Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, what the previous speaker was indicating with the voter guide can easily be made available under the Shays-Meehan bill. It is not a problem in getting that type of voter guide out. It easily can be done, either in the method it is, or by very minor modifications. The problem with the amendment before us is that it would allow almost anything to be sent out and would gut the protection on express advocacy in the Shays-Meehan bill. That is the reason why we must oppose it. There is already a provision in the underlying bill that allows for voter guides. Voter guides are permitted if they present information in an educational manner solely about the voting record or position of a candidate on a campaign issue of two or more candidates, that is not made in coordination with the candidate's political party or agent of the candidate or political party. There are specific provisions in Shays-Meehan that would allow it. The amendment before us would gut an essential provision in the bill. It would not allow voter guides, it would allow just about any type of express issue advocacy without the restrictions that are currently contained in the Shays-Meehan bill. Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do here is bring forward a reasonable campaign finance reform proposal that has bipartisan support, that deals with issue advocacy, that deals with soft money, that deals with some of the other problems that we all agree need to be addressed. The Shays-Meehan bill will do that. The amendment before us does not permit voter guides, the amendment before us would gut the provision that deals with issue advocacy in the underlying bill. If there was a need to adjust the language for voter guides, let us talk about it. But that is not what this amendment would do. Voter guides are permitted under the underlying bill. This amendment is unnecessary. It jeopardizes the ability for a bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 2676. Mr. Speaker, more than a year ago the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) came over to meet with me about the work that he was doing as chairman of the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service. It led to the introduction of H.R. 2292. The gentleman from Ohio impressed upon me his commitment to restructure the IRS and have legislation on this floor in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and compliment the gentleman from Ohio for his professionalism and the way that he acted in such a bipartisan manner. As a result, I agree with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) as to why we have such an outstanding bill before us. The gentleman from Ohio deserves the thanks of all of us. To the gentleman from Texas and the Committee on Ways and Means, I want to congratulate them for the work that our committee did. It was outstanding in considering this legislation and moving it forward. To the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, for his advice and leadership during this process, I also want to extend congratulations. Senior officials of the Clinton administration were extremely helpful to us, including Secretary Rubin who has already provided strong leadership in reforming the Internal Revenue Service. And finally, Mr. Speaker, I think we should all thank the hardworking Federal employees at the IRS who have been critical to this reform effort. Yes, we have heard stories of abusive behavior by a handful of rogue IRS agents, but we all understand that the vast majority of the rank and file IRS workers do a very difficult job and they deserve our thanks. This conference report includes some very strong new provisions on taxpayers' rights and taxpayer protection provisions, and I am pleased that we have improved the innocent spouse provisions, unfair imposition on tax liability. We shift the burden of proof in certain court- litigated cases back to the IRS, where it should be, and we provide relief for penalties and interest for many taxpayers who deserve that help. But the success of IRS reform will not be the passage of this bill, but the implementation of the bill. We have set the stage where we can really improve the structure of our tax-collecting agency. Commissioner Rossotti has already started to make some of these changes but he needed this bill which establishes the oversight board that will work with Commissioner Rossotti to carry out these badly needed reforms. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) pointed out, it is not only the oversight board, but it is also providing for Congress to take a more responsible oversight attitude on looking at the IRS and to pass bills that make sense from tax simplification so the IRS can do its job. Mr. Speaker, today we pass the IRS reform bill. I am very pleased that we have been able to do it. But that should not be the end of our interests in the Tax Code. We all have responsibility to make the Tax Code more simple, more efficient and more fair. I hope that the leadership of this House will move forward with tax reform as it relates to the Tax Code itself. I look forward to the enactment of this bill and working with the other Members on reforming our Tax Code.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Florida if he can tell us when there has not been an open rule on MILCON.

Mr. CARDIN. For the rule that my colleagues brought out that they brag is an open rule that deals with the budget allocations for this country, if it is adopted, I am not going to be able to offer any amendments to adjust those budget allocations, because it is not even germane to the rule that is being brought out to consider the MILCON bill. Be honest out here as to how my colleagues are handling this. This is not the regular procedures of the House. The regular procedures of the House would be that we would adopt a budget resolution, and that would become the allocations. That is supposed to be done by April 15. My colleagues missed that deadline. So now the Committee on the Budget chairman is supposed to give allocations. The Committee on the Budget chairman has different views than the Committee on Appropriations chairman. So the Committee on the Budget chairman is not even here to defend these allocations. Let me just compliment my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), because he offered an alternative budget that dealt with discretionary spending which was in compliance with the Balanced Budget Act of last year. My colleagues are now accepting some of the allocations from the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), but our problem is how are we going to pay for it? Are we going to go into the surplus and use the surplus and not protect Social Security? Are we going to cut Medicare? How are we going to pay for this? These are questions we ask when we do a budget resolution. A budget resolution should mean something around here. But, no, my colleagues bring out a resolution from the Committee on Rules that changes the budget resolution that was passed on this floor. Then my colleagues say it is an open process, and we have no opportunity to offer any amendments to deal with it. So my colleagues just cannot get their act together on this budget. We understand that. My colleagues have got differences with their own caucus, but they are not willing to bring everybody into the process. If they did, as we did last year, we would be able to reach a bipartisan agreement and be able to move forward with the appropriation process. But that is not what they are interested in doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. CARDIN. That I will not be able to offer an amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Florida, if he wishes to respond, I will be glad to yield him some time. The gentleman brags that this is an open rule. We have always had open rules on MILCON bills ever since I have been in this Congress. We have always had an open process on military construction. But the amendment in the rule that we are concerned about deals with budget allocations which has nothing to do with the MILCON budget. My question is, the gentleman is bragging that this is an open process that we will be able to offer any amendments that we want to once this rule is adopted. Once this rule is adopted, will I be able to offer an amendment that will adjust the budget allocations on the MILCON bill? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida to answer that question.

Mr. CARDIN. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Just to respond, on a military construction rule, I did not think it was necessary for me to go to the Committee on Rules to talk about budget allocations. I would have thought that the Committee on Rules would be dealing with military construction. I admit that was naive on my part. I should know that this Committee on Rules would do anything it wants to do. But let me tell my colleagues something, in the 12 years that I have been here, to answer the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, we have never had anything but an open rule on military construction.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Reclaiming my time, just the reverse. Almost every bill that we passed through this Chamber we put a severability clause intentionally in because we know that we can never anticipate what a court will do. We are the legislative body. Theirs is the judicial body. They have their responsibility. I do not claim to be the Justice in the Supreme Court, and they may do things that I disagree with. We put a severability clause in so that we can preserve our product in the case a court decides to strike part of it down.

Mr. CARDIN. Reclaiming my time, we need to make progress wherever we can make progress, and if we can get through this Chamber and the other Chamber, signed by the President and through the courts, we need to take whatever progress we can, and enacting this amendment jeopardizes it.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think this last discussion gives a good reason why we should oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, we cannot anticipate what a court will do. The way that this nonseverability amendment is written, it is so broadly written that if the Court made any significant changes, any changes at all, it could jeopardize other provisions in this bill, it could jeopardize the bill itself. It may not strike at what the author is trying to do by linking certain provisions of the bill together, but because of the way the amendment is written, it is very possible that we could jeopardize what we are trying to do here in getting enacted the Shays-Meehan bill. It also compromises the coalition that has been put together in an effort to make the first steps to meaningful campaign finance reform. So for all those reasons on the merits I would hope that my colleagues would reject this amendment. One problem that we have is that there are 435 experts in this body on campaign finance reform, but we are all experts in our own congressional districts, and we do not appreciate that we need to legislate that will affect all 435 of the districts, and we are going to be hearing some amendments that are going to be coming forward that are well-intended, that we think we have to package everything together or add additional provisions to this in order to make Shays-Meehan better. But the one thing that I would hope all could agree on is that Shays-Meehan is a good first step to campaign finance reform, and if we are interested in changing the current system, then we should resist amendments that jeopardize our ability to get Shays-Meehan passed in this body and the other body. Mr. Chairman, it does deal with some major issues that are out there that my constituents, indeed I think all of our constituents, are asking us to deal with in campaign finance reform, and that deals with the use of soft money by our political parties where millions of dollars are being contributed basically without accountability and are being used to influence elections even though they are not supposed to be, and issue advocacy which we just heard the debate on which is clearly aimed at influencing elections and yet does not have the accountability of moneys being reported or spent according to election law. So for all those reasons we have a chance to do something with the underlying bill that is before us in Shays-Meehan. The amendment that is being offered would jeopardize that because it turns over to the courts the ability to throw out this entire legislation even though there may be a minor issue that the Court may have disagreement with us on. It jeopardizes the work of what we have been able to do. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. I yield to my friend from California.

Mr. CARDIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, on that point I would say that is a matter in the eye of the beholder.

Mr. CARDIN. I have found some decisions made by our Court that leaves an awful lot to be desired, and it could very well deal with a minor provision here affecting it that would throw out the entire bill the way this amendment is drafted.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Alan R. Walden, who is retiring in July from his broadcasting career of 44 years. Throughout his distinguished journalism career, Mr. Walden has covered almost every major national and international event and he has set a standard of excellence in journalism that is hard to match. Every weekday morning, thousands of Baltimoreans wake up to Alan Walden's thorough, in-depth news reports as the anchor of WBAL-AM's morning show. He uses his insight and knowledge to give listeners an important perspective on regional, national and international events. On weekday evenings, listeners also can hear his insightful commentary on ``Walden Ponderings.'' Born in New York City, Mr. Walden has won virtually every major broadcast journalism award. His career has included jobs as news director of radio stations in New York, Boston and Cleveland, and vice president of Radio News for Metromedia Inc. In addition, he helped bring broadcast journalism into a new age as one of the principal architects of NBC News and Information Service, the first 24-hour-a-day news network in the United States. As senior correspondent for NBC Radio News specializing in international affairs and domestic politics, Mr. Walden has covered the Camp David Peace Accords, SALT II, the Falkland Islands War, the invasion of Grenada, the civil war in El Salvador and the Panama Crisis. But Alan Walden is more than a fine journalist. He also is a great American. As president of Patriots of Fort McHenry, Mr. Walden has done more than any single individual to help restore and preserve this national treasure. We in Baltimore owe him an enormous debt of gratitude for his tireless efforts on behalf of this historic shrine. I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Alan R. Walden for his dedication and commitment to quality journalism. His reporting has touched all of our lives, and his dedication to Fort McHenry has enriched the lives of all Americans.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the current Tax Code and in support of comprehensive reform of our Federal tax system. I, too, agree that our Federal tax system is too complex, it is not efficient, it costs our taxpayers too much to comply with it, it is not sensitive for savings, we rely too much on income taxes. But the legislation before us is one of the strangest notions I have encountered in the 12 years I have served in this body. The bill is a result of frustration in our current tax structure, and it tells a Congress in the future to do something about it. We have had 4 years under Republican leadership to try to do something about our Tax Code. In this term, I thought we were going to do something. Last year, in a bipartisan way, we joined Democrats and Republicans to reform the Internal Revenue Service. We thought that bill would pass last year. It is still lingering within a conference committee. If we want to do something, why are we not using the time today to at least reform the IRS and deal with the tax collecting agency? But instead, no, we are debating some myth about what we are going to do in the future. It is outrageous. It is not even a fig leaf. We have not had a hearing on this proposal. We do not know what it is all about. Why are we not debating specific proposals on this floor? Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Baltimore Sun, my local paper, I authored an article about why I thought a VAT tax is better than a flat tax and why we do not need a corporate income tax and we should be encouraging more savings. Why are we not having that proposal on the floor today and debating? Why is the Republican leadership not giving the American public real reform rather than bringing up a hope of what is going to happen 4 years from now, causing all types of panic about people trying to plan for their futures. People are trying to figure out how to save for their retirement. They want to know what the tax rules are going to be. And we are going to tell them, we are going to change them, but we are not going to tell them what it is going to be? How irresponsible. How wrong. Use the time we have. This schedule this year has been embarrassing. We have not been here most of the time. Why are we not using the time this year to have a serious debate on tax reform rather than bringing up this sham? It is wrong. They know it is wrong. This is not the right way to go. I urge my colleagues to defeat the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the current tax code, and in support of a real debate on comprehensive reform of the federal tax system. The legislation before us is one of the strangest notions I have encountered in the twelve years I have served in this House. The bill is the result of frustration with the current tax system. Normally, when members of Congress seek to change existing law, they introduce legislation to make the changes they support. But this bill doesn't do that. We are here, in the 105th Congress, debating a bill that says that the tax code is such a mess that the 107th Congress should do something about it. That's not a serious proposal for simplifying the tax code. Instead of real tax reform, it is just an empty promise. Yesterday, the op-ed page of the Baltimore Sun, my home town newspaper, printed my article titled ``Why a VAT tax is better than a flat tax.'' The article presented my view that we should replace the existing tax code with a broad-based consumption tax, and relieve 75 million Americans of the burden of the individual income tax. I support repeal of the corporate income tax. Some members of the House will agree with my position; others will disagree. We should begin this debate now, rather than putting it off until the year 2002. We need to reform the tax code, and when we have done our jobs, and written a tax code that does not punish the American people, I will be proud to join in voting to sunset the existing code. Until then, Mr. Speaker, this process is nothing but talk.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, every time there is a new scandal that involves campaign finance, whether it be a Democrat or Republican, we all lose. This institution is damaged and democracy is diminished. Now is the time for all of us to act and enact meaningful campaign finance reform. There is only one proposal that can pass this House and that is the Shays-Meehan bill. It is a reasonable limitation on the use of soft money and independent expenditures. So if Members are for campaign finance reform, the first step must be to support Shays- Meehan. How do we get this done? Later today there is going to be a rule considered by this House that is trying to kill the Shays-Meehan, by the amendment process, by allowing over 200 nongermane amendments to be made in order. If Members are for campaign finance reform, they should reject the rule that will be on the floor later today. The way that the bill will be considered on this House floor requires us to support Shays-Meehan and reject all of the other substitutes. I urge my colleagues to do that.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the Maryland Rehabilitation Center, which is celebrating its 25th Anniversary on June 19, 1998. Since opening its doors in 1973, the Center has gained international recognition as a provider of quality comprehensive rehabilitation services. At the Center, more than 50,000 individuals with disabilities have received the services they need to help them reach employment goals and achieve greater independence. Located on 14 acres in northeast Baltimore, Maryland, the Maryland Rehabilitation Center is operated by the Maryland State Department of Education, Division of Rehabilitation Services. It is one of only nine comprehensive vocational rehabilitation centers in the United States, and has earned an international reputation for its innovative approach to helping individuals circumvent or compensate for their disabilities. In carrying out its mission, the Center offers a wide variety of services, including evaluations, therapies, and training programs. In helping those with disabilities become as independent as possible, the Center helps identify suitable vocational goals and therapy needs. Occupational training is offered in 12 areas, including office technology, computer programming, automotive repair and cosmetology. The Center often works with employers to hire qualified individuals who have the skills to do the job. In addition, the Center also offers remedial education, counseling, driver's education and specialized services for individuals who are deaf and/or blind. I hope that my colleagues will join me in saluting the Maryland Rehabilitation Center for its dedication and commitment to helping those with disabilities achieve their goals for employment and independence. The Center's pioneering work has given thousands of individuals an opportunity to achieve success.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Neumann CAT budget and the Kasich Republican budget and in support of the bipartisan Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which is incorporated in the Spratt substitute. Last year we worked together, Democrats and Republicans. We produced a balanced budget and a surplus this year, the growth in our economy. Since 1993 we brought the deficits down from $300 billion to now we have a $40 billion plus surplus. The Republican Kasich budget is a partisan blowup of that agreement. It would return us to large deficits and/or irresponsible, extreme budget cuts. My Republican friends claim this is just a 1 percent cut in the budget, yet when we look at what they are trying to fund, the hundred billion dollars tax cut, the transportation bill that has already been passed, other spending that the Republicans would increase and the fact that 2 out of every $3 in the Federal budget are exempt from any of these cuts, then most programs are looking at cuts of up to 30 percent and higher. We do not have to guess about that. We have Mr. Kasich's list, which shows us how we need to cut the budget in order to achieve the Kasich budget. Let me just give my colleagues a sampling of some of the cuts that would be required: Eliminate the Department of Commerce, and yet at this time when we are trying to increase U.S. products in foreign markets; eliminate the Department of Energy when we are trying to become more energy self- sufficient, and some of us still remember the gasoline lines; jeopardize title I funding for our disabled children, our most vulnerable in our population; cut the Environmental Protection Agency by 15 percent. These are on Mr. Kasich's list. It is not a 1 percent cut. The welfare-to-work program is jeopardized. Two years ago we successfully worked a partnership with our States and returned the administration of welfare to our States in welfare-to-work, in partnership with the Federal Government helping provide the dollars so people could get off of welfare to work. This budget reneges on that commitment. It is welfare to nowhere if this budget became law. To our veterans: Look at the budget document. They take $10 billion out and they do not fund it. We are not meeting our commitments to our veterans today. We should be doing more, not less. The Kasich budget would take $10 billion more unaccountable. The elimination of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We have already had that battle here. It has not been agreed to, but yet it is on the Kasich list. Cops on the beat. I have Democrat and Republican county execs in the Baltimore area applauding our efforts to put more cops on the beat. The Kasich budget would decimate that program, a $6 billion cut in law enforcement, jeopardizing the progress that we have already made in this area. And the list goes on and on. This is not a 1 percent cut. If the budget became law, it would destroy many of the programs that are so important. We would be returning to Republican extremism that led to the shutdown of our government. Do not take my word for it. We have the comments of the Republican leaders in the other body. Chairman Domenici said the budget would make a mockery of the process. Chairman Stevens said Congress could not function under the plan. These are our Republican leaders in the other body. Fortunately, we have an alternative. We have the Spratt substitute. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Spratt substitute.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, one of the proudest moments of this Congress is when Democrats and Republicans, the Congress and the White House put aside their partisan differences and worked out a balanced budget. It not only balanced the Federal budget and brought us into surplus but has led to a very hot, growing economy. Now the Republican budget would reject that bipartisan agreement and take us back to the extremism that led to the shutdown of our government. It would mean cuts up to 25 percent, not 1 percent, of many programs that we have in government. Do not take my word for it. Senator Domenici said the Republican budget is a mockery. Senator Stevens, chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations said, ``I do not think Congress could function.'' This is an extreme budget. For the sake of our veterans, for the sake of our students, for the sake of our seniors, for the sake of our taxpayers, let us, in a bipartisan manner, reject this extreme budget.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) for yielding me this time and thank him for the work that he has done on the IRS Restructuring Act. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion to instruct the conferees. It has now been more than 6 months since this body passed the IRS Restructuring Act by a large bipartisan vote of 426 to 4. It is the first comprehensive provision in the IRS in more than a half a century. I was proud to work with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), as well as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) on this very important legislation. The version passed by the other body differs slightly from the version that was passed by this House. I find it somewhat amazing that it took the other body 6 months in order to consider this and bring it back with the type of changes that they made. But the important thing for us to do in conference is to move quickly. We need to pass comprehensive reform before we get to the next tax filing season and we lose the advantage of this legislation. I want to compliment Secretary Rubin and Commissioner Rossotti for the work that they have done reforming the IRS. Mr. Rubin is the first Secretary of the Treasury who spent his personal time looking at the IRS and helping us in restructuring it. I also congratulate our new Commissioner, Mr. Rossotti, for his cooperation with Congress in implementing many changes to the system. But the legislation before us sets up an important oversight board to oversee the functions of the IRS. We need to have those individuals appointed and operating as soon as possible. That is why it is important that our conferees act quickly. The House version of the bill will protect the public, will start the process of reforming our Internal Revenue Code by first reforming the Internal Revenue Service. It makes it a much more taxpayer friendly organization. I see my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), is now on the floor, who cochaired the national commission on which this is a product of. We really do owe that commission and its leadership our thanks for bringing forward a product that we hope now will become reality. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that we will be able to get this legislation signed quickly so that the benefits of this law can be enjoyed by all of our citizens, and then we, in this body, can start debating the issues of substantive tax reform. All of us want to get involved in that debate, but first we must reform the tax collecting agency itself. This legislation will do it. We should move it as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of important legislation for Medicare beneficiaries who require outpatient therapy, the Reinstatement of Rehabilitation Benefits for Seniors Act. This bill repeals the Balanced Budget Act provision that imposes an arbitrary cap on outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech- language pathology services as of January 1, 1999. Section 4541(c) of the Balanced Budget Act places annual caps of $1,500 per beneficiary on all outpatient rehabilitation services except those furnished in a hospital outpatient department. I am deeply concerned about the impact this limitation will have on Medicare beneficiaries who require necessary rehabilitation services. If this cap is implemented, senior citizens suffering from medical conditions common to the elderly such as stroke, hip fracture, and coronary artery disease will have diminished access to rehabilitation care they require to resume normal activities of daily living. The $1,500 cap is arbitrary and, according to BBA, cannot be adjusted for the medical condition of the patient, or the health outcomes of the rehabilitation services. These caps are, by definition, insensitive to patients suffering from diseases or chronic injuries or who have multiple episodes of care in a given calendar year. The $1,500 cap dramatically reduces Medicare beneficiaries' choice of provider. Congress has committed to offering beneficiaries greater health care choices. However, a senior citizen who has met the $1,500 cap will have no choice but to seek care in a hospital outpatient department. More convenient provider choices such a rehabilitation agencies, physical therapists in independent practice, and Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facilities will be foreclosed to them. Beneficiaries in rural areas will have a particularly difficult time obtaining needed services. Furthermore, absolute dollar limitations on outpatient rehabilitation services are unnecessary. Effective January 1, 1999, the same date the $1,500 cap goes into place, all outpatient rehabilitation services will be reimbursed according to a fee schedule based upon the Resource Based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS). The movement from cost-based reimbursement to a fee schedule obviates the need for an arbitrary fixed dollar limit on beneficiary services. The screens and edits within the existing fee schedule are designed to control utilization of services. Confusion has surrounded the interpretation of how the $1,500 cap is to be applied. While the $900 cap that exists for physical therapists and occupational therapists in independent practice today applies separately to both physical therapy and occupational therapy, discussions with HCFA indicate the $1,500 cap may be applied differently. HCFA has indicated the new provision of law could be interpreted as establishing two separate caps. The first cap of $1,500 would be for occupational therapy services, while the second cap would be split between physical therapy and speech-language pathology. Speech-language pathology is not currently capped in outpatient settings. Finally, Congress held no hearings on the imposition of an arbitrary cap prior to adopting this provision last year. As a result, we have been unable to consider the potential problems that may arise with implementation. In comparison, multiple hearings were held on new payment mechanisms for skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, and managed care plans. Passage of the Reinstatement of Rehabilitation Benefits for Seniors Act, which I am proud to cosponsor, is necessary to ensure that seniors have sufficient access to necessary physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services under Medicare. I am proud to say that this bill is also fiscally responsible, requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement a new methodology for payment of rehabilitation services by January 1, 2000, to ensure budget neutrality. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and congratulate both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Washington for bringing forward a product that deserves the support of this House. I have said before that whenever an intelligence authorization or appropriations is before us, the proponents are at a disadvantage because people can attack the intelligence community. A lot of this is confidential. They do not have the opportunity sometimes to defend themselves. The United States has the most sophisticated intelligence apparatus in the world. We have the best trained professionals in the world. Yet we have the most difficult challenges of any nation in this world. We work in a bipartisan manner in order to provide authorization and appropriations for our intelligence agencies. I really do applaud the leadership of this House for doing that. For the security of our country and for the manner in which this has been handled in the House, it deserves our support. I must tell my colleagues, though, that I was somewhat disappointed by some of the tone in the language as it related to some of our intelligence agencies. But I am very pleased to see that the report acknowledges that we must invest in the recapitalization and modernization of our SIGINT capacities. I think that is very important for this country. I have visited NSA on numerous occasions and know the dedication of the men and women in public service for our country. They represent some of our brightest minds in our Nation. But if we are going to be able to attract the best from our universities and colleges so that we can maintain that capacity in the future, it is important that we authorize adequate funds and appropriate adequate funds for our intelligence operation. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we were able to bring this product forward in a bipartisan manner. I hope that this body will support the work of the committee, support the authorization and later support the appropriation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join my colleague Jim McCrery in introducing the Medicare Psychiatric Facility Payment Reform Act of 1998. This legislation would improve care provided to Medicare beneficiaries by reforming how Medicare pays for services in free- standing psychiatric hospitals and distinct-part psychiatric units of general hospitals. Our bill proposes to move psychiatric facilities to a prospective payment system (PPS) while phasing in substantial reductions in payments to these providers as required by the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997. Currently psychiatric hospitals and units are exempt from PPS and their costs are reimbursed under provisions in the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, or TEFRA. Because last year's cuts were so deep and sudden, with no transition period to allow psychiatric facilities to adapt to the changes, I am concerned that patient care will be jeopardized. Clearly something needs to be done. Our proposal provides a workable solution. It joins psychiatric facilities with other providers in the Medicare program that are paid on a prospective basis, a reimbursement system that will be more efficient, allow for better planning, and lead to improved patient care. Our bill also ensures that, in the interim, inpatient psychiatric care is not compromised or disrupted because of precipitous budget reductions. I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this important piece of legislation.