Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right. Yesterday we were talking about trying to balance the Federal budget and keep it balanced. We should learn from what happened in 1981 when we created the climate for exploding deficits. This bill should be known, since we are going on the Fourth of July break at the end of today, as the Fireworks Tax Act of 1997. We are going to have exploding deficits if this bill is passed in a way that it has been presented. The gentleman points out in that chart very clearly the difference between the Democratic bill and the Republican bill. The Democrat bill has a capital gains tax cut in it, but it is mindful of how much we can afford in its target. The Republicans not only put in a differential rate for capital gains, but also indexing, and another chart that the gentleman has there really points out the fact of how we are going to have exploding deficits if this bill passes and is enacted the way that it has been presented. It is convenient in the year 2002, the year that we have advertised that we are going to have a balanced budget, that the capital gains tax actually produces more revenue for the Treasury, and why? Because in that year the Republican bill allows people to sell and buy back their assets to get a lower capital gains rate and then to be able to take advantage of indexing. They get it twice. To make matters worse, the indexing requires a 3-year holding period so the revenue losses will not be felt until we are well past the budget window. We want to make sure that we do the right thing as far as the deficit of this country is concerned, that we actually have a balanced budget. We have all been arguing in this budget that we want to balance the Federal budget and keep it balanced. We should learn from history in 1981. This is just one of about five or six provisions in the Republican bill that advertises very little revenue loss in the first 5 years, but they explode in the outyears and we will have huge deficits. The point that my colleague is making, the chart that he is showing, I hope that the American people will understand that if we vote for this tax bill that is on the floor today, we are voting for large deficits in the future.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in regards to the Medicare provisions, I want to applaud the process that was used. It was a true bipartisan process. I want to congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], the ranking member. Working together, we were able to modernize the Medicare system and extend the solvency of the trust fund for another decade, and we did that protecting the beneficiaries. Unlike the other body that looked at ways that will affect the beneficiaries by dealing with eligibility and age and means testing and home care copayments, we were able to modernize the Medicare system and extend benefits to our seniors because we worked together, Democrats and Republicans. We improved the process. I am particularly pleased that we were able to add for the first time preventive health care benefits to Medicare so that it is not just a program for people who get sick, but that we keep our seniors healthy; that we provide for colorectal screening and mammography and diabetes self-management and prostate cancer screenings. We have provided improvements in the Medicare system that will help our seniors. I am particularly pleased that we were also able to include the prudent layperson's standards for access to emergency care, another issue that we were concerned about in a bipartisan way; that we modernized the hospice benefits, and I could go on and on and on. We were able to do that because every member of the committee was respected for his or her views and we worked together as the process should work together. Mr. Speaker, on Medicare, the system worked. There are other aspects of the budget where we have not had that same degree of cooperation, and I would hope that we would use the model that the committee was able to do on Medicare in working together to deal with the problems that we have and to improve the programs for our seniors. We could do that in more aspects of the budget agreement, and I hope we will as we move forward on the budget and work together in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and congratulate him on his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I heard all these arguments before against United States involvement on human rights issues. We were told with the Soviet Union that the United States would be alone. Just the opposite was the case when we stood up and denied most-favored-nation status to the Soviet Union. Other countries followed the United States leadership. I heard the same arguments about South Africa, that would hurt the blacks of South Africa. By standing up for human rights, we have brought down that apartheid government of South Africa. We said that we were going to hurt our own interests because of the richness of South Africa and their natural resources. We stood up and we changed South Africa. When the United States leads, the world will follow. China's human rights record is horrible. Listen to our own State Department. I quote: Overall in 1996, the authorities stepped up efforts to cut off expressions of protest or criticism. All public dissent against the party and government was effectively silenced by intimidation, exile, the imposition of prison terms, administrative detention, or house arrest. Nonapproved religious groups, including Protestant and Catholic groups, also experienced intensified repression as the government enforced the 1994 regulations. Discrimination against women, minorities, and the disabled, violence against women, and the abuse of children remain problems. China's human rights records are horrible. Listen to what Professor Nathan of Columbia said: Human rights in China are of our national interest to the United States. Countries that respect the rights of their citizens are less likely to start wars, export drugs, harbor terrorists, produce refugees. The greater the power of the country without human rights, the greater the danger to the United States. I have heard all the arguments against involvement. MFN is supposed to be for immigration only. MFN is for nations that respect human rights. China does not respect human rights. We never have to apologize for this Nation standing strong against nations that abuse human rights. Let us stand up for what this Nation believes in. Vote to deny China MFN. They do not deserve it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], the ranking member, for their ability to bring forward a conference report on the budget that carries out the spirit of the bipartisan agreement. The key to our ability to balance the budget in 5 years and protect the priorities that are important to the American people is the fact that we have had Democrats and Republicans working together in a bipartisan manner in the best interests of our country. But now it is time for the committees to act. That is going to be more difficult. Let me say on an optimistic note that yesterday the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health met on the Medicare provisions and voted by unanimous vote on the Medicare provisions providing for $115 billion of savings. Democrats and Republicans working together, we have a good Medicare proposal to include in the budget reconciliation. I would urge all the committees to work together in a bipartisan way. Let me just say a word of caution. We have already seen in regards to legal immigrants that we have not had that type of working together between Democrats and Republicans on the committee of jurisdiction. I am deeply concerned that we have Democrats and Republicans working together to make sure that the revenues stay true to the agreement, that we do not have more revenue lost than the $85 billion net over the 5-year period and $250 billion over the 10-year period. We do not want exploding deficits. But unless we have Democrats and Republicans working on the bill that come forward in reconciliation to make sure that is the case, then I am afraid we will not enjoy the same type of bipartisan support that we see here today. My word of caution is let us follow the example that we have seen to date and work together in a true bipartisan manner on all the ingredients of budget reconciliation. If we continue to work together as Democrats and Republicans, we will have a good budget reconciliation bill that will be in the best interests of the American people.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for yielding me this time and congratulate the gentleman on a job very well done. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget resolution as the next step to balancing the Federal budget. Considered in light of the CBO deficit projections just 4 years ago, this accomplishment is nothing short of miraculous. Four years ago, the deficit was actually $290 billion. The projection for 1997 that year was that the deficit would be $319 billion. But for the courageous action of President Clinton and the Members of this House and Senate, the other body, we were able to pass a bill that, in fact, brought the deficit in much, much lower than that. We have now a controllable deficit thanks to the action that we took in 1993. I would like to speak for a moment about the tax and revenue portions of the agreement. The concern has been raised that we must not repeat the mistakes that we made in 1981. I was not a Member of this House in 1981, but I reviewed the action of that year. The tax cuts proposed by President Reagan and approved by the Congress were estimated at that time to reduce Federal revenues by $863 billion over 5 years. Let me say that again. The tax cut of 1981 totaled $863 billion over 5 years. That was with 1981 dollars. The tax cuts provided under the agreement embodied in this resolution are limited to $85 billion over 5 years, which is less than 10 percent of the size of the 1981 tax cuts. It is a far more cautious and responsible tax package than the 1981 legislation. Another key provision of this agreement is the treatment of Medicare. The budget resolution we consider today provides for real Medicare reform that will lower the cost to our seniors and provide quality care for our Nation's seniors. Chief among the improvements is a preventive health care package that will help our seniors with their health care needs. We also solve other real problems in providing health benefits for children. We provide needs for students. This is a good budget agreement that puts together ways of improving our economy. I hope my colleagues will support the agreement. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget resolution as a next important step along the way to balancing the Federal Government's books for the first time in a third of a century. I share the view of those, including the President, who have said that this budget balances the budget while also balancing our priorities and our values. The budget we have before us today is truly a bipartisan work product. With a Democratic President and a Republican-controlled Congress, only a bipartisan budget plan could succeed. Both parties had to be willing to work through their strong disagreements and find compromise, without abandoning principle. Because they were, we have a chance today to take another step forward on the road to a balanced budget. Mr. Chairman, just as today's action by this House will not mark the end of the work needed to balance the budget, neither does it mark the beginning. The Congressional Budget Office has recently indicated that it now estimates the budget deficit for the current fiscal year will be less than $70 billion. Considered in the light of CBO deficit projections of just 4 years ago, this accomplishment is nothing short of miraculous. Four years ago, prior to the passage of the 1993 deficit reduction act, the Federal budget deficit was $290 billion. At that time, CBO projected that the deficit for this year, fiscal year 1997, would be $319 billion. By its courageous action in following President Clinton's leadership and passing the 1993 legislation, the 103d Congress brought uncontrollable deficits down to controllable levels. Without that action, we would not today be in a position to finish the job and balance the budget. After a decade and a half in which the United States was the most fiscally irresponsible member of the G-7, today we are again the healthiest and most vibrant economy in the world. Our fiscal health is also the strongest of our major trading allies. Today it is up to us to take the next step by approving this balanced budget agreement. As we do so, a few words of caution are in order. Passage of this budget resolution will not, of course, balance the budget. We must still do the hard work of cutting spending and enforcing the terms of the agreement. I would like to speak for a moment about the tax and revenue portions of this agreement. Some critics of the agreement, concerned about the tax cuts, have compared this agreement to the early 1980's. At that time, the 97th Congress approved the largest tax cuts in our country's history, which created the nightmare deficits that have plagued us since. The concern has been raised that we must not repeat the mistakes of 1981. I was not a Member of this House in 1981. But I have reviewed the actions of that year. The tax cuts proposed by President Reagan approved by Congress that year were estimated at the time to reduce Federal revenues by $863 billion over 5 years. Let me say that again. The tax cuts of 1981 totaled $863 billion over 5 years. Let me point out that figure is in 1981 dollars. The tax cuts provided under the agreement embodied in this resolution are limited to $85 billion over 5 years, which is less than 10 percent of the size of the 1981 tax cuts. It is a far more cautious and responsible tax package than the 1981 legislation. No aspect of this agreement is more important than constraining the size of the tax cuts. We must be especially careful that revenue losses associated with the tax cuts do not exceed the tight limits that all parties have agreed to. Those of us on the taxwriting committee must work to prevent tax cuts from driving the deficit back up after 2002. Once we have balanced the budget, we must keep it balanced. Another key to this agreement is the treatment of Medicare. Unlike 2 years ago, when the preservation of health benefits for seniors divided the parties, this year we are together on Medicare. In the last Congress, so-called Medicare reform was all about slashing spending and forcing seniors into managed care plans where they would face higher costs and decreased choice. This year, the Medicare debate has turned around. The budget resolution that we are considering today is real Medicare reform. It makes programmatic changes that will lower costs and improve quality of care in the long run for our Nation's seniors. Chief among these improvements is the addition of new preventive benefits in Medicare. On the first day of this session of Congress, I joined with my colleagues Chairman Bill Thomas of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee and Chairman Mike Bilirakis of the Commerce Health Subcommittee to introduce H.R. 15, the Medicare Preventive Benefits Improvement Act. The budget resolution Includes these new benefits: Yearly mammographies for women over 50, with the deductible waived; colon cancer screening; prostate cancer screening; diabetes self- management and training services and payment for blood glucose monitoring strips; yearly pap smear screening and pelvic exams for women of childbearing age or with high risk of developing cervical cancer, with the deductible waived. These Medicare modernizations will go far toward improving the quality of life for our Nation's seniors. And, as prevention becomes the norm of care for seniors, the Medicare Program will realize substantial savings as well. Medicare is also thee source of funding for our Nation's graduate medical education system. This budget resolution includes provisions that make some improvements to that system. During the budget reconciliation process, I plan to build on this commitment to ensure that our graduate medical education system remains No. 1 in the world. Despite the strengths of this agreement, there are parts of this budget resolution that I do not agree with and that I believe take our country in the wrong direction. I strongly oppose a provision in the budget resolution that calls for the repeal of the Boren amendment. The Boren amendment is a protection in the Medicaid Program that simply states that payment rates for hospitals and nursing facilities must be ``reasonable and adequate to meet the costs of efficiently and economically operated facilities.'' This provision is a vitally important Medicaid component because it helps assure access to quality health care for our Nation's poor mothers, children, and seniors. We created the Boren amendment in 1981 at the request of our Nation's Governors who were concerned that they would no longer be able to provide quality health care to their nursing home residents and poor mothers and children because of the downward spiral of Medicaid reimbursements. What was a problem in 1981 would become a problem again today if we repeal the Boren amendment. The proposed repeal of the Boren amendment creates a problem where none now exists. Fortunately, there are other provisions of this agreement that solve real problems. The agreement contains important changes in last year's welfare reform legislation, easing some of the excesses of that initiative. The bill commits us to addressing the health care needs to the millions of American children who have no health care coverage. It provides the largest increase ever in Pell grants, making postsecondary education more affordable for millions of American young people. Mr. Chairman, since 1969, the promise of a balanced budget has eluded this country. Now, with the adoption of this budget resolution, we have the chance to bring that promise closer to reality. Over all, the pluses in this package far outweigh the minuses. It will allow us to finish the job we began in 1993 and balance the Federal budget, and it does so in a way that is consistent with the values and priorities of the American people.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Carmen Papale who will retire next week as manager and international vice president of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees. Mr. Papale was born and raised in Baltimore and went to work in the men's clothing industry as a cutter at Haas Tailoring Co. in 1965 rising to the level of shop steward. As many Members of the House may know, Haas Tailoring is the place to order custom suits. Haas produces the finest American made custom suits and over the years has served a diverse clientele, ranging from many members of the Baltimore Ravens, to Ambassadors and members of the diplomatic corps, to Tiger Woods. Carmen Papale was part of that fine tradition. Carmen left Haas and went to work for the Baltimore Regional Joint Board in July 1973 as an organizer and soon was promoted to business agent representing members in shops in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. He was elected vice president of the International Union, the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers. He has been reelected to this position at every national convention since 1982. In addition, Mr. Papale has served as comanager and then manager of the Baltimore Regional Joint Board since 1982 and serves as chair of the board of trustees of the Board Health and Welfare Fund, as well as a member of the board of directors of the Amalgamated Bank of New York and on the executive board of the Maryland State and D.C. AFL-CIO. To say that Mr. Papale retires from a lifetime of commitment to the working people of this country is an understatement. Carmen has seen and participated in great changes in the conditions under which clothing workers labor. He has also fought with all his heart his industry's abandonment of the great manufacturing centers of America for cheap labor around the world. Over the years, Carmen has offered me his good counsel on many national and local issues. We have not always agreed, but I have always tremendously valued the wisdom, knowledge, and caring for the working men and women of this Nation that his words impart. While I wish Carmen the best in a well deserved retirement, I also hope to continue benefiting from his advice for years to come. I hope other Members of the House will join me today in thanking Carmen Papale for all his work in the labor movement of this Nation. His efforts will be missed; his shoes hard to fill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Harold Rogers, be removed as a cosponsor on H.R. 815.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today Representative Wayne Gilchrest and I are joining in a unique, bipartisan partnership to promote the next stage of the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. Over the past 20 years the Federal Government has played a vital role in coordinating and encouraging intergovernmental work to reverse declines in the bay ecosystem. The bills Representative Gilchrest and I are introducing today will build upon the success of this program as the preeminent national model for cooperative, regional environmental restoration. Our joint effort speaks to the importance of both these bills. The Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act, H.R. 1578, which I introduced with Representative Gilchrest as the lead cosponsor, reauthorizes Federal participation with State and local governments in implementing the Chesapeake Bay agreement. The bill: clarifies the leading role of the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program Office in coordinating scientific information, public outreach, and the activities and responsibilities of varying Federal agencies in the restoration; integrates ongoing habitat protection and enhancement, toxics reduction and prevention, nutrient management and water quality control efforts in the watershed with the overall bay program; establishes a program of small technical assistance and watershed improvement grants to communities, local governments, nonprofit organizations, and individuals to assist in projects complementing tributary basin strategies; assures the participation and compliance of Federal agencies owning or operating facilities in the Chesapeake watershed with the bay program; directs the EPA Administrator, working with the other signatories to the bay agreement, to regularly report to Congress on progress toward the goals established under the agreement; and authorizes $30 million per year between 1998 and 2003 for these purposes. This legislation enhances and better coordinates the efforts of the Federal Government as a partner in the Chesapeake Bay restoration, while providing resources in line with current funding of the varying programs integrated under H.R. 1578. Representative Gilchrest today introduced legislation, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Act, H.R. 1579, that will complement the Restoration Act. I am joining him as the lead cosponsor of H.R. 1579. The Gateways and Watertrails Act will improve access and knowledge of the ``Jewels of the Chesapeake'' to those in our region and Nation. The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to identify key sites and waterways in the watershed, work to protect them, and link them by roads, scenic byways, courses by water, and other means. It is an innovative project that will further enhance the goals of the bay program. Senator Sarbanes, with many of his colleagues from the region, has introduced companion legislation to both the bills Representative Gilchrest and I are introducing today. At a recent meeting of the Maryland congressional delegation held in the Capitol to review the Chesapeake Bay Program it was stated that the bay's restoration is not an event, but a process. The Chesapeake Bay is our Nation's largest estuary and the foundation for the ecological and economic health of the mid-Atlantic region. Nearly 15 million people live within its six State watershed and enjoy the many benefits of a healthy bay. Over the past two decades the overwhelming majority of the citizens in our region have committed to restoring the Chesapeake with a unanimity rarely found in public affairs. Intergovernmental and private efforts to save the bay over the past generation have realized real successes in understanding and reversing declines in the Chesapeake ecosystem. But pressures on the bay continue to grow and for every victory, like the return of striped bass, there are many more challenges, from the devastated oyster population to the loss of wetlands. I ask my colleagues to join my distinguished friend from Maryland, Wayne Gilchrest, and I in building on the successes of the bay program and taking on the new challenges we face. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act, H.R. 1578, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation promotion adoption for the children of this Nation who most desperately require our care and protection. The neglected or abused children whom we are seeking to assist today are tragic cases and our hearts go out to them. Reflecting the importance of this bill and the concern we all have for these innocent children, the cooperative, bipartisan procedures with which the Ways and Means Committee handled this bill could be a model for Congress. My colleagues, Representatives Camp and Kennelly who shaped this bill, Chairmen Archer and Shaw, and Mr. Rangel are all to be congratulated. This bill strikes a balance as the Government steps into these most difficult, tragic family situations to separate children permanently from abusive and/or neglectful parents. We all want to see these children moved through foster care into loving, adoptive families as quickly as possible. At the same time, through the timely provision of social services-- whether substance abuse treatment, counseling, or other means of support--many families may be reunified successfully. This bill provides a chance for States to investigate often complex family circumstances and attempt corrective actions through support services, but limits their time so that children do not spend their youths moving between foster homes. There will be debate today as to whether we have found the correct balance between reunifying families, and providing permanent, loving homes to our most troubled children--but we all share the same goals. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in the 11 years I have been in Congress to receive Presidential budgets, this budget is the best received I have ever seen by our colleagues. And there is good reason for that. The track record of the Clinton administration has been excellent in reducing the deficit. It is the first administration in recent times that had 4 years in a row in reducing the deficit. It has submitted a budget that balances in the year 2002, according to OMB projections. There is a disagreement between CBO and OMB. Why do we not look at the track record and look at the past 4 years? In the past 4 years, OMB has been more accurate than CBO. The deficits have actually been smaller than we thought they were going to be. The President's has been more accurate. The President goes one step further. He says if his economic projections are wrong, he puts an enforcement mechanism in his budget that guarantees us a balanced budget by the year 2002. That is why the gentleman from Washington is correct when he says that Dr. O'Neill has said that the President's budget will have a zero deficit in the year 2002. The Congressional Budget Act says the President should submit his budget by February. He has done that. It then says that Congress shall pass a concurrent resolution by April 15. Now, we have heard from the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget that we are not going to meet that deadline. I know that the leadership has instituted a new process known as Correction Day. Maybe we should put the Congressional Budget Act on Correction Day and eliminate the time limits that are put in here. Rather than wasting our time on this resolution, I would support a resolution that would direct the Committee on the Budget to bring out its budget in time so that we can act by April 15.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Marge Roukema to introduce the Access to Emergency Medical Services Act of 1997. Companion legislation is being introduced in the Senate by Senators Bob Graham, Tim Hutchison, and Barbara Mikulski. The Access to Emergency Medical Services Act of 1997 would enact a national definition of emergency known as the ``prudent layperson'' definition. The bill would ensure that health plans cover emergency care based on a patient's symptoms rather than the final diagnosis. Enactment of this definition would end the phenomena of health plans denying coverage for emergency care when chest pains turned out to be indigestion rather than a heart attack. As you may recall, we first introduced this legislation in the 104th Congress. We ended 1996 with 154 cosponsors and had portions of the bill favorably reported by the Commerce Committee and the full Senate. This year, the legislation has been redrafted to amend the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The goals of the bill are the same. Again, it would establish the ``prudent layperson'' definition of emergency as the standard for coverage under group health plans, health insurers, and the Medicare and Medicaid programs. It would also forbid any requirement for preauthorization for emergency care. A new addition to this legislation is that it will go into much greater detail about requirements for health plans and emergency physicians to work together to coordinate any necessary followup care to the emergency visit. A summary of the bill appears at the conclusion of this statement. In developing this legislation, we once again worked closely with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Maryland chapter of their organization. I would like to thank them for all of their assistance during this drafting process. This year we have an important new supporter of our legislation: Kaiser Permanente, one of our Nation's oldest, largest, and most respected managed care plans. I want to underscore the significance of Kaiser's support. As far as I know, this is the first time that a managed care plan has worked to develop a Federal standard for managed care practices. Kaiser has taken this bold step because they agree with us--when a person presents at an emergency room with what they believe is a true emergency, it is in the health plan's best interest to cover that visit, not to penalize their member if the condition does not turn out to be a true emergency. Kaiser would like our bill to preempt States' abilities to further regulate coverage of emergency care--and we will continue to discuss that issue. Kaiser's perspective is that the best policy would be to have one uniform set of standards on emergency for all States. However, the bill introduced today does not preempt further State action. Our bill is consistent with the rest of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in that it only preempts State law where that law prohibits the application of the Federal law. States are absolutely allowed to go further. In addition to Kaiser Permanente and the American College of Emergency Physicians, our legislation is endorsed by a broad spectrum of interests. These organizations include: the American Medical Association, Citizen Action, the American Hospital Association, Families USA, the American Heart Association, the Coalition for American Trauma Care, the American Osteopathic Association, the Center for Patient Advocacy, and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. This year's Access to Emergency Medical Services Act is a new and improved version of the legislation we introduced in the last Congress and as you can see, we have already gathered broad-ranging support. Again, this bill would enable those in need to be assured access to emergency medical care--without the fear that their health plan will deny them coverage. Access to emergency care is fundamental to ensuring a viable health care system. What is at stake here is not an issue of governmental regulation, but an issue of protecting patient safety. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in supporting the Access to Emergency Medical Services Act and help us enact this protection into law. Short Summary--Access to Emergency Medical Services Act of 1997 The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and Titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act. If enacted, this bill would guarantee that consumers are covered for legitimate emergency department visits. For health plans that offer coverage for emergency services, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs, the bill would require payment for emergency services consistent with the ``prudent layperson'' standard. Patients would not be required to obtain prior authorization for emergency services. Health plans would be required to cover and pay for emergency care based upon the patient's presenting symptoms, rather than the final diagnosis. The bill also establishes a process in which the emergency department and health plan work together to assure that the patient receives appropriate follow-up care. Key provisions of the bill: Establishes a uniform definition of emergency based upon the ``prudent layperson'' standard. Health plans would be required to cover emergency services if the patient presents with symptoms that a prudent layperson, possessing an average knowledge of health and medicine, could reasonably expect to result in serious impairment to the patient's health. Health plans would not be required to reimburse for services provided to patients that do not meet the ``prudent layperson'' standard. Plans would be prohibited from requiring, as a condition for coverage, that patients obtain prior authorization from the health plan before seeking emergency care. Establishes coverage standards for out-of-plan emergency care to protect patients who, under reasonable circumstances, seek care in an out-of-plan emergency department. Allows health plans to establish reasonable cost-sharing differentials for emergency care when a patient chooses an emergency setting over a non-emergency setting, or an out-of- plan emergency setting over an in-plan emergency setting. Provides a process for coordination of post-stabilization care. Treating emergency physicians and health plans would be required to make timely communications concerning any medically necessary post-stabilization care identified as a result of a federally required screening examination. Plans, in conjunction with the treating physician, may arrange for an alternative treatment plan that allows the health plan to assume care of the patient after stabilization. Health plans would be required to educate their members on emergency care coverage and the appropriate use of emergency medical services, including the use of the 911 system. There would be no preemption of state law as long as the state law does not prevent the application of the federal law. In general, requirements of the bill would be enforced in the same manner as the requirements of the ``Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.'' Applies to all health plans that offer coverage for emergency care, whether licensed or self-insured, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Effective for plan years beginning on or after 18 months after the date of enactment.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is extremely fitting that in honor of Valentine's Day tomorrow I rise to honor the work and outstanding record of achievement of Morris Tischler. As the inventor of the cardiac pacemaker, Mr. Tischler has done more than any other individual to keep the human heart ticking throughout the world. Morris Tischler, who we are fortunate to have as a resident of the great city of Baltimore, has made medical history. In addition to his pioneering work in developing the pacemaker, he has been instrumental in designing instrumentation for heart surgery, monitoring systems, a nerve stimulator, a blood analyzing monitor, among other innovations. As a teacher, consultant innovator, inventor, and businessman, Mr. Tischler has charted new territory in the field of medical electronics. In his desire to save lives, he has been generous in sharing his knowledge and expertise with the medical community around the world through lectures and visits. Born in Newark, NJ, Mr. Tischler attended the Johns Hopkins University and graduated from the University of Maryland. An outgrowth of his research at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland has been his pioneering work in science education. He has used his talents to develop and design educational materials and training programs that have been used in teaching science and electronics in elementary and secondary schools, colleges, universities, and technical schools. He has succeeded in his goal of simplifying very complex systems as an aid to teaching. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Morris Tischler, a true Renaissance Man, on his outstanding career as inventor, teacher, innovator. His energy and creativity have made medical history and helped save millions of lives around the world. His contribution to the field of medical science has set an example of dedication and caring that is hard to match.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Rob Portman, and more than 50 additional colleagues to introduce the Medicare Hospice Benefit Amendments of 1997. This legislation will make technical changes and clarifications to improve the Medicare hospice benefit. This is a noncontroversial bill that has true bipartisan support and should be included as part of Medicare reform this year. Hospice care is a vital Medicare benefit. It is a coordinated program of palliative medicine and supportive services provided mainly in the home but also in home-like settings that provides for physical, psychological, social, and spiritual care for dying persons and their families. Services are provided by a medically directed, interdisciplinary team of professionals and volunteers. Hospice recognizes dying as part of the normal process of living and focuses on maintaining the quality of remaining life. Hospice affirms life and neither hastens nor postpones death. The concept of hospice care emerged in this country in response to the unmet needs of dying patients and their families for whom traditional medical care was no longer effective, appropriate, or desired. Hospice has become an effective alternative to there being ``nothing else to do.'' The Nation's hospice programs currently provide compassionate care to more than 390,000 patients and families each year. In 1994, one out of every three people who died from cancer or AIDS were cared for by hospice. Terminally ill Medicare patients who elect hospice opt out of most other Medicare services related to their terminal illness and instead receive all of their care through the hospice program. Hospice is not only a compassionate and appropriate form of care for terminally ill individuals, it is also cost effective. A 1994 Lewin study comparing the relative cost of hospice care to conventional care for Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, found that for every dollar Medicare spent on hospice patients, it saved $1.52 in Medicare part A and B expenditures. Based on these findings, the growth and greater utilization of hospice care should be viewed in a positive light and should be encouraged. The Medicare hospice benefit was adopted by Congress 1982. Since then, more and more Americans have chosen to receive humane and cost-effective hospice care. In recent years, it has become clear that certain technical changes are necessary in the Medicare hospice benefit not only to protect beneficiaries but to ensure that high quality and cost- effective hospice services continue to be available. The Medicare Hospice Benefit Amendments of 1997, will make six technical changes to the Medicare hospice benefit. First, the bill restructures the hospice benefit periods. Under current law, the patient's attending physician and the hospice medical director must certify that the patient electing hospice care in lieu of other Medicare services is terminally ill--defined as having a prognosis of 6 months or less to live if the illness runs its normal course. There are four benefit periods, with recertifications of terminal illness by the hospice physician at the beginning of each. The first two periods last 90 days, the third is 30 days, and the fourth is of unlimited duration. If a beneficiary revokes a hospice election during a benefit period, the remaining days in that period are forfeited. This existing structure is especially troubling for patients who withdraw from hospice during the fourth hospice period because they then forfeit their ability to elect hospice services in the future. Thus, a patient who goes into remission and is no longer eligible for hospice because his or her life expectancy exceeds 6 months, is not able to return to hospice when his or her condition worsens. Our bill would correct this problem by restructuring the benefit periods so that there would be two 90-day periods, followed by an unlimited number of 60-day periods. This would also result in more frequent reevaluation of patients who outlive their original prognosis. Second, our bill clarifies that additional Medicare services are available--in addition to those specifically required by the hospice rules--when these services are a necessary component of the plan of care. This amendment is consistent with current HCFA policy. The existing statute is ambiguous because the beneficiary must waive coverage under part B for most services when they are related to the terminal illness, but some items are not clearly listed as part of the hospice benefit. For example, diagnostic tests and radiation therapy are not listed in the definition of hospice care, but occasionally the hospice team may agree with the attending physician that these services are necessary to manage the patient's terminal illness. Our bill would ensure that the hospice would be able to provide the appropriate care and that beneficiaries would not be liable for the costs of that care. Third, our bill amends the core services requirement to allow hospices to contract for physician services with independent contractor physicians or physician groups. HCFA has interpreted the existing statute as requiring a W-2 employer/employee relationship between the hospice and its medical director and other staff physicians. This raises corporate practice of medicine problems in some States, and it is increasingly difficult for hospices to recruit part-time physician employees as the trend toward physician groups continues. Fourth, the bill allows waivers of certain staffing requirements for rural hospices to be granted. Some hospices in rural areas have difficulty becoming Medicare-certified because of shortages of certain professionals. Currently, approximately 80 percent of hospices are Medicare-certified or pending certification. Fifth, our bill amends the so-called waiver of liability provisions to protect the beneficiary if a hospice claim is denied by Medicare because the terminal illness eligibility requirement allegedly was not met. While this bill does not reinstate the waiver of liability presumption under which providers with low error rates were paid before 1996, waiver of liability for hospice reasonable and necessary denials is still available on a case-by-case basis. This means that the hospice may appeal the denials and the beneficiary is not liable for payment. The same process and protection are needed for denials based on 6-month prognosis issues. Last, our legislation allows HCFA to set documentation requirements for physician certifications. Currently, the statute requires that paperwork documenting the physician certification of a patient's terminal illness be completed within a certain number of days of the patient's admission to hospice. This bill will eliminate the strict statutory requirements and give HCFA the discretion, as it currently has with home health certifications, to require hospice certifications to be on file before a Medicare claim is submitted. In summary, the Medicare Hospice Benefit Amendments of 1997 is very similar to the bill we introduced last year. The major difference is that we dropped a provision in the 1996 legislation to extend the presumption of the waiver of liability that CBO scored with a budget impact. Therefore, our new bill should be revenue neutral. This Medicare Hospice Benefit Amendments of 1997 is noncontroversial and is needed to ensure that we have a smoothly operating Medicare hospice benefit for our Nation's seniors. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation in this Congress.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the report of the Select Committee on Ethics be made a part of the Record.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer], a very distinguished member of the Select Committee on Ethics, who has contributed greatly not only to this particular matter, to many matters before the Select Committee on Ethics. (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this is a sad moment for the House of Representatives. One of our Members has admitted to a serious violation of the House rules. This process and this admission affects not only that Member but each Member who serves in this body. While I believe that is true of any ethics proceeding, it is particularly true and particularly troublesome in this case because the offending Member is the Speaker of the House, the third ranking official in our Government. We have received the report and recommendation from the special counsel. Mr. Gingrich has agreed with the judgment of the special counsel. In addition to the report, the recommendation of sanctions represents the bipartisan work produced by our investigative subcommittee. The report in the recommendation of sanctions has been overwhelmingly approved by the full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and deserves the support of this House. Let me begin by saying how proud I am of the work of the investigative subcommittee. In my judgment, all four members of the subcommittee maintained their commitment to a process that was fair to the respondent as well as the House and its rules. I want to commend and compliment the work of our chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], for the extraordinary work that he did as well as the work of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and the work of the subcommittee. I also want to recognize the extraordinary service performed by Jim Cole, our special counsel; Kevin Wolf, his assistant; and Virginia Johnson from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Before commenting on the substance of the resolution before us, I feel obligated to point out the severe problems that have plagued the process. The 1-year delay in 1995 in enlisting the services of the special counsel was wrong. We have some evidence that this delay may have been part of the strategy by allies of Mr. Gingrich. In sharp contrast to the good faith, bipartisan cooperation which governed the subcommittee's work, the orderly process collapsed on December 21, 1996, after the matter was forwarded to the full committee. Ignoring the advice of special counsel and the subcommittee, the Republican leadership in the House imposed an unrealistic deadline for the completion of our work to coincide with the Presidential inauguration. The schedule agreed upon by the full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for full public hearings on the subcommittee findings was unilaterally and improperly canceled. These partisan actions were aimed at shielding Mr. Gingrich from a full airing of the charges to which he has admitted guilt. During the past 5 days the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and I have worked closely together to use these days as effectively as possible to achieve two objectives: First, in the face of an unrealistic time limit, to get the broadest possible public release of the information contained in the subcommittee's report; and second, to arrive at a fair, bipartisan recommendation on sanctions. We have achieved both objectives, and for that I would like to express my appreciation to the chairwoman. The report details the reason why the committee has found that Mr. Gingrich has committed a serious violation of the House ethics rules. I urge each of my colleagues to read the report and the accompanying exhibits. I will now briefly review the findings of the special counsel's report. First, we must disregard the notion that this case involves a college professor engaged in a normal academic classroom activity. The respondent in this case is not Professor Gingrich, but Representative Gingrich, a Member of the House, minority whip and then Speaker of the House, who had a vision to launch a political movement to change the country, in his words, from a welfare state to an opportunity society. Second, over a 5-year period Mr. Gingrich improperly commingled political activities with tax exempt organizations. When GOPAC ran short of funds, Mr. Gingrich sought contributions from several tax exempt entities in order to continue his partisan political crusade. Third, there is ample evidence that he did so in violation of tax laws. Celia Roady, the tax expert retained by the committee, has concluded that the tax laws were violated, and it is not even a close call. Our special counsel agrees with that judgment. In all, almost $1.5 million was spent by these tax exempt organizations, costing the U.S. Treasury hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost tax revenues that should have been paid. Fourth, one need not reach a conclusion on the tax issues to find that Mr. Gingrich has violated our ethical standards. From his involvement in the American Campaign Academy case, Mr. Gingrich knew that pursuing these activities posed a risk of potential tax law violations. The ACA case established limits on political activities of tax exempt organizations. It is important to understand that this case involved similar facts and some of the same parties as the matter investigated by the subcommittee. In fact, in response to a question from the special counsel, Mr. Gingrich stated, and I quote: ``I lived through that case. I mean I was very well aware of what the ACA case did and what the ruling was.'' All experts agreed that he should have sought tax advice before using tax exempt organizations to pursue his political agenda. In the words of our special counsel Mr. Gingrich's actions suggest that ``either Mr. Gingrich did not seek legal advice because he is aware that it would not have permitted him to use a 501(c)(3) organization for his projects,'' or he was ``reckless in an area that was fraught with legal peril.'' Finally, the House must make a judgment on the question of whether Mr. Gingrich deliberately misled the committee. Mr. Gingrich submitted two letters to the committee that he now admits contained information about GOPAC that was inaccurate. The facts surrounding these inaccuracies were well known to Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich had read the letters before submitting them to the committee. When the investigative subcommittee specifically called the contradiction in the letters to Mr. Gingrich's attention, he once again defended them as accurate even though they were clearly wrong. The misleading letters were sent with the express intent of persuading the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to dismiss the pending charges. They had the effect of misleading the committee. It stretches credibility to conclude that the repeated misstatements were innocent mistakes. The linchpin of these findings is stated clearly in the report of special counsel: ``Of all the people involved in drafting, reviewing, or submitting the letters, the only person who had firsthand knowledge of the facts contained within them with respect to the Renewing American Civilization course was Mr. Gingrich.'' The special counsel concludes: ``Either Mr. Gingrich intentionally made misrepresentations to the committee or he was again reckless in the way he provided information to the committee concerning a very important matter.'' Mr. Gingrich's defense is that he has always been very sensitive to ethics issues and he was embarrassed by the obvious inaccurate letters. He said he never intended to mislead the committee. But Mr. Gingrich's actions with respect to the understanding reached with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct belies his statement. Mr. Gingrich, through his attorneys, had entered into an agreement with the committee. That agreement provided ``Mr. Gingrich agree that no public comment should be made about this matter while it is still pending. This includes having surrogates sent out to comment on the matter and attempt to mischaracterize it.'' I am sure that Members of this House are well aware of public comment since the release of our findings on December 21. As the special counsel States, ``In the opinion of the subcommittee Members and the special counsel, a number of press accounts indicated that Mr. Gingrich had violated that agreement,'' the finding of the bipartisan committee and our special counsel. Mr. Gingrich's violation of the no comment agreement raises serious questions about the extent to which he has deliberately sought to mislead the committee in other instances. Beyond the events of December 21, 1996, Republican operatives close to Mr. Gingrich conducted an ongoing campaign to disrupt the committee's work. It is relevant for this House to consider these circumstances in determining the degree of Mr. Gingrich's culpability in providing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct information that was not accurate, reliable, and complete. It is up to the Members of this House to determine the appropriate sanction for the violations committed by Mr. Gingrich. This is not a vote on whether Mr. Gingrich should remain Speaker of the House. Members need time to become familiar with the factual record presented in the special counsel's report and to consider the seriousness of these violations that have just come to light during the past 4 days. In the days and weeks to come Mr. Gingrich and each Member of this House should consider how these charges bear on the question of the speakership. The resolution before us, the House, today is a sanction for Representative Gingrich for the ethics violations that he has committed. According to the House rules a reprimand is appropriate for serious violations of ethical standards. Sadly, Mr. Gingrich's conduct requires us to confirm that this case involves infractions of at least that level of seriousness. He has provided inaccurate and misleading information to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and there is significant evidence that he intended to do so. The recent history of congressional ethics sanctions indicate the House has imposed the sanction of reprimand when a Member has been found knowingly to have given false statements. But the earlier cases did not involve giving false statements to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct itself in response to an inquiry from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and Mr. Gingrich's case involves more than just giving false information to the committee. Mr. Gingrich has also admitted to directing a political empire that made extensive use of tax exempt entities for political fundraising purposes. As a result of all these actions, the reputation of the House of Representatives has been damaged and tax dollars have been lost. But there is still more. This is not the first time Mr. Gingrich has had ethical problems that drew critical action by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. On other occasions he has been sighted by this committee for violating House rules. The American public has not forgotten the lucrative book advance contract that the incoming Speaker of the House was forced to renounce under public pressure. Our committee concluded in regards to that book deal: ``At a minimum this creates the impression of exploiting one's office for personal gain. Such perception is especially troubling when it pertains to the Office of the Speaker of the House, a constitutional office requiring the highest standards of ethical behavior.'' Because of all those factors, these violations require a penalty more serious than a reprimand. Considering all these matters, I urge this House to adopt the resolution before us. The resolution incorporates the recommendation of the special counsel, the investigative subcommittee, the full Committee on Standards of Official, and Mr. Gingrich. The sanction we recommend is somewhere between a reprimand and a censure. It provides a reprimand plus a required $300,000 contribution by Mr. Gingrich to the cost of these proceedings. In my view this payment should come from his personal resources because it is a personal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, with today's vote I will have completed my service on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Over the past 6 years and 1 month I have participated in many ethics matters. Among the issues that we had before the committee during my tenure has been not only this matter but the House bank and post office matters, both of which exposed many Members of this House, including its leadership, to embarrassment either for misdeeds or for mismanagement. I must say, however, that the matter before us today has brought a threat to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that far exceeded anything I have seen. The committee was subject to repeated attempts to obstruct its work and improperly interfere with its investigation. As I leave the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I hope that the incoming Members will find the process has survived and will continue to serve this House and the people of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the chairwoman of our committee. These are very tough penalties, and the violation of the rules justify these tough sanctions. The sanctions are being recommended not because Mr. Gingrich is the Speaker of the House. They are being recommended because Mr. Gingrich is a Member of this House. These sanctions would be appropriate for any Member of this House who committed the violations that have now been established by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and have now been admitted to by Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich made a decision that any Member has the right to make. He has admitted to the charges. He has done that in order to avoid the necessity of a trial. That is his decision, and one which I think we all must respect, but the underlying facts as to why this sanction is so severe, I think, will become obvious to any one of us if we will read the report of the special counsel which now has been approved not only by the bipartisan investigative committee but by the full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It points to the fact that this was not a college course. It was a course conceived within a political movement. Read pages 38 and 39. It was conceived in a political movement. It was conceived as the only way, according to Mr. Gingrich, to get the message out, to get the political message out. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, but we do not use tax exempt organizations to get a political message out. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, about the meeting of tax lawyers. In all due respect, this report was just released 4 days ago. The facts and circumstances are just now known to the American people. The political motivation and the action on that political motivation is now just known by the American people. Mr. Gingrich commingled tax exempt organizations with his political agenda. He did it because he could not raise enough money in the political PAC's. That is part of our record. This was a new way to raise money, a new avenue in which he could promise his contributors a tax exemption to boot. That is wrong. He did it because he needed the money in order to get his political message out. And that is wrong. There is ample evidence here that tax laws were violated, and it is not a close case, but we do not need to reach that conclusion. As the special counsel's report concludes, this is a bipartisan conclusion, Mr. Gingrich should have sought tax advice. The reason he did not seek that tax advice was either that he knew it would be wrong and he did not want to get that advice or he was reckless in his conduct. Make no mistake about this. This is reckless conduct, at least reckless conduct, over a long period of time dating back 5 years, involving four tax exempt organizations costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars of legitimate tax needs. But there is more to this case than just the tax issues. We have letters that misled the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. As the special counsel has pointed out, there is ample evidence, there is significant evidence here that he intentionally did this. No, we do not reach that conclusion. The record was frozen by his admission. But we do reach the conclusion that this was either intentional conduct to mislead this House and the ethics process or it was reckless conduct. Now, that is more than innocent mistakes. We have reached conclusions that these are not just innocent mistakes. Mr. Gingrich's explanation that he is sensitive to the ethics process, he was embarrassed, and he came forward as soon as he knew they were in error, just does not wash with the record that has been presented to you today. There is more to it than that, and the special counsel's record reflects that, and we need to take cognizance of that. So we have a series of conduct that was either reckless or intentional and it cost this House and our reputation dearly. That is why the sanction is before us. Not because he is Speaker of the House but because a Member of the House has brought disgrace to this Chamber. I am proud of the fact that we have a bipartisan recommendation here today. That is very important. The process has worked. Democrats and Republicans have come together and have performed one of their most important constitutional responsibilities, to judge the conduct of our own Members, and we have done that, and we have reached an agreement, and the agreement is right, and Mr. Gingrich has agreed on that assessment. Now it is time for us to do right as a full House. It is time for us to support the recommendations of the Ethics Committee to send a very clear message that every Member of this House must adhere to the highest standards when it comes to their personal conduct that can bring discredit to this House and to their conduct with the Ethics Committee and the information that they make available to our committee. I urge my colleagues to support this recommendation. Let us approve it overwhelmingly and then, yes, let us get on with the business of this House, Democrats and Republicans working together to do the people's business.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume briefly to comment on some of the points raised by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] is correct, we are in agreement on the recommendation. We put different emphasis on some of the facts. Mr. Gingrich clearly, in my view, had ample opportunity to know about the statements in his letters. He did indicate he hired an attorney in order to draft the two letters. Let me just read, if I might, from the transcripts as to the exchange between Mr. Cole and Mr. Baran, Mr. Baran being Mr. Gingrich's attorney. Mr. Cole: ``Would you have made sure that he had read it and approved it, or just the fact he read it is all you would have been interested in,'' referring to Mr. Gingrich? Mr. Baran said, ``No, I would have wanted him to be comfortable with this on many levels.'' Mr. Cole: ``Were you satisfied he was comfortable with it prior to filing it with the committee?'' Mr. Baran: ``Yes.'' Let me also point out that after this, after we pointed out to Mr. Gingrich the inconsistency in the letters, Mr. Gingrich wrote another letter back to the committee. Clearly he had time to review the inconsistencies by that time. The October 31, 1996, letter, in that letter he still maintains his innocence on inconsistencies in the letter, even though the letters were clearly inaccurate, he knew they were inaccurate, and he had a chance to reread the letters and correct the record. Mr. Speaker, I yield 11\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], my colleague on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, who was on the investigative subcommittee and who has made a great contribution to this process and has been an extraordinary member of our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], a very valuable member of the Select Committee on Ethics, who has done yeoman's service for the House and for the Congress on that committee. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Pikesville Volunteer Fire Company on its 100th anniversary. It all began on February 4, 1897 when a group of local citizens met for the first time to discuss the need for organized fire protection, they met at the Odd Fellow's Hall. During this meeting, the group nominated several names for the fire company, The Pikesville Volunteer Fire Company won the election by an overwhelming margin of 23 to 6. The following year, a fire hall was built and a community wide dedication celebrated its opening. Known as the company of first, the Pikesville Volunteer Fire Company is a leader in volunteer fire protection. Its members are made up of both civilian and military personnel. In fact, each year, a memorial service honors members of the Fire Company who served their country as well as their community. Today, their membership roll is over 150 (a third of whom are active service) which provides enough manpower to keep the Pikesville Volunteer Fire Company responsive to the thousands of calls each year from the community. I hope my colleagues will join me in extending congratulations to the Pikesville Volunteer Fire Company in celebrating its 100-year history in Baltimore County, and in thanking these volunteers for contributing to the growth and safety of the Pikesville community.