Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just wanted to correct the record on that because the subcommittee was in constant contact with the ranking member and chairman since December 21 to deal with the schedule, and at no time was there any delay caused because of someone being out of town. Mr. Cole, in his public statement today, has reaffirmed the position that there has been absolutely no delay in this case and in fact every day our committee met on conference calls.

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

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me just point out one thing. Although we requested about 30 days ago what the transition rule would look like, we got our first draft of it yesterday morning. So we just got the transition rule yesterday morning. The second point I would point out is that Mr. Cole and the subcommittee, they are very familiar with the voluminous documents. We do not have enough time to get a quality report to the House under this time schedule.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the ranking member of the executive subcommittee that is charged with the investigation of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich]. Our subcommittee has worked in a professional, bipartisan manner. We are proud of the product that we have brought forward to the full Ethics Committee and to this House. We want to make sure that the process continues in a professional, bipartisan manner. On behalf of all four members of the committee, two Democrats and two Republicans, we are disappointed by one provision in the rules package that puts a limit on the remaining time in which we can work, which is unrealistic. The special counsel has told us that that limit could very much impact the manner in which we carry out our work and prevent us from continuing in a professional, bipartisan manner. I want to stress the point: We come as two Democrats and two Republicans, in a bipartisan manner, and ask the Members to change one provision in the rules package. I am very disappointed. A month ago the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], and myself met with the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Armey] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt,] in an effort to avoid this day, when we are on the floor without a rule on which we are in agreement in carrying out the work of our committee. We recognized at that time that there may be a need for us to continue our work into the new Congress. We were assured that we would have bipartisan cooperation. Unfortunately, that broke down today. I regret that. We understand that putting January 21 as the deadline for our subcommittee jeopardizes our work. Let me quote, if I might, from Mr. Cole, our special counsel, a person who is far more objective than, I would say, anyone else in this Chamber: In analyzing the time necessary for a sanction hearing and a vote on the House floor, I have recommended a schedule that will allow this to be accomplished in a fair and orderly fashion. In doing that, however, it will be necessary for the vote on the House floor to occur after January 21, 1997. Each member of the subcommittee has carefully considered the recommended schedule and agrees it is the best course in which to proceed. This schedule has been communicated to leaderships of both parties and unanimously recommended by the subcommittee and the special counsel that it be adopted. If we keep this time limit in, let me just explain some of the problems we are going to run into. We do not have adequate time to prepare for the public sanction hearing. In the last several days and weeks we have been totally consumed, because of what has happened out there, with partisan attacks by both Democrats and Republicans. We have tried to keep this on a bipartisan basis. Give us the time to complete it in a bipartisan fashion. It forecloses certain options that the full committee may need to do. Now, let me tell you, we know more, the four of us, than any of the other Members of the House as to what is involved in this investigation. It may be necessary for us to call additional witnesses. The schedule makes it impossible for us even to consider that. It is wrong for the full House to deny the ethics committee those options. It is wrong for the full House to say that we cannot have adequate time to prepare our report so you know what you are doing when we vote. I want to thank the Democratic leadership because they are going to give us a motion to commit that will give us a chance to return to a bipartisan understanding on bringing this matter to a successful conclusion. I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on that motion to commit. The only change, the only change is to remove that January 21 deadline so that we have adequate time in order to do our work in a bipartisan basis. Let me just tell my colleagues one other thing: Some people say, why could we not get it done earlier, why have we not done things quicker. Special counsel has also referred to that in his report where he is very clear about the work of the four members of our subcommittee. We have worked every day on this issue. We have met with Members. We have talked among ourselves. And we have worked in what we think is the best interests of this House. We think that we deserve the respect of this House to give us the time that we say that we need. This is not coming from the two Democrats, this is coming from the two Democrats and the two Republicans. For the life of me, I do not understand how this House can deny the ethics committee the time that it needs in order to complete this work. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to commit.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, one of the most significant changes in our economy in recent years has been the growth of staffing firms. These firms employ individuals on a temporary or a long-term basis and assign them to client companies as needed. The rapid expansion of these employment arrangements in our economy has give rise to a number of difficult questions in the area of employment taxes, as well as retirement, health, and other benefits. Our Nation's tax laws require employers to collect employment taxes, and offer tax-favored treatment for employer-provided fringe benefits. Within our existing tax system, the ability to identify clearly who is the employer of a group of workers is crucial to the enforcement of the law. These issues also have important consequences for working Americans seeking the benefits of health insurance and pension coverage through their employment. As more and more companies make use of staffing firms in meeting their needs for temporary and long-term workers, it will become necessary for the Congress to examine the application of our tax laws to these arrangements. Among the issues we must consider are the ability of staffing firms under existing law to act as employer for the purposes of collecting and paying employment taxes, as well as retirement and health benefits. I have been working, along with my Ways and Means colleague Rep. Portman, on a proposal that addresses many of these issues. We are putting the proposal forward at this time in the hope that it will draw comment from concerned parties. We hope to continue to work on this issue in the 105th Congress. The draft proposal, along with a brief section by section summary, follows. Technical Summary of Staffing Firm Worker Benefits Act of 1996 Overview. In general, the bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to make it clear that a ``qualified staffing firm'' is the employer of the employees covered by staffing arrangements, both for purposes of employment tax liability and for purposes of employee benefit plan sponsorship. The bill also amends the leased employee and separate line of business provisions of Code section 414 to encourage retirement and fringe benefit coverage of employees of qualified staffing firms. Introduction/Section 1. Staffing firms serve a variety of business needs, and their services are referred to in a variety of ways, e.g., temporary help, long-term staffing, managed services, and professional employer arrangements. In the latter type of arrangement, primarily small to mid-size firms transfer their payroll and human resources functions to the staffing firm in order to concentrate on their core business. Staffing firms provide their services to customers on a contract or fee basis. The workers supplied by the staffing firm assumes the role of employer with respect to these workers in a number of ways, e.g., paying the workers' wages, paying employment taxes with respect to these wages, retaining authority for hiring, reassigning, and dismissing the workers, etc. Because of the nature of their work, though, staffing firm employees normally are under the day- to-day supervision of the customer where they work. The relationship that staffing firms typically establish with customers is built on the fundamental premise that the staffing firm, and not the customer, is responsible to staffing firm employees who work at the customer's work site for the payment of wages, and to the extent applicable, any specified employee benefits. While in many staffing arrangements there is no question that the staffing firm is the employer of its employees under the traditional common- law test, in other staffing arrangements this is less clear. For example, the Internal Revenue Service has established a market segment study of the ``employee leasing'' industry and is questioning whether, in certain types of arrangements involving staffing firms, the staffing firm is properly regarded as the ``employer'' for purposes of employment tax withholding and for purposes of maintaining employee benefit plans. An adverse holding on these issues could undermine the 401(k) and other benefits of staffing firm employees, as well as disrupt the business relationship between the staffing firm and the customer. Section 2. This section of this bill is designed to codify the status of a ``qualified staffing firm'' as the entity with exclusive responsibility for federal employment taxes (income, FICA, and FUTA) with respect to workers covered by contracts between the firm and its customers. Implicit in this rule is that the customer will not have liability for such employment taxes if, for some reason, the qualified staffing firm does not pay. This special rule is intended to apply only with respect to workers who are properly classified as employees, and not independent contractors, and to clarify that the qualified staffing firm, and not the customer, is these employees' employer. The rule applies whether or not the qualified staffing firm would otherwise be held to be the employer of these employees under the common-law test. No inference is intended as to the employer status of a qualified staffing firm under the common-law test. Section 2(d) defines a ``qualified staffing firm'' for purposes of the special ``employer'' treatment accorded by the bill. This definition requires that the staffing firm must be liable for the worker's wages, the related employment taxes, and any agreed-upon employee benefits, without regard to the receipt or adequacy of the customer's payments. In addition, the staffing firm must have authority to hire, reassign, and dismiss the workers, and must maintain employee records relating to the workers, and must have responsibility for addressing the workers' complaints, claims, etc., relating to their employment. The fact that the customer may also have some involvement in these matters will not preclude a staffing firm from qualifying under this definition. Thus, the requirements of the definition will be met even though the staffing firm may take into account the customer's views in hiring or dismissing workers, the customer may maintain its own set of records with respect to the workers, or the customer may share responsibility for addressing the workers' complaints, claims, etc. Section 3. This section amends an existing rule in section 7701(a)(20) in the Internal Revenue Code for full-time life insurance salesmen. That rule treats such sales representatives, who otherwise would be classified as independent contractors, as common-law employees for purposes of certain specified employee common-law employees for purposes of certain specified employee benefits. This enables them to enjoy the tax-favored treatment that the Code affords such benefits when furnished to employees. The bill does not alter the rule for the life insurance salesmen, but adds a new subparagraph (B) that is designed to treat individuals who would be treated as employees of the qualified staffing firm under the employment tax provisions as employees of such firm for purposes of the employee benefit provisions that are listed in the text. The employee benefits provisions include those relating to group-term life insurance, accident and health plans, profit-sharing and retirement plans (including 401(k) and savings plans, but excluding defined benefit plans), cafeteria plans, dependent care programs, educational assistance programs, employer- provided fringe benefits, VEBAs, and employee achievement awards. The bill also makes it clear that these individuals will be treated as employees of the staffing firm for purposes of applying the provisions of section 414(n), and thus may be counted as ``leased employees'' of the customer if the other requirements of section 414(n) are met. In addition, the bill clarifies that a worker will be treated as having separated from service if the worker ceases to be employed by the customer and becomes employed by the qualified staffing firm, or ceases to be employed by the qualified staffing firm and becomes employed by the customer. This will allow distribution of the worker's benefits under the 401(k) or retirement plan of the worker's prior employer. This provision is not intended to negate the application of the special leased employee service crediting rule under section 414(n)(4)(B). Section 4. The bill contemplates that the general ``leased employee'' rule of section 414(n) will continue to apply to a customer. Under this rule, the customer must count a ``leased employee'' as its own employee for purposes of testing its plans under the IRS coverage and nondiscrimination rules. Section 4(a) of the bill amends the leased employee provisions in section 414(n) so that they apply for purposes of section 401(k) and 401(m). This is intended to ensure that a customer will get credit, in accordance with section 414(n)(1)(B), for elective deferrals, matching contributions, and employee contributions, that are made on behalf of a leased employee. Section 4(b) of the bill clarifies that a customer may choose to include a qualified staffing firm employee in the customer's plan as long as the employee is a leased employee of the customer, or would be a leased employee, but for the fact that the person has not yet worked the requisite time period specified in section 414(n)(2)(B) to be a leased employee. The bill language is designed to ensure that a qualified staffing firm worker who is covered by a customer's plan will be treated as an employee of the customer for purposes of applying the tax rules governing customer contributions to such plan, the tax-exempt status of any related trust under the plan, and distributions or payments under such plan. This provision applies for purposes of benefits that are tested by application of the leased employee rules, and also for purposes of stock option plans, section 403(b) annuities, and accident and health plans. Section 4(c) of the bill sets forth provisions for the treatment of qualified staffing firm employees under the qualified staffing firm's plans, including streamlining the qualified staffing firm's access to the separate line of business rules of section 414(r). The separate line of business rules recognize that if an employer's employees are in multiple lines of businesses, each line of business may have its own competitive pressures, which may, in turn, affect the level of benefits the employer can provide to workers in those lines. Accordingly, the separate line of business rules generally allow an employer that has ``qualified separate lines of businesses'' to apply the IRS coverage and nondiscrimination rules separately to employees in each such lien of business. However, under the existing separate lien of business rules, a number of requirements must be met before an employer can be said to have ``qualified separate lines of business,'' including a requirement that there be at least 50 employees in the line of business, and that the line of business satisfy certain administrative guidelines. Section 4(c) of the bill allows automatic separate lien of business treatment for those employees of a qualified staffing firm who are leased employees of a customer, or who would be leased employees of the customer but for the fact that they have not worked the requisite time period under section 414(n)(2)(B). The rationale for this simplified rule is the fact that section 414(n) treats these employees, once they qualify as leased employees, as employees of the customer for IRS coverage and nondiscrimination rules. Under the circumstances, it is inappropriate to require these workers to be counted twice under the coverage and nondiscrimination tests, once by the customer and once by the qualified staffing firm, without affording the qualified staffing firm access to the separate line of business rules. This provision affords comparable treatment in applying the nondiscrimination rules applicable to medical reimbursement plans under section 105(h) and cafeteria plans. The bill also provides that if the separate lien of business segment of a qualified staffing firm's plan fails to meet the applicable IRS coverage and nondiscrimination rules, then the effect of disqualification will be confined to that segment of the plan. A special anti-abuse rule is included to make sure that employees who would be treated as highly compensated employees if they were employed by the customer are so treated under the qualified staffing firm's plan. Section 5. This provision revises the current safe-harbor rule in section 414(n)(5) which allows a customer to disregard a leased employee for purposes of applying the coverage and nondiscrimination rules to its retirement or 401(k) plan if the leased employee is covered under a safe- harbor plan, and if leased employees in general comprise less than 20 percent of the customer's rank-and-file work force. The bill amends the requirements which relate to a safe- harbor plan to incorporate certain features that have been proposed as part of pension simplification in connection with 401(k) safe harbors. Under the new safe-harbor plan requirements, only employees working for the particular customer desiring relief from the leased employee rules would have to be covered by the plan, not all employees of the qualified staffing firm who perform services for customers. The bill also reduces the level of required contribution under a safe-harbor plan from 10 percent to 3 percent. If the safe-harbor plan is a profit-sharing plan, contributions may not be distributed to the employee until the occurrence of an event permitting distribution under the section 401(k) rules, e.g., separation from service. As previously noted, an employee will be treated as having separated from service if the employee ceases to be employed by the qualified staffing firm and becomes employed by the customer. Section 5(b) of the bill provides a safe-harbor rule for other employee benefit plans that would allow a customer to disregard leased employees for purposes of applying the coverage and nondiscrimination rules for employee benefit plans referred to in section 414(n)(3)(C) to the extent provided for in Treasury regulations. Section 6. This section specifies the effective date of these provisions. Transition relief is afforded for existing plans.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the Eastern Baltimore Area Chamber of Commerce on its 50th anniversary of outstanding service to the community. The Eastern Baltimore Area Chamber is one of Maryland's most effective local chambers. In the chamber's early days, it was instrumental in establishing the first public library and first YMCA in Baltimore County. Over the years, the chamber's influence has grown to include its involvement in important policy issues such as critical area legislation and Baltimore County's master plan. In bringing together leaders from business, industry, and the community, the chamber has been at the forefront of economic progress in our area. In addition, the chamber has been an invaluable resource in helping Baltimore city and Baltimore County businesses expand and grow. From historic preservation, to infrastructure improvements to the health of the Port of Baltimore, the chamber has taken a leading role in fostering a strong economic environment. The chamber's involvement has played a key role in the overall economic health of our entire region. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Eastern Baltimore Area Chamber of Commerce on a job well done. The time and effort put forth by the chamber and its many members have enabled Baltimore County and Baltimore city to develop into a strong competitive economic region.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I am a strong proponent of updating Medicare to include coverage of important preventive benefits. One of the most important preventive benefits we can add to Medicare is colon cancer screening. Today, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the existence of an important upcoming date: October 5, 1996. This day has been set aside by the United Ostomy Association and the International Ostomy Association to celebrate World Ostomy Day. This day will provide an opportunity for us all to increase our awareness and understanding of ostomy and continent rehabilitation and the disease that can lead to this type of surgery. An estimated 750,000 people in the United States have had ostomy surgery. Ostomy refers to a surgical procedure that replaces normal bodily function in providing a cure for colon and rectal cancers, inflammatory bowel diseases including colitis and Crohn's disease, birth defects, and severe internal injuries. Approximately 60 percent of all ostomy surgeries are performed as a result of colon cancer. Colon cancer is the second most common cancer in America and, contrary to popular belief, it strikes men and women equally. There are more than 140,000 new cases diagnosed each year, and more than 55,000 men and women die of this cancer annually. Like most cancers, early detection of colorectal cancer is crucial to the survival of those diagnosed with this deadly disease. The United Ostomy Association provides psychological and educational services and support for individuals, and their families, who face ostomy or continent surgery. Education and awareness help to remove the fear and misunderstanding associated with ostomy surgery and encourages the continuation of a full and productive life after surgery. The United Ostomy Association has over 35,000 members in chapters throughout the United States and Canada. Through World Ostomy Day, the United Ostomy Association and the International Ostomy Association seek to inform persons with an ostomy or continent procedure of the support and assistance services that are available through their chapters and to encourage a better understanding and acceptance of people who have had ostomy or continent surgery. I commend these organizations for their important work with those who must undergo ostomy surgery and for helping to education us all. During this session of Congress we have made a strong case that Medicare reform must be more than simply slashing reimbursement levels. If we want true Medicare reform, we must update the program so that it can take advantage of medical technological advances. Preventive care such as colon cancer screening is a perfect example of such needed improvement. Not only will the inclusion of colon cancer screening save lives, it will also save money in the long-run. Including colon cancer screening in Medicare is a win-win situation. I will be reintroducing my legislation, the Colon Cancer Screening and Prevention Act, next Congress and look forward to working with my colleagues to gain passage of this important component of Medicare reform.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the School of Nursing, University of Maryland at Baltimore and Dr. Barbara R. Heller, Dean of the School, as it breaks ground on a new building and marks an important milestone in the history of the institution, nursing education and the nursing profession. The School of Nursing, ranked in the top 10 nationally and one of the largest institutions of nursing education in the country, is in the forefront of nursing education, research and clinical service. Students are provided with the knowledge and skills they need to practice in a dynamically changing, global health care marketplace. The school targets critical local, State and national problems through research in such areas as the health of mothers and infants, drug abuse, oncology, geriatrics, school/child health, trauma/critical care, community health and AIDS prevention. Through growing clinical practice initiatives, the school offers vital primary and preventive services throughout Maryland. While enriching the academic experience for many students, these affordable, accessible nurse-managed, community-based health centers served as models of health care delivery to underserved and uninsured populations. I urge my colleagues to join me in saluting the efforts of the School of Nursing to refocus, redefine and reengineer nursing education. I also congratulate the faculty, students and staff as they break ground on a new facility, building the future of our Nation's health care delivery system through education.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the issue presented by H.R. 1833, the partial birth abortion bill, is one that requires careful thought and consideration. The medical procedure that is addressed by this legislation is, in my judgment and in the judgment of hundreds of my constituents, gruesome. My vote today to sustain the President's veto in no way indicates my support for that procedure. The fact is, however, that it is a medical procedure. With no medical training, I am not qualified, and I do not think this Congress is qualified, to rule on the necessity of specific medical decisions. This is a medical question, not a political one. If this bill were to become law, it would establish the precedent of Congress placing in our criminal statutes specific medical procedures. That would be a mistake. It would a different matter to have a straight-forward debate about the circumstances under which late-term abortions are medically justified. However, that is not what we're doing today. Instead, we are debating whether to outlaw a specific medical procedure. I am dismayed that the American Medical Association, or other appropriate governing bodies of medical professionals, has not stepped forward on this issue. They have the expertise and the responsibility to rule on the necessity of this procedure, and I have urged them, in writing, to do so. I hope they will yet act to guide their members on whether this hideous procedure is, in fact, in some cases the only medically safe option to preserve the life and future health of the woman. I have always defended the right of each woman to make her own decisions about her reproductive rights. The bill before us raises the question whether a particular medical procedure is ever appropriate for any woman. According to many doctors, there are horrific instances where this procedure is the best option for protecting the woman's life and/or health and her ability to have children in the future. I will vote against this bill because, for all the emotion of this issue, I do not believe Congress knows enough to tell doctors how to act in certain circumstances.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, once again let me thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] for his leadership on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, we are going to be able to enact this legislation. Why we are going to be able to do it, it is because it is the right mix. We have a well-balanced bill. It is good for small businesses and it is also good for those people who work for small businesses. It provides real help to small businesses by extending tax credit provisions for work opportunity tax credits; employer-provided educational assistance; the R&D credit; retirement simplification that I talked about before, and which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] has talked about; the small business expensing, where it helps small businesses because it increases the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, I hope we will use this formula in the future in considering legislation, and rather than looking at extreme legislation, let us look at well-balanced legislation. It is in the interests of our constituents, and I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. CARDIN. First let me thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to support this rule and the conference report. It contains very important provisions increasing the minimum wage and extending some very important tax credit provisions that will help create more jobs and investment in our community. I would like to just mention one provision in the conference report that I take pride that we are finally going to get enacted, that is, pension simplification that will help many businesses in this country and many small businesses particularly. I started working on this issue 5 years ago when I filed legislation in this area. I did it because the savings ratios of this country indicate very clearly that we must encourage more private sector investment and savings. Retirement plans, particularly for small companies, were on the decline because of the red tape and difficulty in establishing a pension plan for small businesses. In 1992 many of the provisions that are included in this conference report were passed by a Democratic Congress and vetoed by a Republican President for reasons totally unrelated to the retirement provisions, because they were included in an omnibus bill. Then again on 1995 these provisions were passed by a Republican Congress, vetoed by a Democratic President, again for reasons totally unrelated to the retirement provisions. The third time is the charm. It looks like we are finally going to get these provisions enacted into law. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] for the work that he has done on pension simplification. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the ranking member, for making sure that these provisions were included in this very important legislation. This is a very important provision for the small businesses in our country. it will allow them to expand and set up retirement 401(K) plans that will encourage more people to be able to plan for their retirement. I congratulate the committees for including this in the legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the American people are shocked and outraged over the tragedies of TWA Flight 800 and at the Olympic Park. The American people want us to show determination and common sense in giving our Nation's law enforcement community the tools it needs to fight terrorism. One proposal is to put chemical markers, or taggants, in gun powder to help the FBI identify the vicious cowards responsible for bombings. What sensible person would side with the bombers and against the FBI? We have a chance, before we leave this week, to do what the American people would do if they could vote themselves. The President has asked us to pass this antiterrorism proposal. Unfortunately, the long arm of the National Rifle Association has reached into this House and prevented us from even taking the issue up. It is time for this House to stand with the American people, and stand up to the NRA. Let's pass meaningful antiterrorism legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me first start by thanking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly my two friends on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentlemen from California, Mr. Stark and Mr. Thomas, for bringing forward a bill on health care reform. Mr. Speaker, I support the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, the bill from conference that is before us. This bill is not a panacea of health care reform, but it is a good bill, on balance, that expands access to health coverage for working Americans. When this bill is signed into law, it will ensure that if you have insurance, you can keep it. This is an important change from today's system. It will provide a new measure of health security for working Americans. The conference report before us ensures that working Americans with preexisting conditions cannot be denied health insurance as long as they maintain coverage. In addition, it would prevent insurance companies from using genetic information to deny health coverage. It is absurd that today's genetic testing advances are being used by insurance companies to deny coverage. This bill will end that practice. Mr. Speaker, let me just give one example of how a typical working family can benefit from the legislation before us. The bill will provide someone the freedom to leave IBM to start their own computer company, even if a member of that person's family is suffering from diabetes. Today that person would be unable to find an insurance company who would cover the family if they went out on their own. After passage of this legislation, that person would be able to pursue that career without the fear of putting their family's health in danger. In addition to the health insurance reforms, the bill would equalize the tax treatment of health insurance premiums between the self- employed and major corporations. This change, based on legislation I authored, will benefit thousands of small business owners around our country. Today's consideration of this bill is long overdue. It is an important step. However, it is by no means the final step or even a comprehensive solution to health reform. The bill fails to address affordability of health insurance. This is a vital issue which we must not overlook. We still have a long way to go. I urge my colleagues to continue to work together for comprehensive health care reform to extend health coverage to all Americans.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, one of our great colleagues recently passed away, Hamilton Fish, Jr. During a memorial service held in his behalf, Ralph Neas of the leadership conference on civil rights delivered eloquent remarks which I am inserting into the Record at this point: Remarks of Ralph G. Neas at the Memorial Service for Congressman Hamilton Fish. Jr. Mary Ann, Hamilton, Alexa, Nicholas, Peter, others in the Fish family, Speaker Gingrich, Members of Congress, and distinguished guests, I am profoundly grateful and deeply honored to have this opportunity to help celebrate the extraordinary life and legislative career of Congressman Hamilton Fish, Jr. As the Executive Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the legislative arm of the civil rights movement, I had the privilege of working with Ham Fish on nearly two dozen legislative campaigns between 1981 and 1995. Hamilton Fish was a civil rights champion, a mentor, and a close friend. During the past week, the press coverage of Ham's thirteen terms in Congress has accurately characterized his personal integrity, his principled leadership, and his courageous commitment to equal opportunity for all Americans. But, frankly, what I have read does not capture the sheer magnitude of Ham Fish's legislative accomplishments or, very importantly, the manner in which he achieved them. For a few minutes, I would like to share with you my perspective on this great man. First, let us look at Ham Fish's civil rights record. It was legendary in its scope and breadth. Propelled by an awesome sense of justice and a determination not to rest until he had completed his mission, Ham Fish played an important role in virtuality every civil rights law enacted over the past two and a half decades. Even during the Reagan and Bush presidencies, when Ham often faced formidable odds, he helped shepherd through Congress nearly a score of civil rights laws. Indeed, during this remarkable era, Ham, along with Don Edwards, his Democratic partner in guarding the Constitution, actually strengthened all the major civil rights statutes. To sum up all these legislative successes would take up most of the morning. But I would like to mention specifically five landmark laws where Ham Fish was either the House author or the lead Republican sponsor. And, with respect to several of them. Ham was the legislator who fashioned the bipartisan compromise that catapulted the bill toward passage. The 1982 Voting Rights Act Extension: Extended the Voting Rights Act of twenty-five years, overturned an adverse Supreme Court decision, and extended for ten years bilingual ballot assistance for language minorities. The Civil Rights Restoration Act (1988): Overturned the notorious 1984 Grove City Supreme Court decision and once again made it illegal to use Federal funds to discriminate against women, minorities, persons with disabilities, and older Americans. The Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988: Provided at long last an effective enforcement mechanism for the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The 1988 Amendments also prohibited discrimination in housing against families with children and people with disabilities for the first time. The Civil Rights Act of 1991: Overturned eight Supreme Court decisions that had dramatically weakened our nation's equal employment opportunity laws. And provides, for the first time, monetary damages for women and persons with disabilities who are victims of intentional discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act (1990): Prohibits discrimination against 49 million Americans with disabilities in employment, public accommodations, communications and transportation. These historic civil rights laws have benefitted, and will continue to benefit, millions of Americans. And let me state this as unequivocally as possible: these laws would not have been enacted without Congressman Hamilton Fish. His leadership during the most challenging of times was absolutely indispensable. But it was not just the quantity and qualify of these civil rights laws, or the legislative skills that made them possible, that made Hamilton Fish so special. In fact, his other attributes are what truly set him apart, providing standards of leadership that should serve as a model for everyone. First, Ham Fish always understood thoroughly the need for bipartisanship. He knew how to build coalitions and forge a consensus. He knew the art of the timely compromise, the good compromise made at the right time that will produce the requisite number of votes, either a simple majority or a super majority, that is needed to enact a law. The numerical results of the legislative victories I cited previously amply demonstrate this commitment to bipartisanship. The average final passage vote on these five laws was 90 percent of both Houses of Congress. Thanks to Ham Fish and his allies, he past decade and a half has been, legislatively, a bipartisan reaffirmation of civil rights laws and remedies. Second, while Ham Fish was passionate in his beliefs, civility characterized his every action. He treated everyone with dignity. Few in Washington have matched his ability to command both the respect and the love of his peers. Time and again he proved that a nice guy can finish first. Third, Ham Fish revered the institution in which he served. He enjoyed immensely being a member of the House of Representatives and always strove to make the House work. And while the House held his primary allegiance, he also respected the other institutions that comprise the Federal Government. When the need arose, Ham Fish could be a fierce partisan. But he knew that bipartisan cooperation, not partisan confrontation, must ultimately prevail if government is to function at all. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, Ham Fish was courageous. Whether it was voting to impeach a President of his own party or standing firm on civil rights legislation, Ham Fish did what he believed to be fair and just. Last week, Congressman Maurice Hinchey summarized eloquently how Ham carefully balanced loyalty and independence in order to further the national interest. He stated: ``Ham was very proud to be called a loyal Republican, but he knew that loyalty does not mean surrender of one's own judgment and temperament * * * He believed that he served his party best when he served his country best, and that he served the country best by bringing the best of his own mind and heart to every issue he addressed.'' After he retired from the House, Ham Fish continued to work on behalf of his favorite issues. Just last month the two of us visited Senator Nancy Kassebaum and Congressman Amo Houghton lobbying on behalf of affirmative action and legal services. As you can tell by now, I cherished my friendship with Ham. He was always there to help, performing any task with graceful enthusiasm. I will miss so much his warm smile, his mischievous sense of humor, and his calm and gentle presence. As I sat praying at St. Albans chapel this morning, I thanked God for allowing Katy and me the opportunity to get to know Ham. And I was thankful that we all had the benefit of Ham's leadership at critical moments during our nation's past quarter of a century. As we leave the chapel shortly, let us all pray that God will bless America with a few more Ham Fishes.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] for yielding me the time. Let me say to my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], first, congratulations on a job very well done and come on back over on this side of the aisle a little bit more frequently. I think that if we would have started working together in a bipartisan spirit, we could have had a better bill today, and we could have gotten here a little bit sooner. But I thank the gentleman very much for the way in which he has provided leadership on this issue. I know it has been heartfelt, and I know he has worked very, very hard. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report because I think it is important that we return welfare to what it was originally intended to be, and that is a transitional temporary program to help those people that are in need. The current system does not do that. We cannot defend the current system. But let me make it clear to my colleagues, the bill before us is a far better bill than the bill that was originally brought forward by the Republicans 2 years ago, the bill that was vetoed twice by the President. We have a better bill here today. It is a bill that provides for major improvement in child support enforcement, something all of us agreed to; provides protective services for our children, which was not in the original bill; provides health insurance to people coming off of welfare, something that is very important; day care services, another important ingredient that people are going to get off welfare to work. Food stamps are in much better condition than the bill that was vetoed by the President. There is a Federal contingency fund in case of a downturn of our economy, and we have maintenance of effort requirements on our States so we can assure that there are certain minimum standards that are met in protecting people in our society. The bottom line is that this bill is better than the current system. It could have been better, and I regret that. I am not sure there is enough resources in this bill to make sure that people get adequate education and job training in order to find employment, and I look forward to working with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] to make sure that this becomes a reality. But I do urge my colleagues to support the conference report because bottom line: It is far better than the current system. Yes, we are going to take a risk to get people off of welfare to work, but the current system is not fair either to the welfare recipient or the taxpayer. This conference report is far better, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding me this time and thank him for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2823 and against the Miller- Studds amendment. I first want to compliment my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, for his leadership on this legislation. He has done a great job in bringing this issue forward, which would implement the Panama Declaration by opening up the U.S. market to tuna caught in compliance with the Tuna Commission Program, which would reduce dolphin mortality, lessen the bycatch of other forms of marine life and sustain dolphin and fish populations for the future. Mr. Chairman, people are most concerned with the practice of dolphin encirclement by fishing vessels. The rate of dolphin mortality under the Panama Declaration has dramatically declined because of the declaration's goals to strictly limit any deaths, provide tuna-boat crew training, and require internationally trained observers on all tuna vessels. This bill requires that the annual mortality rate be further reduced to less than a fraction of 1 percent of the dolphin population, leading to the elimination of dolphin mortalities altogether. The ``dolphin-safe'' label is preserved because certified inspectors aboard ship guarantee that no dolphins were killed. We should not forget that other methods of catching tuna kill other sea life. Tuna have been known to swim near logs and debris close to shorelines. Fishermen who cast their nets to catch these tuna don't kill dolphins, but they do kill a huge bycatch of sharks, endangered sea turtles, and juvenile tuna whose survival is crucial to tuna prosperity years from now. Because of the progress made through an international effort led by the United States, we have negotiated an agreement among all the countries that have fishing vessels in the eastern Pacific. Dolphin conservation gains have come as a result of more careful fishing and international cooperation, and we must continue with this progress by passing H.R. 2823. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment that would compromise this bill. Let us pass H.R. 2823. It is in the interest of the environment, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank again the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] trying to justify a similarity between the substitute in the Republican bill on limits. Good try, just not accurate. You have not explained the fact that with soft money under the Republican bill, millions of dollars can be poured in by special interest and by corporations into our national parties, into our State parties and can be funneled into local elections. The substitute bans soft money. Yes, it is true that we have a voluntary $600,000 limit. The Republicans have no limit in their bill. But let me explain that voluntary limits have worked, it worked in our Presidential campaign. It is consistent with the Constitution. If we do not try to limit the amount of money being spent, with recent trends we are going to find the average campaign over $1 million. We also discourage independent expenditures. The Republican bill does nothing about that. We have limits on large contributors. The Republican bill does nothing but encourage more money from large contributors. The substitute will reduce the amount of money being spent in campaigns, the Republican bill will increase it. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the substitute.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] is correct on one point; that is, that campaign finance affects each Member of this House and we are not exactly objective. But we should be concerned when every interest group, public interest group, has said that the Republican bill is phony and it is worse than no change in the current law. There is good reason for that. I am concerned that this rule does not give us the opportunity to have a free and open debate in this House. The Republicans told us that we were going to have open debates on the floor, but this rule does not permit it. There is a bipartisan bill that was developed by Democrats and Republicans. We are not going to have the opportunity under this rule to offer that bipartisan substitute. There are concerns that many of us have. The Thomas bill allows soft money to be used by special interests, by corporations, by large contributors to now do new things to influence congressional campaigns. I would like to be able to offer an amendment to change that. This bill will now not allow me to offer such an amendment. I believe that our constituents want us to limit the total amount of money spent in congressional campaigns. This rule will not allow me to offer such an amendment. I believe there should be overall limits on the amount of PAC contributions that we can accept. This rule will not allow me to offer that amendment. I urge my colleagues to do what the gentleman from Texas has suggested. Let us defeat the previous question so we can have a true, open debate on this floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. As I indicated on the rule, I regret we are not afforded an opportunity for more bipartisanship in presenting campaign finance reform. But the Republican bill, to me, moves backward and should be rejected by this House. We looked at the objective of campaign finance reform, and what our primary objective should be is to reduce the cost of campaigns. Between 1980 and 1994, we have seen a doubling of the cost of campaigns in House races. The average winning seat went from $178,000 to $530,000. In 1980, 28 candidates spent over $500,000. By 1994 that number grew to 272 candidates. In 1980, two candidates spent over $1 million in their races. By 1994, that grew to over 45 races of over $1 million. So one of our primary objectives should be to reduce the cost of campaigns and the need to raise special interest funds. The Republican bill moves in the opposite direction. It moves toward spending more money in campaigns. There is no voluntary campaign limit at all in the Republican bill. It continues and expands the use of soft money. Now, soft money can come from corporate sources, can come from large, wealthy donors. It goes to our political parties. This bill, the Republican bill, makes it easier for those funds to end up influencing our individual campaigns by relaxing the restrictions on the use of soft money. We should be moving in the opposite direction. That is why Common Cause said that any Member, and I am quoting, any Member of Congress that votes for H.R. 3820 is giving a personal blessing and a personal stamp of approval to the corrupt soft money system. The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], my friend, indicates this is empowering the people within our district because we encourage contributions from our district. But Mr. Thomas did not explain that there are many loopholes to that use of local money. We do not count the person's individual contribution. We do not count the political party's contribution. We are seeing more and more parties from outside of our State contributing to our local congressional campaigns. Those funds are not counted as far as local funds are concerned. So it is not empowering the people in our district. Also a wealthy person who contributes a thousand is treated the same as someone who does not. And again that is why Common Cause in its reason for opposing this bill said that any Member of Congress who votes for H.R. 3820 is speaking out for more access and influence in the political system for the wealthiest people in America and less for average American wage earners. Make no mistake about it, look at all of the public interest of outside public groups that are opposing this bill: Common Cause, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, League of Women Voters. There is reason for that. We have an alternative. Vote for the Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]. It will give us true campaign reform.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, many of us on both sides of the aisle have been waiting very patiently for this day when campaign finance reform would be before the House. This is our one opportunity in this term of Congress, and I must say we are extremely disappointed. The rule that is being brought forward is very restrictive, will not allow for the bipartisan bill to be offered, and controls very much what we can consider on this floor. That is wrong. The underlying bill moves in the wrong direction. The Republican bill would have us spend more money and put no limits on what we can be spent in campaigns. It carries out the wishes of Speaker Gingrich when he stated that he thinks the problem with our campaign laws is that there is not enough money being spent. My constituents disagree. We should be reforming the system to put controls on how much money can be spent and to reward small contributors, and that is exactly what the bill offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] will do. I urge my colleagues to support it. No wonder that all of the public interest groups oppose the Republican bill, from Common Cause to Public Citizen, the League of Women Voters, U.S. PIRG. They oppose the Republican bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against that bill and support the Farr alternative.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Selma Jean Cohen, a Baltimorean who recently died after dedicating much of her life to helping others. Mrs. Cohen, who died July 2 at the age of 75, was born in an era that did not encourage women to develop all their talents. But that did not stop her from marching to her own drummer and taking on new challenges. As a mother, wife, volunteer and professional woman, she found innumerable ways throughout her life to make a difference in her community and in the lives of hundreds of families she befriended in times of need. In her early years of raising her two sons, Ellis and Jerome, Mrs. Cohen was a PTA president, a Cub Scout den mother and the president of the sisterhood at her synagogue. After her sons were grown, Mrs. Cohen began a career at the State department of health and mental hygiene where she became the director of nursing home bed registry, a position she held for 25 of her 34 years with the department. But her work with the State was just part of her dedication to helping others. Mrs. Cohen and her husband, Leonard, whom she met at a Benny Goodman dance in 1940, have been weekend volunteers at the Ronald McDonald House in Baltimore for the past 10 years. In their work at the Ronald McDonald House, they comforted out-of-town families with very sick children at Baltimore area hospitals and made these families feel at home. She and Leonard also found time to do hospice work at Levindale Hebrew Geriatric Center and Hospital and help sick children at the Mount Washington Pediatric Hospital. I urge my colleagues to join me in extending our condolences to the family of Selma Jean Cohen. Her cheer and energy will be missed by all who knew her and by all of us who believe that one person can make a difference.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, I along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been working for almost 4 years to dramatically reform our Nation's welfare system. The current system has failed. A new system is needed. The Federal Government in partnership with our States needs to provide temporary compassionate assistance to those who have genuine need, making it clear that people who receive welfare must become employed as soon as possible in a private sector job. We must move people off of welfare to work. My concern is that the Republican bill will move people off of welfare, but in far too many cases our children will end up on the streets. The Republican bill is woefully inadequate in providing resources to our States. It is inadequate in financing safe, affordable day care for welfare parents. It does not adequately deal with one of the principal problems in our welfare system; that is, preventing out-of-wedlock births, particularly among our teenagers. Quite frankly, the failure of the Republican bill is because it was developed in a partisan political manner, rather than in an open legislative format. We have not even really had a chance to review this bill because it was developed by the Republicans in a closed meeting, rather than using an open forum so that we could debate some of these issues and could work out some of these issues. The Castle-Tanner bill substitute is the only bill that has been worked out in a bipartisan manner in an open forum. I urge my colleagues to support the Castle-Tanner substitute. It is far better than the Republican bill and although I believe it can be improved, I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute and against the underlying bill. Then let us work together, Democrats and Republicans, to dramatically change our welfare system. It can be done this year. If our objective is to get a welfare bill enacted, I urge my colleagues to follow that action. If our objective is to get the President to veto another bill, then I understand what the Republicans are doing.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] for yielding me this time. There is no dispute about the outrageous human rights violations in China. The government has silenced dissidents, and the Tiananmen Square episode could still occur today in China. The use of labor, slave labor, continues in China. In addition, China is responsible for nuclear proliferation, the proliferation of other weapons of mass destruction. There is no dispute about that. It is also clear that the conduct in China is financed because of access to the United States market. It is our consumers that are helping to finance the type of outrageous conduct within China. There is a lopsided balance of payment. We import $33 to $34 billion more products from China than we export ever year. The Jackson-Vanik provisions were expressly created in order to make it clear that access to the U.S. market is not automatic and that nonmarket economies that do not perform to a certain standard are denied access to our market. The United States has shown leadership before. It was the leadership of the United States to use trade sanctions in South Africa that brought down the apartheid practices of that country. It was the United States using the Jackson-Vanik provisions that changed the immigration policies of the Soviet Union. We have used trade policies in Uganda and Romania and other countries to bring about changes in those countries. When we exercise leadership, it is part of the proudest moments in the history of this country. Certainly there are naysayers, naysayers who have financial interests in continuing a relationship with China. We always hear that. But when we stand tall, we bring about change. The United States has done it before, we should do it in China, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to make it clear that access to the United States market in China must maintain a standard of acceptable conduct that they do not today.