Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, first let me thank my friend from New York and my friend from Texas for bringing this matter to the floor. I strongly support the bill before us. Principally let me say that this bill provides some relief to people that are needed and it provides some help to businesses. It is a good bill and it is paid for. It will not violate our commitment to preserve all of the surplus until we have come up with a plan to save Social Security. So this is a bill that I believe will enjoy broad support in this House because it does good things and it is totally paid for. As the chairman pointed out, it accelerates the self-employed health insurance benefits. That is good. On both sides of the aisle we have been trying to help self-employed people by making it easier for them to provide health benefits to their employees. It extends expiring tax provisions, the research tax credit, very important for this Nation for research and development as well as the work opportunity tax credit, which is used to help people find employment, which will be very difficult otherwise. It has been a very successful program and this bill extends that program. Contributions to private foundations of appreciated property, we make that permanent. That will help private foundations in their efforts to carry out their charitable activities. As the chairman pointed out, there are very good provisions in here for farmers, including income averaging, ones that are generally supported. One additional provision I would like to compliment the chairman for including deals with private activity bond caps. By raising those caps, we are going to help state and local governments in dealing with a lot of the infrastructure needs of this country. It is a good provision. The provisions in here are all good, they are paid for, and I urge my colleagues to support them. I join with the ranking member in my disappointment that we do not have other provisions that should be included in a tax bill before we adjourn, and hopefully we will be able to work out some additional provisions before Congress adjourns this year.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Robert P. Gajdys, who is retiring after 8 years as executive director of the Community Assistance Network, Inc., Baltimore County's non-profit community action agency. The Community Assistance Network (CAN) operates over three dozen programs that serve the diversified needs of more than 50,000 low-income families. An outspoken advocate for the poor and disadvantaged, Bob Gajdys turned CAN from an agency with a $100,000 deficit to one with $250,000 surplus. Because of his leadership and exceptional abilities, CAN has built and strengthened regional partnerships, worked to develop statewide anti-poverty strategies, and received national recognition for program excellence. Before his tenure at CAN, Bob spent 32 years working for the Federal Government. He has served as Director of Personnel at NOAA, Director of Administration at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and Deputy Director of the Office of Program Development and Accountability at the Department of Labor. A Native American of the Mohawk tribe, Bob also served as Deputy Director of Indian and Territorial Affairs at the Department of the Interior. He was designated by President Jimmy Carter in July, 1979 as a charter member of the Senior Executive Service. I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Robert P. Gajdys for his dedication and commitment to the poor and disadvantaged. Although he is retiring as Executive Director of CAN, we know that he will continue to be a voice for those who cannot speak out for themselves.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding me this time, and let me thank also the Chairman of our Subcommittee on Health for bringing forward this legislation. This is important legislation to deal with the home health care services in our community. Mr. Speaker, last year we made a mistake, and now we need to correct it. We are moving towards implementing a prospective payment system for home health care providers, and that will reward efficiency and cost effective programs. We had anticipated that that new system would be in effect on October 1, 1999. We are not going to make that date. HCFA has made that clear. In the interim we have developed an interim payment system, and we tried to hold each provider somewhat harmless. But what we did was penalize cost-efficient programs by tying the interim payment system to historical costs. A program that already has a low number of per-patient visits and has got its cost down is discriminated against. We need to take steps to correct it. The legislation before us will correct that circumstance by allowing those programs that are below the national average cost to get a bonus payment by mixing the costs with their historical cost and what the average cost is in the Nation. That makes sense. That will help many health care providers in our Nation. In my own State of Maryland, where our costs are well below the national average because our number of patient visits on home health care services is below the national average we would be adversely impacted unless this legislation is enacted. We have far fewer number of providers per our population than most States, and yet if we do not enact legislation, Maryland, a cost effective state that is doing the right thing, we are in jeopardy, we are told, of losing 13 of our providers in our State that will not be able to make it unless we provide some relief. So this legislation makes sense. We should take steps in order to deal with the interim situation until we can implement the perspective payment system, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the All-Payer Graduate Medical Education Act, legislation that I have authored to improve the funding of America's teaching hospitals and to ease the burden on the Medicare Trust Fund. In introducing this legislation, I do not seek to preempt the important work of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, but rather, to present a concrete proposal for consideration by Congress. We have recently learned that medical care costs will double in the next 10 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. 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 2 percent of our 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 constantly reviewing and revising the Medicare program to ensure that the Trust Fund can remain solvent for future generations, GME costs are threatening to break the bank. The All-Payer Graduate Medical Education Act will distribute the expense of graduate medical education more fairly by establishing a Trust funded by a 1% fee on the health care premiums. Teaching hospitals will receive approximately two-thirds of the revenue from the Trust, while the remaining third, approximately $1 billion yearly, will be used to reduce Medicare's contribution. The current formula for direct graduate medical education payments is based on 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 on actual resident wages. Critics of indirect graduate medical education payments have complained that hospitals are not required to account for their use of these funds. The All-Payer Graduate Medical Education Act requires hospitals to report annually on their contributions to improve patient care, education, clinical research, and community services. The formula for indirect graduate medical education 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 studying the physician workforce has recommended reducing the number of first-year residencies to 110% of American medical school graduates. 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. An adequate supply of medical providers is vital to maintaining America's health and containing our health care costs. 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 yearly 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 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 medical care, 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. Because of our academic medical centers, we are in the midst of 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. Although few days remain in the 105th Congress, the valuable services performed by America's academic medical centers are never-ending. I am introducing this bill today for consideration by Congress, the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, and the numerous provider and patient communities who will be affected by its provisions. When the 106th Congress convenes early next year, I will reintroduce the bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting America's academic medical centers and the future of our physician workforce, the wellsprings of these advances, by cosponsoring the All-Payer Graduate Medical Education Act.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first, let me compliment the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for bringing out a bill that its provisions on tax relief are very good. The marriage penalty relief is a good provision. The extenders of our expiring tax provisions, that is very good to help small investors. I agree with all those provisions. I think most of the Members of this body agree with those changes. The problem is that the budget deficit next year, excluding Social Security, will be $37 billion. We do not have a surplus. If we pass this bill, the budget deficit will be $44 billion, adding to the deficit on budget, if we do not count Social Security. The year after, the budget deficit is projected to be $46 billion. With this bill, it will be $65 billion. The year after, it is projected to be a $45 billion deficit. And with this bill, it will be a $63 billion deficit. We are adding to the deficit of this country. We are not paying for the tax bill. We are raiding Social Security. That is wrong. This bill will be vetoed if it is passed in its current form. It cannot become law. The votes are not here to do that. Thank goodness. The reason is quite simple. We know that the passage of this bill will make solving the Social Security problem more difficult, plain and simple. Without Social Security, we have no surplus, pure and simple. But there is a way that we can get these good provisions enacted into law and help the taxpayers of this country. We have the Rangel substitute that we will have an opportunity to vote for a little bit later. I hope my colleagues will keep this issue alive. Support the Rangel substitute. Let us work together and figure out a way that we can pay for these very worthwhile tax provisions so that they can become law without raiding Social Security. Let us work together in a bipartisan way so that we can really help the taxpayers of this country and we can preserve our Social Security system. It can only work if we work together in a bipartisan way.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that we were going to have a real debate on fast track where we would have a chance to reach a fair compromise on the issue. Instead we are going through a political exercise. That is regrettable. In today's world, fast track should give the President the ability to negotiate international standards on labor and environment. But, no, this legislation restricts the President's ability to negotiate international standards on labor and environment. Negotiating strong international standards on environmental and labor issues will help American manufacturers, producers and farmers. It makes no sense to restrict the President's negotiating ability in this area unless you want to help foreign companies with cheap labor and poor environmental records. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose the fast track legislation that we have today. I would hope that in the future, there will be a real effort by the Republican leadership to work on a fast track bill that could pass this House, that will give the appropriate authority to the President.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I oppose this rule, Mr. Speaker, and I am very disappointed that the Republican leadership is bringing this forward. We have worked very hard for the past 6 years to bring in a balanced budget, including the 1993 economic program on deficit reduction, that we passed without a single vote from the Republican side of the aisle. But we did come together, Democrats and Republicans, on budget discipline. The pay-go rules were put in for a reason. The pay-go rules say very simply that we cannot spend money unless we have a way to pay for it. We cannot cut taxes unless we have a way to pay for it. It is very simple. Yes, we have voted for tax cuts, we did last year, but we paid for them. We did not take it out of the surplus. We paid for it. Yes, we can fund true emergencies through the budget rules without waiving the budget rules, because that is the rules we are operating under. But we cannot cut taxes, we cannot raise spending, unless we pay for it under the pay-go rules. What do the Republicans do? They bring out a rule that waives the pay-go rules. It says that ``We waive pay-go requirements with respect to a bill making the revenue loss not covered under pay-go,'' the height of hypocrisy. If they did not do that, they would have a Medicare cut next year of $6.7 billion under sequestration; the year after that, $8 billion. They did not want that to happen, but they did not want to pay for it. That is wrong. There is no surplus, but for the fact that social security is running a cash surplus. We do not have any surplus to spend. It is very possible that we are going to enact permanent tax cuts, and then what happens two or three years from now, if we do not have the money they are talking about, it is not going to be 10 percent of the projected surplus that comes about as a result of social security, but it could be 20 percent, 30 percent, or 40 percent. That is wrong. That is why we worked together, Democrats and Republicans, for budget discipline rules. I urge my colleagues to reject the rule.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us has one effect and one effect only, and that is to allow us to vote on the tax cut bill tomorrow. It does not protect Social Security, it sets up an accounting gimmick. We should be honest with the American people as to the purpose of this bill. There are no guaranteed projected surpluses, yet the tax bill we are going to be asked to vote on provides for permanent changes in our tax laws. There is no assurance that only 10 percent of the projected surplus will be used for a tax cut; it could be 20 percent, it could be 30 percent, it could be 100 percent. The projected Social Security surplus today, that is, payroll taxes and interest, is about $1.5 trillion. But if you ask our actuaries how much money we should have in it to provide for a 75 year solvency of the Social Security system, they will tell you that we need $3.3 trillion, or twice what we have today. So the assumption that we are flush with money just is not true. We do not have enough money to deal with Social Security in the long term, and yet we are asked to vote on a tax bill. We are going to have the first balanced budget in 30 years, and yet, as the President said, before we even have an opportunity to transfer from red ink to black ink on our accounting, there are those who want to start giving money away. Let us be fiscally responsible. The tax cut that we voted last year was fully paid for under the budget rules. We did not have to waive the budget rules. Yet the bill we are being asked to vote on tomorrow will violate the budget rules and our discipline. We talk about emergency spending. Emergency spending is not budgeted. One-time-only emergency spending is consistent under our budget rules. Ninety-eight percent of the budget surplus projected during the next 10 years comes as a result of our Social Security system. Let me put it differently. Without the Social Security system, we would not have any budget surplus. We would not be able to consider a tax bill. No one can dispute that. So let us be honest: If it were not for Social Security, we would not have a budget surplus and we would not be considering a tax bill tomorrow. This bill claims to protect 90 percent of the funds for Social Security. It does not do that. If we did not pass any bill, 100 percent of the funds would be in the Treasury, preserved, for preserving Social Security first. The Rangel substitute protects 100 percent of the funds until we have resolved the Social Security problem. It is the right bill to vote on. I urge my colleagues to support the substitute, so that we can really protect Social Security first and use the surplus monies that have been generated as a result of our Social Security system to resolve the problems of Social Security first, before we consider a tax cut.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, what a great legacy Vic Fazio will leave when he retires from this institution. I think we all could try to emulate what he has done as a Congressman. Yes, Vic will be known for what he has done for the people of California, the economic programs he has brought forward and the effectiveness with which he has represented the people of California. He will be known in this Nation as a champion on environmental issues, on family and children issues, on human rights issues. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to use the little time I have just to point out what a great legacy he has left on the love for this institution and trying to strengthen this institution. He has served on our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct; he served as chairman of our Caucus, and he has always strengthened this institution and provided the integrity that is expected by the American people. He has strengthened the ability of everyone to have the voices of their constituents heard. What a great record, what a great individual, what a great friend. He will be sorely missed. I can tell you there are not many like him. I am glad to call him my friend.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this resolution, but I am very disappointed by what will not be accomplished today by the adoption of this resolution. Let me share with my colleagues some of my own observations from the 6-plus years that I served in this body's Committee on Ethics. There are two key ingredients to a successful discharge of our obligations that are missing today. First, there must be true bipartisan efforts. One side cannot and should not dictate to the other. Mr. Speaker, a truly inclusive, bipartisan approach will require patience and good negotiating skills, for our caucuses are not monolithic. But we must work in a bipartisan way, and we are not doing that with this first resolution. Second, there must be basic fairness to the person who is accused. The person should have had access to the material that we have before it is made public. That is a matter of basic fairness. Sure, the President will have a response, but he should not have to speculate as to what we have. He should have had access to it first so that he is not blind-sided by information that may come out later. That is not being fair. We have a grave responsibility to carry out, and we must develop a process that will allow each of us to reach the right conclusions. We can do better than how we have started today. Mr. Speaker, I have talked to both my Democratic and Republican colleagues, and I know that we can successfully carry out our obligations. I urge us to do better in the days and weeks ahead.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. I think it is very important for the District of Columbia that there be regional cooperation. I have worked very hard during my career here in Washington as well as my service in our State capital to try to help the District of Columbia to work in a regional way to do what is right. In response to the last gentleman's comments, I do believe in local rule for local issues. But this matter goes beyond what is local. It deals with what is in the best interest of this area. Mr. Chairman, when I first was elected to the State legislature, I represented Baltimore City. Baltimore City had at that time an earnings tax. We in the State saved Baltimore City from itself and repealed that earnings tax that was discriminatory against people who lived outside of Baltimore City. Some might say, why did the State of Maryland do that? Because the State of Maryland had responsibility, a good deal of responsibility for the fiscal condition of Baltimore, and it was in Baltimore's interest that the entire State be sensitive to its problems. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that it is in the Nation's interest and in the District of Columbia's interest that we all show the appropriate concern and welfare for the people that live within our Nation's capital. But then that requires cooperation and understanding. When you tell people that they must live in that jurisdiction in order to work for it, you are drawing a wall around the District. That is not healthy. That is not good. That will not help the District in solving its problems here in this body. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentlewoman is well-intentioned in her amendment. I know that she fights as hard as anyone does for the people that she represents. But there are times that we have to speak for what is important from what we represent and the Nation's interest. It is important that all people in our country pay attention to the problems of the District, but in order for us to have that type of compassion and concern, it is only fair that we have a system within the District on employment that does not discriminate against people because they just do not happen to live within the District of Columbia. That is not fair. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment to allow the regional cooperation which is so important to the health of our Nation's capital to continue. Reject the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for his willingness to work with us on this amendment. The point that he is raising is a very important point, and that is if a Member has been convicted of violating the foreign contribution ban, that that matter must be immediately considered by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and a report must come back forthwith to the House for action. I think that that is the appropriate way to handle it. I want to congratulate the gentleman for bringing this to our attention. It is very important that the House have an opportunity to act promptly when these types of circumstances develop. Hopefully, it will never happen, but it is important that that statement be made. I congratulate my colleagues.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the people of the Third Congressional District of Maryland, I rise today to speak in honor of Detective John M. Gibson and Officer J.J. Chestnut of the Capitol Hill Police. These last few days here on Capitol Hill have been somber ones and many of us have been given to thoughts of the abruptness of life; how one minute you can accept the greeting of an officer as you walk to work and the next you learn that you will never hear those words again, that he has been slain in a heroic stand to save your life and the lives of your coworkers and hundreds of strangers. These are sad times, Mr. Speaker. Yet we should not, we cannot, allow the sadness to overwhelm the message of the lives of Officers Chestnut and Gibson. There is a message rooted in the ideas of democracy and duty. Democracy has a price. In a day and age when life for so many of us is so good, some of us may have forgotten that. Tragically, the Chestnut and Gibson families know that the price for their father and husband was life itself. But it was their sense of duty, their commitment to protecting this building that stands for democracy and the people in it, that should force all of us to consider our own duty to democracy. It is said that Robert E. Lee once wrote to his son, and I quote: ``Duty, then, is the sublimest word of our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less.'' I wish to offer my condolences to the Chestnut and Gibson families. I want to tell them that the lives of these great men and what they did for me, my colleagues, and all America last Friday will always be remembered and honored, but also remembered and honored for what it meant to the twin ideals of democracy and duty. I want them to know that even if Officers Gibson and Chestnut had never heard these words from General Lee, they lived them, nonetheless. These two men could not have done more for me, and I hope to use their example to never wish to do less. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. If I understand the gentleman from California's point is that the striking of the medical savings account provision would not save as much money as accelerating the self-employed insurance deduction by 4 years. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a document that has been received from the Joint Committee on Taxation that shows that striking the medical savings account provision will save $4.1 billion, the self-employed health insurance deduction would cost $3.4 billion, for a net revenue savings to the treasury of $687 million.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that point, if I am correct, the point of order is being raised as it relates to having----

Mr. CARDIN. I would just quote into the record the document from the Joint Committee on Taxation dated July 23, 1998, and would be glad to make it available to the Parliamentarian.

Mr. CARDIN. If the gentleman would yield, it is dated July 23, 1998.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Michigan for yielding me this time and congratulate him on his leadership. Mr. Speaker, we have a clear choice. If you want to provide protection for your constituents for full access to emergency care with symptoms with severe pain; if you want to provide your constituents with a choice of doctors within their HMOs, access to specialists like cancer specialists, women adequate care for mastectomies and the right for reconstructive surgery, that will provide continuing care if the HMO drops a doctor so you can continue to see that doctor until you get to a new doctor; if you want to provide your constituents with clinical trials and experimental treatment which may be the only way to save their life; if you want them to have the latest drugs that your doctor thinks are needed; if you want to make sure that an HMO has enough doctors and locations so your constituents can get to see the doctor; if you want to provide all these protections to your constituents, then you must vote for the Ganske-Dingell substitute, because the Republican bill does not provide those protections to your constituents and does not provide for adequate enforcement. The choice is clear. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me put into the record the 5-year numbers. The 5-year numbers on striking the medical savings account provision would save $1.3 billion, the self-employed would cost $1.2 billion, for a net savings to the treasury of $56 million.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, this is not the point raised in the objection by the Member. I do not know how the Chair can on its own use as a basis for an appeal that was not raised and we did not have a chance to argue the point on. That is blatantly against the rules of the House, and I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. CARDIN. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I have the July 25 numbers.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important issues that we are going to deal with in this Congress, how we provide patients protection in the health care system of this country. I am outraged, and I hope my colleagues are outraged, by the process that we are using in considering this legislation. There have been no hearings on the Republican bill. It did not go through any of the committees of jurisdiction for the purpose of markup or to try to get the drafting done correctly, and no wonder that this bill is drafted so poorly. My Republican colleagues did not get it right. It is not going to do what they are advertising. Let me just give one example. H.R. 815, which I introduced many, many months ago, deals with access to emergency care. We have 240 cosponsors of that legislation that adopts the prudent layperson standard so that an HMO has to reimburse a patient who should go to an emergency room. We passed it last year for Medicare and Medicaid, and yet the Republican bill does not get it right. It does not include pain. So if one has severe pain and reasonably should go to an emergency room, one's HMO can deny coverage. That is wrong. Even the HMOs acknowledge that pain is a reason to go to an emergency room. But my Republican colleagues did not put it in their bill and they did not allow a correction to be made. That is wrong. Let me give another example. My Republican colleagues brag about an external appeal process, that they are giving the patients the right to take an appeal, but what they are not saying is they did not get that right. The decision is not binding on the HMO. It is not independent. The HMO gets to select the people that serve on the panel. My Republican colleagues did not get it right. There is legislation that has been filed that deals with external appeal, but my Republican colleagues did not bother taking it through the committees so that we could have that debate. I urge my colleagues to adopt the bipartisan bill, which is our only chance today to provide meaningful patient protection.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, let me thank my friend from California for yielding me this time and congratulate her for her leadership in this area. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and against most- favored-nation status for China. Yes, the United States should be engaged in international events and in China, and we should exercise leadership. That is what we have done in the past. The United States was engaged in South Africa in its apartheid government. It used trade sanctions, it used its leadership to bring about a change in that government without bloodshed. That is engagement. That is leadership. The United States was engaged in the former Soviet Union that did not enjoy most-favored-nation status, and we brought about a change in that society because we were willing to exercise leadership. That is what the United States should be doing in China. The record in China is beyond dispute. Its legacy of human rights abuses, predatory trade actions, nuclear proliferation, and the list goes on and on and on, it should not have most-favored-nation status. I know that we are changing the name of that later today to ``normal trade relations,'' but there is nothing normal about a trading partner that pirates the software of U.S. companies, there is nothing normal about a trade partner that has a huge trade imbalance with us because of the tariffs and barriers that it has to its market, and there is nothing normal about a trading partner that has such a horrible record on human rights that we should not want to be associated with as a partner. China, with forced abortions and the way that it imprisons its own people because of political expression and the way that it prohibits religious activities, there is nothing normal about that type of country, and it should not enjoy normal trade relations with the United States. The Chinese philosopher Confucius told the story how when he was traveling with some of his followers in a remote part, he came across a woman who was weeping at a grave, who had just buried her husband who had been killed by a tiger. Confucius, talking to the woman, found out this tiger had also killed her husband's father, and Confucius asked, ``Why do you still stay here with this tiger being here?'' The woman responded, ``There is no oppressive government here.'' Confucius told his followers, ``An oppressive government is worse than a tiger.'' Yes, the United States must be engaged in and exercise leadership, and in doing that we should deny Most-Favored-Nation status to China and exercise real leadership and engagement on the issue. Madam Speaker, I encourage and urge my colleagues to support the resolution before us.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) in paying tribute to Louie Goldstein, who died on July 3rd. Louie Goldstein was Mr. Maryland, Mr. Public servant, Mr. Integrity. He loved public service, and the people loved Louis Goldstein. In 1966, when I was first elected to the Maryland General Assembly, Louie Goldstein had already completed his eighth year as comptroller of Maryland. He had been comptroller for 40 years. First and foremost, he did an outstanding job as the comptroller of our State. Maryland enjoys a AAA bond rating, one of the few States in the Nation, thanks to Louie Goldstein. He watched over our State Treasury like no one else did. I had the opportunity, and I know that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) did also, to travel with Louie Goldstein to New York, to Wall Street, and watch him as he explained the intricacies of Maryland finance to the bond rating firms in New York. Maryland maintained its AAA bond rating because of the confidence Wall Street had in Maryland and Louie Goldstein. He saved the people of Maryland millions and millions of dollars. Louie was an extraordinary campaigner. Those that had the privilege of watching him and his campaign activities marveled at his love for our system. He attended Democratic conventions from before I was born. The zip trips that were organized in Maryland where we traveled all over the State in order to campaign for State wide office Louie organized. And there are so many stories, I see the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) also on the floor, many interesting stories. One time Louie was campaigning in western Maryland. Someone told him that he accidentally had gone across the State line in West Virginia. He did not know it. Two hours later, Louie was still campaigning in West Virginia because, he said, you never know when you are going to find someone who has a relative in Maryland. Then there was the time that we were going from one town to another. Everyone on the bus sort of relaxed a little while, got something to drink. But Louie was still at the window waving at a field. We asked, why are you there at the window waving? He said, maybe there is someone in that barn over there looking out at us. He did not want to miss or offend a single person in our State. The comptroller serves on the Board of Public Works, one of three, along with the governor and the treasurer, that is responsible for many of the decisions of government on what leases should be approved or what land can be bought or sold. Louie Goldstein knew just about every piece of land in our State personally from having visited that area. When decisions had to be made as to what was in the best interest of our State, Louie could always be counted on to do what was right for the people of Maryland, saving our taxpayers, again, millions and millions of dollars. That is just the way he was. He understood people. He was a good friend. He gave hope to all people that you could accomplish anything you wanted to. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) pointed out his service at Washington College and at the University of Maryland. He was their number one cheerleader, whether it was at a basketball game or whether it was the academic program, lobbying in Annapolis. First and foremost, he was a southern Marylander, coming from the district now represented by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). The people of southern Maryland he understood. He was part of the culture of that great, great part of our State, and he will always be remembered for everything that he has done. Mr. Speaker, he died on July 3 after attending a 4th of July parade, one of many that he had planned during the 4th of July holiday. He had just read with his family the Declaration of Independence, which was a tradition that he observed on every 4th of July because that was important to him as a great patriot of our country. He lived a great life of 85 years, and I know that all of us send our sincere condolences to his family. May God bless Louie Goldstein real good. We are all blessed for having known him.