Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, a national dialogue on Social Security is definitely in the best interest of the people of this country. I congratulate President Clinton for his leadership in bringing this issue to the forefront of the American people. It is also important that we operate in a bipartisan manner. This resolution forwards that bipartisan effort, and I support it. However, I am disappointed there was not more bipartisanship in the creation of this resolution and closer working with the White House. The dialogue has already begun. In Kansas City on April the 7th, we had a national dialogue started by President Clinton on the future of Social Security and ensuring its long-term solvency. I was pleased that I was able to have a hookup with that national dialogue in the Third Congressional District of Maryland, in Columbia, Maryland. It was a good discussion. Let me share with my colleagues some of the facts that came out as a result of that town hall meeting. The surplus we are enjoying in our budget, we would not have a surplus but for the fact the Social Security System has a cash surplus. That has produced the surplus in our budget. It would be irresponsible for us to use that surplus for anything other than ensuring the long- term solvency of Social Security. There are some who are suggesting that we use that to set up individual savings accounts, taking the money outside the Social Security System. That would do nothing to protect and improve the long- term solvency of the Social Security System. There are others who are suggesting we should use it for tax cuts. Again, that would not improve the long-term solvency of the Social Security System. The President is right. We should all make a commitment that the surplus be reserved for Social Security solvency. Yes, there are dramatic demographic changes in this Nation. We are getting older. But the Social Security System is safe today. The recent trustee report indicates that the solvency is now even 3 years longer than we thought, to the year 2032. So there is no panic within the Social Security System. We do have a problem in the savings ratios of this Nation. Of the big industrial seven nations, we have the lowest private savings ratios; and we need to do something about that. So the objective, I would hope, of any proposal to deal with Social Security would be, first, to protect the Social Security recipients, those that are retired or near retirement. They cannot change their security issues. They need the Social Security System and the full benefits under that system. But we also need to increase private savings. After all, there are three legs to retirement security, Social Security, private retirement and savings; and we need to do a better job on private savings and retirement. Along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), I have authored legislation that has been enacted into law that will encourage private savings, and we will be authoring legislation again in this Congress to try to improve private savings and retirement. That is important. We are considering that on a bipartisan basis, and I urge my colleagues to support us in that effort. We also must ensure the long-term solvency of the Social Security System. If we follow those objectives, we will be serving in the best interest of the people of this Nation, and I hope that the dialogue will begin and protect the Social Security System.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, during my service here in the House, I have had many advantages that have helped me in serving the people of Maryland's Third Congressional District. None has been more valuable than the services of my Legislative Director, Chris Lynch. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in sadness but also with great pride and satisfaction to recognize Chris's outstanding work on the eve of his departure from my office. After nearly twelve years on my legislative staff, including ten as Legislative Director, Chris has decided to return to Baltimore. He has accepted a position at the University of Maryland hospital. Fortunately, he will not serve on the medical staff there. Instead, he will work on Community Development and Community Relations, where he will no doubt continue the outstanding contributions he has made to the people of Baltimore. Chris joined my staff before I even won election to the House. During my first campaign, in 1986, Chris served as Policy Director, researcher, driver, and all-purpose volunteer. In addition to knowledge of issues and the local community, Chris brought a great natural inquisitiveness and an unfailingly cheerful manner. His commitment to that campaign was a vote of confidence in my candidacy, and his contributions helped make the confidence seem well-placed. After we won, Chris joined my House staff as a legislative assistant. His experience in environmental policy issues and economic development and transportation issues in the metropolitan Baltimore area made him a natural to handle my work on the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. When I moved to the Ways and Means Committee, Chris took on the challenge of handling trade and welfare issues. He demonstrated his versatility and range of expertise by mastering the intricacies of both issues. Through the historic debates on NAFTA, GATT, fast track, and welfare reform, he provided invaluable assistance. His program knowledge, tactical savvy, and legislative creativity were tremendous assets throughout these battles. Beyond his Ways and Means responsibilities, Chris supervises the other members of my legislative staff, and handles issues of local importance. From the reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay clean-up legislation to the construction of local mass transit lines, Chris had had an impact that benefits all the people of central Maryland. Now he will spend more time in Baltimore. He will, he promises, get home for dinner more often with his wife, Maggie, his daughters, Cricket and Charlotte, and his new baby, who will be born in August. He may even have time for walks with his family along the greenways in Baltimore that he has worked so hard to bring to reality. So, thank you, Chris, for your public service. It has been a great pleasure working with you, and we all wish you the best of success in your new job.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 111. This joint resolution would eviscerate the principle of majority rule in this House with respect to the most fundamental power of the Congress. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the Congress. It begins with the words, ``The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes.'' Those words make clear the view of the Founders of the Constitution that the power to tax is the most basic power of the legislative branch of government. The men who wrote the Constitution were acutely aware of the dangers of the government's power to tax. Their anger and frustration over the taxing practices of the British government led to the American Revolution. The framers of the Constitution also were familiar with the use of supermajority requirements. The Constitution reserves supermajorities to instances involving the fundamental processes of government, not substantive policy proposals. The House is required to produce a supermajority in only three cases--overriding a presidential veto, submitting a constitutional amendment to the states, and expulsion of a member from the House. What is clear is that the American people are disgusted with our federal tax system. What is also clear is that the problem with the tax system in this country is not found in the Constitution. It is found in this Congress. Instead of tax reform, we continue to add complexity and confusion to a tax code that is already beyond comprehension for most Americans. We need tax reform, not constitutional gimmickry. The fact is that this proposal is unworkable. The evidence of this is in the record of the majority party in this House. In January of 1995, fresh upon taking control of the House for the first time in forty years, the new majority amended the rules of this House to require a three-fifths majority to pass any tax increase. During the 104th Congress, the rule came into play on five occasions. And each time, five out of five, the majority chose to waive the rule. At the start of this Congress, having learned from that embarrassing experience, the majority narrowed the rule to make it unlikely it will ever apply to any legislation. Imagine the crisis that might have ensured had this constitutional amendment been in effect instead of the provision amending the rules of the House. Instead of simply having the Rules Committee waive the rule to permit the legislative process to function, we would have had a potential constitutional crisis. The last thing this country needs is to have the legislative process bogged down in extended court battles every time a revenue increase is included in any legislation. Let me emphasize this problem. The vagueness of this amendment is a constitutional shipwreck waiting to happen. Most members of this body, and the overwhelming majority of the American people, agree on the need for comprehensive reform of our tax system. Under this amendment, however, tax reform-- already facing an uphill political battle--will become all but impossible. Tax reform will involve tremendous shifts in the ways the federal government collects revenues. As a supporter of a plan to move from the current tax system to a fairer, more simple, more efficient system based on a broad-based consumption tax, I am committed to the principle that tax reform must be accomplished on a revenue neutral basis. But in tax reform, there will be winners and losers. If the constitution says that revenue increases must be approved by a two- thirds majority, the losers in tax reform will be sure to pursue the matter in court. The resulting delay and confusion will make it even more difficult to give the American people the tax reform they deserve. Let me make one final point. The sponsors of this proposal argue that it is needed because without it, it is just too easy to raise taxes. Respectfully, that is a ridiculous notion. It is not easy to raise taxes. It has never been easy to raise taxes. It never should be, and it never will be. Consider the 1993 tax bill, which the supporters of this proposal cite as an example of the horrors that the amendment would prevent. It passed by one vote margins in both Houses. It definitely wasn't easy. But more important, had this amendment been in effect, that legislation would not be law. The budget of the United States, instead of heading for the first surplus in thirty years, would be hundreds of billions of dollars in the red. The national debt, instead of heading down, would be climbing toward $7 trillion. And instead of looking at the third tax cut bill in the three years, we would be in the depths of the fiscal crisis that gripped this country and choked our economy. Mr. Speaker, let us not trivialize the Constitution. We should defeat this diversion, and move quickly to get on with the real business of tax reform.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the Sinai Hospital Auxiliary, Inc. on the 50th anniversary of its founding. A hospital is only as good as the people who are associated with it, and for more than 130 years Sinai Hospital has been one of the leading health care institutions in Baltimore, Maryland. Over the years, the Sinai Hospital Auxiliary has contributed to this success by supporting the hospital and reaching out to the larger community. In 1948, the Sinai Hospital Board of Directors created the Women's Auxiliary of Sinai Hospital. Its mission was to interpret the hospital to the community, provide volunteer and other services and allocate all designated funds to help the hospital. Its first meeting was attended by more than 700 women. In 1968, the Women's Auxiliary became the Sinai Hospital Auxiliary, opening its membership to include male members. As an integral part of Sinai Hospital, the Auxiliary supports and funds many innovative programs and projects that benefit the hospital. The Auxiliary has been involved in almost every aspect of the hospital. Among its many noteworthy accomplishments, the Auxiliary has presented the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit with a $125,000, five-year grant; donated a specially equipped car to help stroke victims; provided care safety seats for infants and children; and undertaken many educational health programs. I hope that my colleagues will join me in saluting the Sinai Hospital Auxiliary on its 50th anniversary and in commending its members for their dedication and commitment to the community.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. This is not a true vote on the merits of the War Powers Act, nor is it a product of thoughtful and open debate about U.S. policy in Bosnia. It gambles with the effectiveness of the NATO mission and with the safety of our troops under the guise of testing the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. If passed, this bill would signal a weakened congressional resolve to support U.S. forces as they work to maintain the fragile Bosnian peace. We all know this is a sensitive time in the Balkans, and we know that SFOR is a linchpin of stability in a region where ethnic tensions are running high. Families torn apart by the Bosnian war are just beginning the delicate task of resuming their lives and attempting to return to their old homes. Meanwhile, tensions continue to mount between the Serbian Government and ethnic Albanians in nearby Kosovo. Now more than ever the United States must signal its strong partnership in NATO's existing presence in the Balkans. This bill would undermine SFOR's stabilizing effect on the Balkan region with a message that Congress does not support this mission despite SFOR's very real peaceful impact. At this extremely tenuous time, the bill would turn foreign policy over to the courts, which would be charged with determining the constitutionality of the resolution. In the interim, the future of Bosnia and of our forces in SFOR would hang in the balance. This is not the way to debate the War Powers Act. The committee with jurisdiction over this issue and the expertise to assess its impact has recommended that this resolution not pass. Let us act responsibly for our brave men and women in Bosnia. Let us complete our mission. Let us defeat this resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation guaranteeing Americans one of the most fundamental of patient's rights: the right to appeal adverse decisions made by health insurance companies. ``The Patient Right to independent Appeal Act of 1998'' ensures patients the ability to receive an independent, unbiased review of their cases when their plan decides to deny, reduce or terminate coverage in these circumstances: When the health plan determines that treatment is experimental or investigational; when the health plan determines that services are not medically necessary and the amount exceeds a significant threshold; or when the patient' life or health is jeopardized. This bill does not expand health plans' lists of covered services, rather it guarantees patients and their doctors the freedom to make treatment decisions independent of financial considerations. Health plans argue that they provide ``the right care, at the right time, in the right setting.'' But just last Wednesday, The Washington Post quoted the chief financial officer of a local HMO as he discussed with Wall Street analysts the rosy outlook for his company' bottom line. ``Probably the brightest spot in our operations is the improvement in our claims auditing capability,'' he said. ``We have . . . taken advantage of opportunities to reduce current and future medical expenses by more closely challenging the contractual and medical appropriateness of claims received.'' In their own words, health plan executives are publicly flaunting their ability to find new ways to require providers to refund claims they've already been paid for. This should leave no doubt in our minds that providing avenues for patients to appeal plan decisions in vital. Many health plans have an internal appeals system already in place, but quite often these appeals are conducted by the same plan personnel who originally denied the coverage. The ``Patient Right to Independent Appeal of 1998'' establishes a system through which patients can appeal to an autonomous decision- making body that has no financial incentive to limit health care treatment. By passing this bill, Congress can make real progress toward providing the American people a sense of security that their health insurance benefits will be there when they need them. I urge my colleagues to support this essential legislation and guarantee our citizens a much needed patient right.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work of the Harvest for the Hungry Campaign. Few of us know the pain of hunger or the desperation that comes from not knowing where our next meal will come from. In 1987, Larry Adams, Jr., founded Harvest for the Hungry as a statewide volunteer effort dedicated to collecting food 365 days a year for people in need. Since that time, many individuals and organizations have contributed their time and energy to this very worthwhile endeavor. Since its inception, the Harvest for the Hungry Campaign has collected more than 12.6 million pounds of food. In 1997, it collected more than 1.8 million pounds of food for the Maryland Food Bank and its counterparts. I want my colleagues to be aware of two upcoming events that exemplify the spirit of volunteerism. They are the U.S. Postal Service Letter Carrier Week, from March 14 to March 21, 1998; and the Second Annual Harvest for the Hungry Walk-A-Thon on Saturday, April 4, 1998. Maryland, like every state, has serious problems feeding those who are homeless and hungry. The Harvest for the Hungry Campaign has tried to remedy that problem. I urge my colleagues to join me in saluting the efforts of the Harvest for the Hungry Campaign and its founder, Larry Adams.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the Hammond High School wrestling team on their outstanding accomplishments during the 1997-1998 season. Having previously captured County, Regional and State Dual Meet championships, as well as team titles in the Howard County and South Region Tournaments, on March 6-7 the Golden Bears completed a sweep of all six championships by winning the Class 1A/2A Maryland Public High Schools State Wrestling Tournament team title for the first time. Led by a core of experienced junior and senior wrestlers, the Hammond High School team sought out the highest level of competition, wrestling against teams from throughout Maryland, as well as Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and as far away as California. Committed to both individual and team excellence, the Golden Bears achieved outstanding results in all weight classes. The team was undefeated in 18 dual meets and all 13 wrestlers finished in the top four places at the Howard County Tournament. Without a single returning County champion, this year's Hammond High team produced six County and two Regional champions. Two Hammond wrestlers, Scott Osborn and Matt Nelson, placed 2nd in the State, and one, Vaymond Dennis, finished the season as the 112 pound Maryland State Champion. As noteworthy as the achievements of the team on the wrestling mat, Coach Bill Smith and his staff should be commended for their uncompromising attention to the personal development of these young men. From the first day of practice in November, team members were required to meet high standards--of academic performance and of personal behavior. I applaud Coach Smith, as an educator, for teaching lessons that will have value long into the future. I offer my congratulations to Dr. Sylvia Patillo, Principal of Hammond High School, as well as to the parents and fans of the Golden Bear wrestling team. I am sure that they are proud, as I am, of the accomplishments of the student-athletes of the 1997-1998 team. I am pleased to note that the school's tradition of wrestling excellence now includes a Maryland State Tournament Championship title.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the staff of the Committee on Ways and Means and also the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), as well as the administration in helping to craft the amendment that I offer. This matter was brought to my attention by a constituent who was trying to collect child support from a foreign national. The foreign national came to our country regularly as a businessperson making considerable money off of his business ventures here in the United States. My constituent was unable to collect child support because there was no effective way of collecting child support from that foreign national. The amendment before my colleagues would correct that circumstance. It would deny a visa or a reentry to a noncustodial parent, foreign national, that is $5,000 or more in arrears in child support. It would also deny naturalization if the person is in noncompliance with a valid child support order. Lastly, the amendment would give new authority for the service of summons and court orders at our borders for foreign nationals. Madam Chairman, this particular amendment would place a foreign national in a comparable position as we place our own citizens. If an American is $5,000 or more in arrears in child support, we deny our citizen the right to have a passport. The least we can do for foreign nationals is treat them likewise and deny them the ability to enter our country. For Americans we also deny driver's licenses and other professional certificates. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order that we provide comparable abilities for enforcing child support orders by foreign nationals.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for his help in developing this amendment and bringing this matter forward.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. The Constitution places the responsibility of initiating revenue measures in the House of Representatives. This resolution merely preserves the prerogatives and responsibility of the House. S. 104, as noted, would contravene the constitutional restriction since it would repeal a present-law revenue measure and create a user fee. It is my understanding that today's action will have no effect on efforts to move nuclear waste legislation since the House has already passed legislation to address this issue. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Medicare Private Contracting Clarification Act of 1998. This legislation clarifies a provision of the Balanced Budget Act which, for the first time, allows doctors to privately contract with Medicare beneficiaries for services normally covered by Medicare. My bill will make clear that nothing in this provision prevents Medicare beneficiaries from privately paying for services not covered by Medicare. This has always been true for our seniors, and it remains true under current law. Prior to passage of the Balanced Budget Act (BBA), federal law did not address the issue of private contracting between Medicare beneficiaries and their doctors. The Kyl amendment to BBA explicitly allows doctors to reject Medicare and privately contract with their patients for Medicare-covered services. For patients entering into private contracts, this means that they will be unable to use either their Medicare or Medigap coverage for their care. However, BBA includes assurances that private contracting will not destroy the balance billing limits and other patient protections of the Medicare program. Most importantly, BBA bars physicians who choose to privately contract from the Medicare program for two years. This means that patients will know in advance whether or not their Part B insurance is valid for a doctor's care. It means that Medicare patients can expect consistent and timely care from a physician, regardless of the patient's ability to pay out-of-pocket for a Medicare benefit under a private contract. In sum, seniors can rest assured that their Medicare coverage will be there for them when they need it. Unfortunately, false claims are being made about BBA's private contracting provisions. Proponents of private contracting are seeking to remove the two year exclusion period in BBA. In an effort to vastly expand doctors' ability to engage in private contracting, they claim that doctors will need private contracts for all services, even those not covered by Medicare. This is simply not true. Nothing in the Balanced Budget Act affects the ability of seniors to privately pay doctors for services that Medicare does not cover. Despite this fact, some groups continue to wage misinformation campaigns. My bill will put an end to this false rhetoric by clarifying that no private contract is required for a service that Medicare does not cover. It will eliminate the confusion surrounding this much- debated issue, to assure seniors that their contract with Medicare, a public contract, will continue to be honored. Mr. Speaker, we have scarcely had time to understand the impact of the existing private contracting provisions on the Medicare program. The Congressional Budget Office has already stated that private contracting holds a ``serious potential for overbilling.'' Congress recently created a commission to examine ways to ensure the long-term financial stability of Medicare. To vastly expand the scope of this provision on the basis of inaccurate claims about its effect on doctors is a grave mistake, especially during this crucial period in the history of the program. If we must pass legislation on the private contracting issue, let us focus our attention on clarifying current law to assure seniors that their Medicare coverage will be there for them when they need it. BBA allows doctors to privately contract with Medicare beneficiaries, while preserving the balance billing limits, fraud and abuse controls, and patient protections of the Medicare program. I would hope our priority in Congress would be to preserve our commitment to our senior citizens and their health care. Let's keep the Medicare program in tact.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I certainly understand the Chair's rulings on my past two amendments. I am disappointed by the rulings. But I am more disappointed by my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), raising points of order against these amendments. If he had not raised points of order, we could have either changed this resolution from a sense of Congress to a law and we could have tested whether we were sincere in what we are trying to do today. And on the other amendment, if my colleague had not raised that point of order, we could have at least told the people of this country, the taxpayers of this country, which this resolution is aimed at, that we will take up this year consumer protection and managed care and health care. The President's task force was aimed at maintaining and improving quality of care for all Americans. That was the central purpose of the task force. My amendment would have made it clear that we wanted to bring up this year quality assurances in managed care programs. I regret that my friend from Arizona raised a point of order. But I would hope that the Republican leadership in this House will give us some commitment that we will have time to debate this very important issue on the floor of this House and then let the majority rule. Let us have an open debate. Give us an opportunity to take up these issues so that the American people know where we stand on the very important issues as to whether medical personnel should make medical decisions or insurance company bureaucrats. I urge my colleagues to support efforts to bring these matters to the floor. The Chair's ruling confirms that this resolution does absolutely nothing. If it did something, according to the Chair, my amendment would have been made in order. I regret that. And I hope we will have another day in order to argue these issues.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I was trying to do that. The amendment deals with the payment of counsel fees. The Chair just ruled on the previous amendment that it was not germane because it did not deal with counsel fees. My amendment has the same fundamental purpose as the resolution before us. Fundamental purpose has a long-standing test of germaneness. The resolution addresses the action of the health care task force, so does my amendment. The resolution suggests how the payment of attorneys' fees in this case should be resolved, so does my amendment. My amendment changes the sense of Congress resolution to make it effective; to change it into law. It has the same underlining purpose. The people who have spoken on behalf of the resolution all have said that its underlying purpose is identical to what this amendment would do. Therefore, the test of germaneness has been met.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I do. And since we cut off the reading, let me explain what the amendment does and why. It is in compliance to the Chair's most recent pronouncement on my previous amendment. What this amendment does is what the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) tried to do by unanimous consent.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer another amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I do. My amendment has the same fundamental purpose as the resolution before us. The fundamental purpose has a longstanding test of germaneness by this body. The resolution addresses the actions of the health care task force, so does my amendment. It was one of the major issues before the health care task force that we return to medical professionals the right to make decisions about our health, and that we should be able to express ourselves against insurance company bureaucrats making those judgments rather than health care professionals. It is the same fundamental purpose as the underlining resolution, and I urge the Chair to rule in favor of germaneness.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very clear. It deals with the same action that the underlining resolution deals with, and that is the action of the health care task force that the President constituted. This amendment would make it clear in the sense of Congress that we want to consider on the floor as quickly as possible legislation that would provide national quality standards for health care plans. I make specific reference to two bills, and I do that intentionally, one by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a Republican, and one by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), a Democrat, because I know that there is bipartisan support for quality standards for managed care programs. By the number of cosponsors of these bills, it is clear that the majority of the Members of this House want this body to take up standards to protect our consumers in managed care programs so that medical decisions can be made by medical professionals and not health insurance bureaucrats. Now, the reason why I think this is so important to put on this sense of Congress resolution, and I will relay a story of someone who visited my office yesterday who was interested in an environmental bill and had a meeting with the Republican leadership and was told that it was unlikely that that bill could be brought up this year because there was not enough time. Mr. Chairman, we are in the second week of this session of Congress and we are already being told that because of the condensed schedule that the Republican leadership has brought forward that there will not be time to consider important legislation. Well, let us go on record now to say that protecting our consumers who are in managed care programs is a priority that we want to deal with before Congress adjourns this year. My amendment is simple. It adds to the sense of Congress resolution that we bring up basic consumer protection this year before we adjourn. Matters such as external appeal, so that consumers have a right to challenge a managed care operator as to whether health care is needed or not; matters such as access to emergency care, that I mentioned before, so that prudent layperson standards can be used so people can be reimbursed when they go to emergency rooms; to get rid of the gag rule so that doctors can talk to their patients without fear of conflicting the contract that they have with an HMO; antidiscrimination rules, so we do not discriminate against providers, that HMOs do not discriminate against providers. And the list goes on and on and on. There is need now for this Congress to act. My amendment makes it clear that this Congress will take up that legislation. I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment. It is a sense of Congress resolution. It makes it clear to the leadership that we want to take up and debate the issue this year. That is the least we can do as we debate this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to accept the resolution. Point of Order

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out a couple points. First, it is undisputed that this sense of Congress resolution has no legal effect. In fact if it had legal effect, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit would not be able to recover attorneys' fees, which is just the opposite of what the sponsors of this resolution would have us do. If we want to debate what should be the personal responsibility of someone who is employed by the government, then we should have on the floor legislation, generic legislation, the way we normally would take up bills, not aimed at one person or a personality, but aimed at whether this is good public policy or not. And then we would debate that issue and come to some resolution. I assume that we would have an opportunity to amend that particular bill, and we would have an open and full debate. But instead we are working on a resolution that has no meaning, that does not do what the sponsors claim it does, that, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) pointed out, it cannot have any effect. And if it did, we would have to amend the underlying law. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) made a unanimous consent request to deal with the underlying law, but that was objected to by the other side. So if we want to have a debate on responsibility, then bring forward a bill that does it in a generic sense, but do not hide behind one person and one court decision when your resolution does not even affect that resolution.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, that is the answer I thought I would receive. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) was talking about what he was able to bring forward. I thought you could at least give us some assurances that we will be able to take up bills that are important to our constituents.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this resolution deals with the President's Task Force on National Health Care Reform. That task force was concerned about quality health care for the people of this country. It dealt with many subjects, including how to expand health care insurance for many Americans who had no health care insurance, and it was also deeply concerned about quality standards and consumer protection for people who are in managed care programs. Each of us have heard from our constituents their concern that the practice of medicine, the medical decisions are being made by bureaucrats rather than by medical professionals. The United States District Court ruling that is the subject matter of this resolution awarded attorneys' fees for some physicians who challenged the work of that task force. This sense of Congress resolution says that those attorney fees should not be paid for by taxpayer funds. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) pointed out, the law says that attorneys' fees can only be paid for by the government, and, therefore, if this sense of Congress resolution was carried out, if we made it law, as my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) pointed out, the plaintiffs in that lawsuit would not be able to recover any attorneys' fees, which is certainly contrary to the intent of the sponsors of this resolution. That is why this sense of Congress resolution makes no sense. The impact, though, could have an impact. As the subcommittee chairman Mr. Kolbe pointed out, it is his intention to deny these funds from the White House budget. Therefore, this resolution could have an effect if we pass it, a psychological effect and a chilling effect, on people who want to serve their government on task forces that look at problems. The work of the President's Task Force on National Health Care Reform goes forward. We have had a President's Commission on Quality Standards for Managed Care. The work of the task force moves forward, important work. We have legislation pending that deals with those recommendations. One deals with external appeal for managed care programs. I received a phone call this morning from a constituent, a constituent whose child needed institutional care, who was being threatened to be taken out of the hospital just arbitrarily by the managed care operator. That is wrong. That plan had no external appeal, independent appeal, so that person could take that grievance to an independent body. We need to correct that. We need people who are willing to serve on task forces to correct that. This resolution will have a chilling effect on people serving on those types of task forces. We have legislation here that would provide access to emergency care. Today I can tell you of examples in my community where people who are in a managed care program go to an emergency room. They have chest pains, they are sweating, they think they are having a cardiac problem. They go to the emergency room. The good news is that they didn't have a heart attack, but then when they get the bill from the hospital and the managed care plan refuses to pay because the diagnosis was not an emergency, they almost have a heart attack. We need to enact legislation, the work of that task force, in order to correct those problems. We have circumstances every day that people need referral to specialists, and the managed care plan prevents that referral. We need people willing to serve on task forces in order to correct those problems. So, Mr. Chairman, it is important that we do not send the message out today that we do not want to see people work and provide their expertise and independence, so the Congress can get the benefit of their work. The sense of Congress resolution should call upon us to enact quickly the consumer protection provisions for managed care plans. Then the sense of Congress resolution would make more sense. Better yet, we should use the time tonight that we are debating this resolution to debate the bills themselves, to provide the protection that each of our constituents want and deserve. Why not bring those bills before us this evening, and then we really could provide the protection that people need that are in managed care programs. If we did that, then the call I received today from my constituent, we would not be receiving them tomorrow, and we will be receiving those calls tomorrow, each one of us know that. I hope that we can turn this resolution into action, so that this Congress acts on what is really important to my constituents, providing national standards for quality care in this country. Then we will be doing a service to the taxpayer.