairly rewards some hospitals and penalizes others. This bill replaces the current formula with a fair, national system for direct graduate medical education payments based upon actual resident wages. Children's hospitals, which have unfairly received only very limited support for their pediatric training programs, will receive funding for their GME programs. Critics of indirect GME payments have sought greater accountability for the billions of dollars academic medical centers receive each year. The All-Payer Graduate Medical Education Act requires hospitals to report annually on their contributions to improved patient care, education, clinical research, and community services. The formula for indirect GME payments will be changed to more accurately reflect MedPAC's estimates of true indirect costs. My bill also addresses the supply of physicians in this country. Nearly every commission that has studied the physician workforce has recommended reducing the number of first-year residency positions to 110% of the number of American medical school graduating seniors. This bill directs the Secretary of HHS, working with the medical community, to develop and implement a plan to accomplish this goal within five years. In doing so, we ensure that rural and urban hospitals that need residents to deliver care to underserved populations receive an exception from the cap. Medicare disproportionate share payments are particularly important to our safety-net hospitals. Many of these hospitals, which treat the indigent, are in dire financial straits. This bill reallocates disproportionate share payments, at no cost to the federal budget, to hospitals that carry the greatest burden of poor patients. Hospitals that treat Medicaid-eligible and indigent patients will be able to count these patients when they apply for disproportionate share payments. In addition, these payments will be distributed uniformly nationwide, without regard to hospital size or location. Rural public hospitals, in particular, will benefit from this provision. Finally, because graduate medical education encompasses the training of other health professionals, this bill provides for $300 million annually of the Medicare savings to support graduate training programs for nurses and other allied health professionals. These funds are in addition to the current support that Medicare provides for the nation's diploma nursing schools. The All-Payer Graduate Medical Education Act creates a fair system for the support of graduate medical education--fair in the distribution of costs to all payers of medicare, fair in the allocation of payments to hospitals. Everyone benefits from advances in medical research and well-trained health professionals. Life expectancy at birth has increased from 68 years in 1950 to 76 years today. Medical advances have dramatically improved the quality of life for millions of Americans. And it is largely because of our academic medical centers that we are in the midst of a new era of biotechnology that will extend the advances of medicine beyond imagination, advances that will prevent disease and disability, extend life, and ultimately lower health care costs. The Association of American Medical Colleges, the National Association of Public Hospitals, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Medical Student Association, the American Physical Therapy Association, the American Occupational Therapy Association, the American Speech-Language, Hearing Association, and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing have all expressed support for the bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting America's academic medical centers and the future of our physician workforce by cosponsoring the All-Payer Graduate Medical Education Act.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. First, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for really making this possible for us to have a vote today on this very important bill. I would also like to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his work on this area. I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) I like this bill, but it deals with a prospective problem. We need to deal with the current situation. We need to pass this bill and the bill that he mentioned. Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to express my appreciation to the steelworkers at Sparrows Point in Maryland for their persistence in being here to demonstrate exactly what effect this illegal surge of imported steel has had on our work force. There is no question that this activity has been illegal. The imports are wrong, and there is no question of the harm that it has caused. Ten thousand jobs have been lost. Mr. Speaker, Bethlehem Steel's fourth quarter financial reports show that this is certainly a very serious situation. It is not Bethlehem Steel's fault. They made the investments in the 1980's and early 1990's. They can compete with steel produced anywhere in the world as long as it is on a fair and level playing field. That is not the case. The bill before us is an appropriate remedy, so for the sake of our U.S. steelworkers, for the sake of basic fairness, let us pass this legislation. I will vote in favor of this anti-steel dumping bill. But before I do, I want to personally thank Representative Visclosky for his leadership on this issue. And I want to recognize the hard work of the steel industry in the last year. I want to congratulate union and management for their tenacity. They refused to let us forget what this dumping was doing to their lives. If you looked up the definition of the word persistence in Webster's Dictionary you ought to find a picture of some of the steelworkers and managers from Bethlehem Steel's Sparrows Point division in Baltimore. Sometimes it felt like they were living in my front office during the last few months. But they have made it clear to all of us that this problem is real. That they are frightened for themselves and their families. 10,000 jobs have been lost due to unfair dumping. We're told more will come if something isn't done soon. There are already slowdowns at Bethlehem Steel. The company's fourth quarter financial reports were anything but rosy. These workers were not only frightened, they were furious. Furious at our inaction. Furious at our handwringing. Well, today we have the opportunity to act and get their industry back to producing quality steel on a level playing field. It is hard to argue with their fury. Consider the numbers and the facts. U.S. imports of steel from Japan jumped nearly 162-percent from 1997 to 1998. 162-percent! I had a Beth Steel manager in my office last week who said that just as the levels for Russian steel imports began to decrease, the levels of Chinese dumped steel took its place. It's like that boardwalk game ``Whack-A-Mole'': you hit one, and another pops up. The U.S. steel industry is an industry that has already taken its whacks--whacks it well deserved--and managed to reemerge stronger and more profitable because of it. I began my career here in Congress just as this revitalized industry returned to the fore in 1987. But I also remember the darkness before the dawn. As Speaker of the House in the Maryland General Assembly at the time, I remember that painful process for Beth Steel and the steel industry as a whole. Between 1977 and 1987, 45 million tons of steelmaking capacity was lost due to bankruptcies, plant closures, and partial closures. Employment dropped 57 percent. Almost 300,000 steelworkers lost their jobs. The wages and benefits of those workers who survived were substantially cut as well. I cite these figures to stress that these were fair blows the industry had to withstand. The industry had let itself lag behind other countries. It had failed to adopt new techniques and practices until these practices themselves were out of date. The industry needed to be shaken awake. A reinvigorated international steel industry did just that. But, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. steel industry can't blame itself for the problems it faces today. And one month declines in the levels of steel imports are nice but I fear them to be a false dawn. The blows this industry is being asked to absorb here are not fair ones. The United States has the only true open market in the world. But it is being forced to compete against countries whose steel producers are heavily subsidized or which work in cartels. I support the Visclosky bill because it returns the field to the even level that the whole industry played on before July 1998. I appreciate the complexity of the global financial crisis which prompted this glut of imports. I appreciate the distress of steel workers all over Asia, South America, and Russia. But quite frankly it's my job to look after the distressed steelworkers at Beth Steel. They are my primary responsibility. They are our primary responsibility. We have to do more for them. The steel industry has been sending SOS signals to the U.S. Congress for months now. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 975 and show these workers we hear their call and help is on the way.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow the comments of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) in really congratulating the Baltimore Orioles and Peter Angelos for arranging for a game between the Baltimore Orioles and the Cuban national team. As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) indicated, baseball really speaks an international language. This is going to be good for our Nation and good for the people of Cuba. None of the economic proceeds will go to the government of Cuba. Peter Angelos has really, I think, done a favor for this Nation. I support this game. It has nothing to do about politics. It is a game. Two countries whose identity is deeply rooted in their national pastime. I think a fan who was quoted in the Miami Herald recently had the right outlook for this game when he said, ``They should play it. It's a game after all.'' I would also like to quote from one of the real great diplomats in baseball, one of the great Earls, the Earl of Baltimore, Earl Weaver, the famous manager of the Baltimore Orioles. I think he had the game of baseball right when he said, in baseball you can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. Earl once said, you got to throw the ball over the plate and give the other man his chance. That is why baseball is the greatest game of them all, and now we are going to be able to have a good will game, two good will games between the Cuban national team and the Baltimore Orioles. Mr. Speaker, let the games begin. I am thrilled at the likelihood of an historic sports exchange with Cuba in the very near future I am sure many of you have heard the news of a goodwill game between the Cuban national team and Maryland's beloved Baltimore Orioles. I commend Orioles owner Peter Angelos for his hard work to make this dream a reality. I am here tonight to express my strong support for this initiative and to urge the U.S. Congress to join all of us here tonight in supporting this worthy endeavor. I want to say from the outset that any proceeds from this exchange will not go to the Cuban Government. The proceeds will go to support baseball and other activities related to sports in our two countries. Indeed, supporting this initiative has nothing to do with politics. That may seem strange here in Washington where it is our job in many respects to see the world through a political prism. But this is one time, thankfully, when it is to our advantage to see an exchange between two countries, not as a political event, but simply as a game--America's game and Cuba's game. These are two countries whose identity is deeply rooted to their national pastime. I think a fan quoted in the Miami Herald recently had the right outlook for this game when he said, ``They should just play. It's a game after all.'' It is indeed a game after all. A bat and a ball, two teams, a field and the undivided attention of two nations. That is all, Mr. Speaker, and that should be enough for now. Perhaps we should heed the diplomatic words of one of the world's great Earls--the Earl of Baltimore. Earl Weaver's famous comment about America's pastime is the reason why this game is such a wonderful idea and opportunity for both nations: In baseball ``you can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock,'' Earl once said. ``You've got to throw the ball over the plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all.'' Wherever it might be played, baseball is the best game around. So Mr. Speaker, let the games begin.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution although I must tell my colleagues I have certain misgivings. My misgivings are not surrounded by the U.S. role, because I think it is clear that the United States has a very vital role in this peace process. The stability in the Balkans are very important to our national interests, and we are not going to achieve peace in the Balkans without U.S. leadership. It is important for the United States to maintain a very strong position with NATO. So I support the Clinton administration's efforts in this area. My concern is a matter of timing. Why are we considering this resolution now? I agree with my friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) in his comments, in that we should have an agreement first before we are asked to vote on what the United States' role should be in enforcing that peace agreement. We do not know what the agreement itself will be. However, I plan to vote in support of this resolution because I want to make it clear that I support the Clinton administration's efforts to bring peace to the Balkans, that I acknowledge that the U.S. will play, must play a leadership role in enforcing that peace agreement that we hope will be achieved. By voting for this resolution, I think we move forward the peace process in the Balkans. If we do otherwise, then we are going to be at least partially responsible for making it more difficult for us to achieve peace in that very difficult area of the world. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution if we must vote on it today. If we must vote on it today, then we should support it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the most successful domestic program in the history of our Nation, keeping 40 percent of our elderly out of poverty and 800,000 children out of poverty. I support this resolution. But the real issue is whether Congress will finish the work begun by the President when he introduced the framework for Social Security, strengthening our system. The President's plan lays out a good foundation of reducing public debt and shoring up the program's assets. Social Security is too important of a program to play partisan politics. We must focus on improving the Trust Fund rate of return, restoring long-term solvency, and protecting benefits for current and future retirees. We should also focus on helping Americans save for their retirement to supplement the guaranteed benefit they receive from Social Security. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we should make strengthening Social Security and Medicare our top fight and enact those reforms before any other aspect of our budget. Let us make it our top priority. Let us get it done. Let us get it done in a bipartisan way, and let us move on, really, to the bill itself rather than just this resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding me this time so I can express my congratulations to Bob Livingston and thank him for his public service. I think the Members of this body know very well many of his strengths and many of his contributions to this institution. The great chairman of the Committee on Appropriations who helped bring about, as has been pointed out, consensus on a lot of the difficult fiscal issues of our country. People think of him in the Republican Caucus for his leadership in rising to the top of the Republican Caucus here in Congress. I might just give one more dimension to where I think Bob Livingston has made a unique contribution to this institution, and that is the love of this institution and the respect for what this body should be doing and the respect for each Member in this institution. Before coming to Congress, I was the Speaker of our House in the State of Maryland, and I really appreciated individuals who went out of their way to speak up for an institution when it is many times very fashionable to bash an institution, to go back home and slam it and say, gee, I can make political points. But that is not Bob Livingston. He understood that we are going to do better as a body if we strengthen the body. He singled himself out here as a person who wanted to go the extra mile to strengthen this body. I had the opportunity, did not ask for it, nor did Mr. Livingston ask for it, to cochair the group that looked over the ethics laws that we have to abide by here. I do not think anyone but Bob Livingston could have successfully navigated all the mine fields that we had in that effort. He brought out a bill that ultimately is now the ethics standards by which we live that have really elevated us above partisan attacks. It is not by accident that these last years have been more peaceful as far as the ethics process. And Bob Livingston deserves the credit for doing that. He truly is a unique individual in his love for this institution and I just could not pass up this opportunity to say from one Member, ``Thank you for your public service, thank you for your friendship, we will miss you. We will miss you on both sides of the aisle.'' Mr. Speaker, we like a good fight on the Democratic side and we always appreciated having a good fight with the gentleman from Louisiana. We just wish we could have won a few more times. Congratulations.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) for yielding to me. I thank him for his leadership on this issue, and thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of representing the Third Congressional District of Maryland. It is known as the ethnic district. We have many ethnic communities that are located in my congressional district. We have a proud Irish tradition in Baltimore and in Maryland. The people of my district strongly support the peace process in Northern Ireland. I take this time to emphasize the importance of us staying the course for peace. I also wish to pay tribute to a young Belfast man named Terry Enright, who was slain a little over a year ago in front of a nightclub where he worked by those who would have hoped his murder would rekindle the smouldering ashes of sectarian strife and the mindless killings in Northern Ireland. One year later, though talks on the implementation of the historic peace agreements have stalled, the streets of Belfast, Antrim, and Omaugh and all of Northern Ireland are relatively calm and quiet. Terry Enright's murder could not eclipse his life and its message. You see, Terry was a young youth counselor, a lover of the outdoors, sports, and children, who realized that bringing these things together was part of the solution to the troubles. Terry Enright worked with children from all walks of life, Protestants, Catholics, Unionists, Loyalists alike. I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because his murder did not prompt the resurgence of violence that his killers had hoped. Rather, it prompted a collective recoiling in horror from people all over the island of Ireland. Following a deep and profound sadness, there was a recommitment from all sides to keep their eyes on the goal line. That is what Terry would have coached. Seamus Heaney, the Nobel Prize-winning poet from Northern Ireland, tells the story of his aunt, who planted a chestnut in a jam jar the year of his birth. When it began to sprout, she broke the jar and planted it under a hedge in the front of his house. As the chestnut sapling grew, Heaney came to identify his own life with that of the chestnut tree. Eventually the family moved away, and the new family that moved in cut down the tree. Reflecting on that tree as an adult, Heaney began to think of the space where it had been, or what would have been. He writes, ``The new place was all idea, if you like; it was generated out of my experience of the old place but it was not a topographical location. It was, and remains, an imagined realm, even if it can be located at an earthly spot, a placeless heaven rather than a heavenly place.'' Mr. Speaker, let the words of Seamus Heaney and the life of Terry Enright be a reminder to us all, especially Irish leaders, as they steer through the particularly rough shoals of implementing the peace talks. We ask that these men and women be remembered; that we understand and reflect on their lives. Terry's life has been reflected on by his parents and by his two sad and mystified daughters, who hope all remember Terry in life, just as Heaney remembered his chestnut tree in life. But let us hope that also the imagined realm of peace and equality in Northern Ireland generates ``an earthly spot of placeless heaven'' for all those in Northern Ireland. Through the work of President Clinton, Senator George Mitchell, David Trimble, John Hume, and the citizens of Northern Ireland, we can almost glimpse it. Though the negotiations in Stormont may be stalled, they should not stall the momentum of hope. Let these leaders hear and speak the words of present compromise instead of stumbling over the words of past conceits. Terry's father reminds us it was a similar impasse in the peace talks before the Good Friday agreement that created the political vacuum in which his son was murdered. Terry Enright's mother, Mary, when asked how she can cope with the rage and frustration over her 28-year-old son's tragic killing, explains: ``But if you drive a car looking through the rearview mirror, you'll end up crashing.'' Mr. Speaker, the imagined realm of Heaney's fallen chestnut tree and the reality of Terry Enright's work in life ought to direct these leaders in this perilous moment of peace to look up and to look ahead. I know I speak for all Members of this body in urging us to remember the goal of peace in Northern Ireland. It is within our grasp. We must stay the course. I urge us to continue to do so.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, when children leave their families to make it in the world, they often do so in stages. The first step for many is to go away to college while still depending on their parents for tuition and living expenses. Others attempt to work immediately, but they also might rely on their family for financial assistance, not to mention emotional support. However, there is one group of young Americans that are required to become completely self-sufficient on their 18th birthday--kids aging out of foster care. The cruel irony of course is that this population is perhaps the least capable of becoming fully independent at such a young age. These kids have to deal with all the traumas and difficulties associated with being removed from their family because of abuse, neglect or abandonment and then being placed in one, two, three or more foster homes. This is hardly the most solid foundation from which to build the rest of their lives. Repeated studies have illustrated that a sink-or-swim policy for children aging out of foster care has resulted in many falling beneath the waves of poverty and despair. A national study by Westat, Inc. in 1992 found less than half of former foster children had graduated high school between 2.5 and 4 years after being discharged. The study also found only half of former foster kids were working; one-quarter had spent at least one night homeless; and 40% needed some kind of public aid. More recent studies by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Illinois also have illustrated the extreme difficulties faced by this population. The authors of these reports and many of the state officials responsible for overseeing our Nation's child welfare system have called for bold changes to help foster children make the transition to independence. For example, Peter Digre, Director of the Department of Children and Families in Los Angeles, and Nicholas Scoppetta, Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services in New York City, released a joint statement in 1998 on youth aging out of foster care which declared, ``It becomes our responsibility as a society to provide these young people, who are proven to be at a heightened risk of homelessness or involvement in the criminal justice system, with the opportunity to succeed, (including) a safe and comfortable place to live--an opportunity to continue education--(and) access to health care.'' I am introducing legislation today, along with my Democratic colleagues on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, to ensure that the end of foster care does not mean the beginning of poverty and hopelessness for thousands of young Americans every year. The Transition to Adulthood Program (TAP) Act would provide States with the option of extending assistance to former foster youth up to the age of 21 as long as they are working or enrolled in educational activities and have a plan to become completely self-sufficient. This extension of foster care assistance would provide needed resources for housing, education, health care and employment. In addition, the legislation would: provide tax credits to employers who hire former foster children; allow children in foster care to save more resources for their eventual emancipation; require a collaboration among existing housing, educational and employment programs to help foster kids; and update the formula for the current Independent Living Program. In general, the legislation seeks to send foster children down a ramp to independent and productive lives, rather than off a cliff to destitution and welfare dependency. Some of my colleagues have said in the past that government programs too often take the role and responsibility of families. However, I would remind them that government is the defacto parent for foster children and therefore has an obligation to do a better job of helping them become self-sufficient. How many other parents tell their children at the age of 18 that they are completely and utterly on their own? Of course, it is true that some foster children make a seamless transition to self-reliance at such a young age, but the statistics show that many ultimately do not. Mr. Speaker, less than two years ago, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to help promote the adoption of children in foster care. However, adoption is not always possible for many older foster children, and we therefore see our TAP legislation as the next logical step in reforming our foster care system. We offer the bill not so much as the final work on helping foster children, but more as the first step towards building a consensus that Congress must act on this important issue. We stand ready to work with anyone who wants to help former foster youth achieve real independence.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my good friend Ned Malone who has dedicated his life to improving our community and who has had a distinguished career in public service as a member of the Maryland House of Delegates and as Baltimore County Sheriff. Those who know Ned well, know one thing about him: that he is a fireman at heart. That is why I am so pleased that on Feb. 13 he will be honored for his 45 years of dedicated service to the Arbutus Volunteer Fire Department. During that time, Ned has served as the Fire Department's president, captain, and a member of the Board of Directors. Ned also has had a distinguished career in Annapolis. From 1967-1978, he was a member of the House of Delegates, serving as Chairman of the Baltimore County delegation and as Vice Chairman of the powerful Economic Matters Committee. In 1984, Ned was appointed Sheriff of Baltimore County by Gov. Harry Hughes. Serving as Sheriff from 1984-1990, Ned worked hard to ensure the safety and well-being of all Baltimore County residents. Ned is currently with the state's Mass Transit Administration. Ned was born in Elkridge, MD, in 1927 and has spent much of his life in Arbutus, MD. He was Manager of Personnel Services for the Western Maryland Railway Co., and served with distinction in the U.S. Army from 1950-1952. Ned has been married to the lovely Margaret June Malone for 43 years and together they raised four wonderful children. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ned Malone on his 45 years as a dedicated member of the Arbutus Volunteer Fire Department, and on his distinguished career in public service. Ned's passion for helping others and his dedication to improving our community is hard to match. I am honored to call him a friend.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will restore to thousands of our nation's seniors access to an essential element of comprehensive medical care--prescription drugs. Prescription drugs are the single largest out-of-pocket medical expense for the elderly, and for many the greatest cause for worry. To secure prescription drug coverage, as well as other benefits not part of the basic Medicare package, many seniors have chosen to join HMOs during the past few years. But October 2, 1998 signaled a turning point for them. You may recall that was the deadline for HMOs to notify the Health Care Financing Administration whether they would continue to participate in Medicare+Choice in 1999. Well, more than 100 plans nationwide decided to either end their participation with Medicare entirely, or to cut back their service areas. As a result, 440,000 Medicare HMO enrollees in 22 states were abandoned by their Medicare HMO. More than 300,000 Medicare beneficiaries had a prescription drug benefit and lost it on December 31st. More than 70,000 beneficiaries were left with no Medicare HMO option whatsoever. Not only has the number of plans offering the drug benefit shrunk considerably from last year, it is expected to be even lower when HMOs submit their proposals to HCFA for next year. Although Congress' stated goal in the Balanced Budget Act was to provide more choices to seniors, it seems that the reverse has happened. BBA did provide some security for seniors whose Medicare HMOs abandon them--they are guaranteed the ability to enroll in four of the ten standardized Medigap plans: A, B, C, or F. But none of those plans offers any prescription drug coverage. They can apply for one of the plans that offers it: H, I, or J, but insurance companies can refuse to enroll them, place pre-existing conditions on those policies, or discriminate in pricing because of the patient's health status, effectively denying them access. In the closing days of the 105th Congress, I introduced the Medigap Access Protection for Seniors Act. This bill helps beneficiaries maintain their outpatient drug coverage when they are dropped from a Medicare HMO that provided that benefit, by guaranteeing them enrollment in plans supplemental plan H. I, or J. Today, I am reintroducing this legislation. Seniors across the nation placed their trust in Congress when they selected a Medicare HMO. They did so because of the promise of additional benefits, little or no additional premium costs, and with the belief that these plans would remain accessible to them. In doing so, many gave up their supplemental policies. Now, they can only return to the most limited of Medigap plans, ones with no coverage for prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon my colleagues to join me in taking this important step to restore prescription drug benefits for thousands of beneficiaries and I am calling upon this Congress to pass this bill early in the first session and renew seniors' faith in the promise of Medicare.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I'm so glad to see so many people from both sides of the aisle supporting the Stop Illegal Steel Imports Act today. Bethlehem Steel in my hometown of Baltimore and the other great American steel manufacturers have proven that they can take a punch and come back strong. The American steel industry is the Rocky Balboa of the global market. None of us will forget those difficult days 15 years ago when American steel was on the ropes. We had become too content with the status quo and our overseas competitors exploited this. But management and unions worked together and American steel was reborn. We have seen real and significant growth since then. In my district, Beth Steel cranks out 9,000 to 10,000 tons of quality American steel a day! That's 9,000 to 10,000 tons of quality steel a day when operating under normal conditions. But these days things are anything but normal. Steel producers in our country are decreasing production, laying off workers, and reporting losses. I understand that there are serious economic problems around the world--problems that are already affecting us. But we must protect our businesses, our employees and our country first. The American steel industry has done nothing wrong. It shouldn't pay the price for other countries' mistakes. I'm proud to be here to stand up for steel and my friends who produce it. This is an industry rich in tradition. This is an industry which literally made this country. From the Golden Gate Bridge to the Alaskan oil pipeline--Baltimore's Beth Steel has been there. This industry has proved it can take a punch. But it shouldn't have to weather a storm of low blows, which is what this foreign dumping amounts to. This has nothing to do with protectionism. Insisting that our trading partners adhere to international law and play by the rules is not protectionism. I'd call it something much simpler: it's called fairness. It's not fair that Beth Steel lost $23 million in the last quarter because of these low blows. The bill we're here to introduce today would become the referee in a fair fight. We want the amount of steel imported into the United States to return to the rates we saw last summer when the global steel industry competed on a level playing field. This industry is being forced to fight with one arm tied behind its back. It's taking a pummeling. Congress should release the other hand. Pass this bill, let this industry fight fairly and, believe me, Rocky will win another.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, by the President's own admission, his conduct was wrong. He misled his family and our Nation. The President has gravely disappointed and embarrassed our country. The question presented to Congress is not whether the President's conduct is reprehensible but whether his actions warrant his impeachment and removal from office. Short of a declaration of war, there is no more solemn responsibility for a Congressman in acting on the possible impeachment of the President. I was never so proud to be a Member of this House during our debate of our participation in Operation Desert Storm. That debate helped bring our Nation together. Regardless of what side one was on that issue, the debate consolidated our country, and everyone felt good with the results. Unfortunately, the process used in the House impeachment inquiry has brought about just the opposite result in our Nation. However, each of us must be guided by what the Constitution dictates as far as impeachment. Our decision will not only affect this President but will affect the future of our presidency. The Constitution and the historical record indicates that the words in the Constitution were clear to our framers of the Constitution, that they apply only to fundamental offenses against the system of government. President Clinton's misleading statements have nothing to do with the official duties of his office. They were designed to conceal an embarrassing, highly inappropriate personal relationship. As such, they do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I urge my colleagues to reject each of the four articles of impeachment. Mr. Speaker, by the President's own admission his conduct in the Lewinsky matter was wrong; he misled his family and our nation. The President has gravely disappointed and embarrassed our country. The question presented to Congress is not whether his conduct is reprehensible, but whether his actions warrant his impeachment and removal from office. Short of a declaration of war, there is no more solemn responsibility for a Congressman than acting on the possible impeachment of our President. I was never so proud to be a member of the Congress as when we debated and acted on the U.S. participation in Operation Desert Storm. That debate helped bring our nation together. Regardless of what side of the debate one believed was right, the democratic process used by Congress to debate our involvement was healing for Congress and for the American people. More recently, I had the responsibility to serve on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct during the investigation of Speaker Gingrich. The members of the Investigatory Subcommittee in that process took great pains to proceed in a bipartisan manner. We specifically defined and limited the charges against the Speaker, and extended every opportunity to the Speaker to respond to our work. The fairness and bipartisan nature of that process was confirmed by the overwhelming vote of the House, 395 to 28, to fine and censure the Speaker. Unfortunately, the process used in the House Impeachment Inquiry has brought about just the opposite result. The Judiciary Committee has proceeded in a very partisan manner. The Committee has denied the President basic fairness in the proceedings. As a result, the recommendation has broken down strictly along party lines. Last January, Chairman Henry Hyde observed that for this process to succeed, it was absolutely essential that the process be bipartisan. That has not happened. Now, whatever action Congress takes will be viewed by the public with disdain. We will not be able to bring our nation together. I believe Congress has greatly disappointed our country. What the committee has done cannot be undone. It is now time for the full House to act. In making my decision as to whether to vote for or against an Article of Impeachment, I must be guided solely by what the Constitution requires. Our decision will affect not only this President, but the future of the Presidency. Therefore I must make that judgment regardless of the actions of the Judiciary Committee, my party affiliation or the popular sentiment of the people of my district. In order to vote for an Article of Impeachment, I must be convinced first that the record establishes the offenses alleged, and second, that the offense rises to the standard prescribed for impeachment under the Constitution. Having reviewed much of the material included in the Starr referral and having read much of the testimony of witnesses before the Judiciary Committee, I have reached the following conclusions: Of the four articles voted by the Committee, one alleges obstruction of justice. The record of evidence presented by the Independent Counsel--which the Judiciary Committee failed to examine through testimony of material witnesses--in my opinion does not support this article. The charge of obstruction of justice rests on an interpretation of events, surmises and speculations that the evidence does not support. The three remaining articles allege that the President committed perjury in his testimony in his deposition in the Jones case, to the grand jury, and to the Judiciary Committee. In my opinion these articles raise more serious questions. As the President has conceded, it is without question that his responses to questions in the deposition were misleading and incomplete. He did not offer direct and clear answers to the questions. But proof of perjury requires more than misleading, incomplete, or evasive statements. During the Judiciary Committee's hearings, numerous expert witnesses, including legal scholars and former prosecutors, testified on the perjury issue. There was no disagreement in their testimony that the record compiled in this case would not, in the hands of a responsible prosecutor, justify a perjury charge. Even if we set aside that judgment, however, and assume that the President in fact lied under oath, we must answer a second question. Do the false and misleading statements in question rise to the level of an impeachable offense under the Constitution? Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that ``the President * * * of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The historical record of these words makes clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended them to apply only to fundamental offenses against the system of government. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention approved James Madison's suggestion that the language read ``* * * high Crimes and Misdemeanors against the United States.'' After this language was approved, it was referred to the Committee on Style, which had instructions to make no substantive changes. In removing the words ``against the United States,'' the Committee on Style was clearly making the judgment that the words were unnecessary because they were redundant. Thus, it is clear that the Framers intended that the President should only be impeached for offenses against the structure of our government. President Clinton's misleading statements had nothing to do with the official duties of his office. They were designed to conceal an embarrassing, highly inappropriate, personal relationship. As such, they do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. Our recent historical experience supports this view. In 1974, the Judiciary Committee considered an Article of Impeachment based on President Nixon's tax fraud. President Nixon had filed tax returns that failed to report certain income and claimed deductions that were not authorized by law. The President had signed his tax returns under penalty of perjury. There was credible evidence that President Nixon had committed perjury. The Committee on the Judiciary, by a bipartisan vote of more than a 2-1 margin, rejected the tax fraud article. By that vote, the Committee held that even if President Nixon had committed perjury in the filing of his personal tax returns, that conduct did not rise to the standard of an impeachable offense under the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, the question of impeachment of a President of the United States is a grave constitutional matter. It is designed to address circumstances in which the President has violated the trust of the American people through fundamental abuses of his office and serious misconduct. Mr. Speaker, nothing in the articles approved by the Judiciary Committee approaches the historical and constitutional tests for impeachment of a President. Even if one assumes that the strained interpretation imposed by the committee on the facts of this case is reasonable, the sad efforts of a President to avoid getting caught having a consensual extramarital affair does not threaten our system of government. It does not justify the impeachment of the President by the House. Therefore, I will vote against each of the four articles approved by the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lee Rosenberg, a retired home builder who for the last 14 years has dedicated himself to providing shelter and housing to homeless veterans and low-income families throughout the Baltimore area. As the founder of Howard Homes, Mr. Rosenberg was a successful builder who retired and turned his attention to helping numerous non- profit and community organizations. He has earned the love and respect of the countless organizations he has assisted. They include The Enterprise Foundation, Maryland Homeless Veterans, Inc., Action for the Homeless, and Comprehensive Housing Assistance, Inc., an agency of the Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore. Lee Rosenberg, a quiet, soft-spoken man, has dedicated himself to helping those less fortunate find affordable, quality housing. His skill, knowledge and energy has helped provide housing for thousands of Marylanders. He has done all this without a lot of attention or fanfare. As the Executive Director of Comprehensive Housing Assistance, Inc. once said, ``Lee remains one of the best kept secrets in Baltimore.'' His commitment to those who are less fortunate has helped transform our community. From helping low-income families become homeowners in the Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood of West Baltimore to helping the Jewish Historical Society become a viable presence in East Baltimore, he has helped transform distressed inner city neighborhoods into successful, stable communities with a future. I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Lee Rosenberg for his dedication and commitment to helping those in need find affordable, quality housing. He knows that the true secret of success is helping others.