Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to provide much-needed relief to American companies who currently are being penalized for investing in new plant and equipment. Under the 1986 Tax Reform Act, Congress established an alternative minimum tax system for corporations. The purpose of the AMT was to prevent profitable corporations from escaping Federal income tax liability by making excessive use of tax preferences. Unfortunately, the AMT has turned out to have a very different impact than was intended. Instead of ensuring that profitable companies do not escape Federal taxation, the AMT has worked, in many cases, as a trap, especially for capital intensive manufacturing companies. The problems with the AMT arise principally because of depreciation differences. Under the regular tax system, companies are permitted to depreciate investments in plant and equipment under an accelerated system designed to encourage investment. Regular tax depreciation schedules are structured to encourage companies to invest in new equipment and to enhance productivity. The effect is to help keep U.S. companies competitive by providing accelerated recovery of costs. Under the AMT, however, we turn around and take away the tax incentives we have offered to encourage investment under the regular tax. The effect is that through the regular tax, we tell U.S. companies that we want them to invest in productivity-enhancing plant and equipment. Then, under the AMT, we tell them that if they act according to those incentives, and according to the dictates of their own competitive position, we will punish them. It makes no sense, and we should change the law. depreciation as a preference under the alternative minimum tax. That is, in determining AMT tax liability, for both recovery periods and methods of calculating depreciation, companies will compute depreciation as they currently do under the regular tax. Removing the separate AMT calculation of depreciation will eliminate a significant source of complexity in the Tax Code. No longer will companies be forced to conduct two separate sets of depreciation computations. No longer will companies be penalized for implementing investment strategies warranted by their own economic circumstances because of concerns related to the AMT. Largely because of the AMT, U.S. companies currently enjoy less favorable cost recovery provisions than their foreign competitors. By eliminating depreciation as an AMT preference, we can remove the disadvantage American companies face. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting fairness, simplicity, and sensible tax policy by cosponsoring the AMT Depreciation Relief Act of 1995.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman very much. I know he is interested in that issue.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is a good follow-up to the last comment, Mr. Speaker. I went to the Committee on Rules on H.R. 831, to put in order an amendment that would increase the deduction for self-employeds to 80 percent, starting in the second year. First, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] for bringing this bill forward. This is a very important bill for self-employed individuals. They are filing their tax returns now. We do not want them to have to file amended returns, so it is important that we act promptly on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill. I supported the bill in the committee, and I will support the bill on the floor, but I was disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not make in order an amendment that would have allowed us to increase the 25 percent for the self-employed deductions to 80 percent. It could have been made in order. It was not. Mr. Speaker, the tradition has been to protect many of the tax bills that come out of the Committee on Ways and Means, but there are only three other individuals was came forward to the Committee on Rules and asked for amendments to be made in order. It would not have made it disorderly for those amendments to be placed in order by this rule, and I hope that we will not approve the rule in its current form. This bill is different than the bill filed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] to extend the 25 percent for 1944 only. Many of us thought that would be the bill we would be acting on promptly. This bill extends it permanently, but at 25 percent. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is if we extend it permanently at 25 percent, we are never going to get it up to the level of 80 percent, which I think is the right level. Why 80 percent? Because the average business in this country pays 80 percent of the insurance premiums of its workers and it is entitled to deduct that entire 80 percent. To provide parity for self-employed people, if we allow them to deduct 80 percent of their premiums, we will have parity between the self-employed and the people who work for companies. Mr. Speaker, is it important? Yes, it is. In 1986 we adopted a 25 percent deduction for the self-employed. It is estimated that 400,000 more people are insured as a result of that tax provision. However, there are still 3.1 million self-employed individuals who have no health insurance. They are one and a half times more likely to have no health insurance than a company that can use the deduction of 80 percent, or what they can deduct on their insurance premiums. If the Committee on Rules would have made in order an amendment to increase this to 80 percent, we could have gotten more people insured. I do not understand the logic for why that was not made in order. It was paid for in the amendment, it was in compliance with the rules, and in a sense of fairness, where the House can decide whether it should be 25 percent or 80 percent, why not let that amendment come before the House and be voted on by the House? That is what my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal] provided for, and I would urge my colleagues to defeat the rule or the previous question so we can make that amendment in order, giving us the opportunity to vote for a higher percentage than 25 percent.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. This is important legislation that we need to pass. The 25-percent deduction for self-employed individuals is an important tool for self- employed to have health insurance. And we need to pass it. I regret that the Committee on Rules and the rule that we passed does not allow me to offer an amendment, a bill that I have filed that would have increased the 25 percent to provide parity for the self-employed individual to what a business can deduct on the insurance premiums that they have for their employees. We still have 3.1 million people who are self-employed who do not have health insurance. The 25 percent provision is important, but we should have had the opportunity to increase that to a fairer level so that self-employed people could have the same type of a tax advantage as those people who run businesses. But we will have two other opportunities during this debate to expand access to health insurance to allow the private sector to provide more health insurance for their employees. The first will be on the Gibbons- McDermott substitute, which incorporates an amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] that will allow the employees of the self-employed companies to be able to deduct their insurance premiums if their employer does not provide it up to the 25 percent. This gives the employees the same parity as the company self-employed person has, and I would urge my colleagues to support the substitute for that reason to expand access to health care. The second opportunity will be on the motion to recommit that will be offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark]. That will extend COBRA beyond the 18-month period current law. This is at no cost to the employer. An employee who no longer is employed of a company, who wants to continue that health insurance in that group at 100 percent, actually it is 102 percent, by the cost of the employee would be able to continue that health insurance protection. When we are seeing more and more people without health insurance today, why should not Congress, why should not this House provide greater opportunities for an individual to be able to get health insurance at no cost to the employer or government? So I would urge my colleagues to support the Gibbons-McDermott substitute. Support the motion to recommit that will be offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] so that we can expand health access with health insurance. This bill is an important bill. We need to take care of this current tax year for the self-employed. But we also have the opportunity to go further, and I urge my colleagues to do that.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Colon Cancer Screening and Prevention Act. This legislation provides for Medicare coverage of preventive services to enhance the early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer--the second deadliest cancer in America. Colorectal cancer is more common than either breast or prostate cancer, and strikes men and women in almost equal numbers. This year alone it is estimated that over 138,000 new cases will be diagnosed and more than 55,000 lives lost. If colorectal cancer is not found early, less than 60 percent of persons diagnosed will survive for 5 years. Early detection, however, can boost the 5-year survival rate to 91 percent. That is an astonishing difference which can be appreciated in terms of both lives and dollars saved. With well documented and highly effective detection and prevention strategies, colorectal cancers have become almost completely preventable. Every major Federal employee health plan recognizes the importance of colorectal screening measures and provides coverage for these services. Yet--although the average age at the time of diagnosis is 71--Medicare does not provide coverage of screening and preventive services for colorectal cancers. With this legislation Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for two screening services at specified intervals. For those at high risk of developing colorectal cancer--due to previous experience of cancer or precursor polyps, a history of a chronic digestive disease condition, the presence of recognized gene markers, or other predisposing factors--a more comprehensive and invasive procedure is also covered. Specifically, the Colon Cancer Screening and Prevention Act first enables early detection of colorectal cancers by providing for an annual fecal occult blood test [FOBT]. This is a non-invasive test that checks for blood in a stool sample, at an average cost of only $5. Research shows that this simple test, with follow-up examination of a positive result, reduces the risk of death from colorectal cancer by between 33 and 43 percent. Second, this legislation includes benefit coverage of a flexible sigmoidoscopy examination, which enables a doctor to inspect the lower part of the colon where 50 to 60 percent of polyps and cancers occur. This preventive service would be available no more than once every 4 years. Third, the Colon Cancer Screening and Prevention Act allows individuals at high risk for developing colorectal cancer to receive a screening colonoscopy exam no more than once every 2 years. This procedure allows examination of the entire colon and, if necessary, biopsy and removal of suspicious polyps, which are the precursors to almost all colon cancers. The preventive screening services in the Colon Cancer Screening and Prevention Act are standard medical procedures recommended by the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American College of Physicians. Among the many professionals who have provided the scientific and technical information underlying this legislation, I particularly appreciate the efforts of Marvin Schuster, M.D. of Johns Hopkins University, who serves as treasurer of the American College of Gastroenterology. The ACG worked closely with me last year in developing this legislation and documenting the need for this benefit. The Colon Cancer Screening and Prevention Act has been endorsed by many consumer groups, including the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation, the United Ostomy Association and the Digestive Diseases National Coalition, as well as professional societies such as the American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association. In an environment of rising health care costs, this amendment will save Medicare dollars. Screening to detect colorectal cancers and providing necessary treatments early in the course of the disease not only improves the quality of life for patients but is much cheaper than providing intensive, expensive medical treatment to individuals in the late stages of colorectal cancer. Many of my colleagues recognize the gap in Medicare coverage resulting from the failure to provide sensible, preventive colorectal screening benefits. This legislation, which received strong bipartisan support during the 103d Congress, closes that gap, providing Medicare beneficiaries with necessary, cost-effective services. I urge my colleagues to join me in

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is pretty direct in that there is no money left over, so this is the only opportunity we have to preserve the GREAT anti-gang program. There are two parts to this program, if I could point out to my friend from Florida. One is yes, it preserves the money, which is absolutely essential if we are going to be able to have the programs continued. But it does a second thing. The GREAT Program is a partnership in more than just dollars with Federal law enforcement. It also is cooperation between Federal law enforcement and local law enforcement. The police officers locally are trained through the National Police Service, so we use the training facilities nationally. Without the Federal program existing, it is going to be much more difficult to be able to continue this type of partnership. I would urge my colleague to think about what we are doing here today. We are here to make choices. We have passed many amendments that restrict what States can do, how they can receive moneys for prison construction. When it suits us, we have a Federal involvement in micro- managing and establishing national priorities, however you want to characterize it. When it is appropriate for us to say we cannot let people out on their own recognizance, to get Federal funds, we say that. If the locals must have certain guidelines on sentencing, we say that. But I would hope that we would have a national policy that our law enforcement people would work with local law enforcement to stop juvenile gang activities, to work in our schools. The GREAT Program offers us that opportunity. This amendment preserves it, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining? has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. CARDIN. And the same thing with a medium security prison. We cannot build a prison for the amount of money that is in the amendment that I have brought forward, but yet in the absence of this amendment being made available, 11 communities will go without a program dealing with any antigang activities. I think it is a clear choice.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman know what an average cost for a maximum security prison is today?

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that my friend from Florida [Mr. McCollum] cannot point to any harm done by this amendment, yet the absence of enacting this amendment and providing the wherewithal will have severe consequences on communities that are trying to prevent gang activities, working with the police and working with the schools, and I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered is a modest cut in the dollars that are provided in this bill for additional prison construction. It is a cut of $7.2 million per year. This will allow us flexibility when we consider H.R. 728, to reinstate the funding level for the GREAT program that was enacted in the 1994 legislation. The GREAT program is the Gang Resistant Education and Training Program. It is a program that has been very successful, operated by Treasury with local law enforcement and school officials. It provides police officers in our 7th grade in our schools in order to work our youth to prevent gangs from developing. It has worked in many of our communities. What it does is instill a better attitude with young people concerning police officers, which has been proven to deter gang activities. Let me just cite some of the results quoted from the Arizona GREAT program. As a result of that program, we have seen a drop in the percentage of all ethnic groups who say they belong to a gang, who want to be gang members. The percentage of students who reported getting into various kinds of trouble decreased after participating in GREAT. The percentage of students who know gang members and who want to be gang members decreased after students participated in the GREAT program. The GREAT program has worked. It currently is a partnership between the Federal Government and local law enforcement, along with our schools. Mr. Chairman, we have a problem in Baltimore. I did not realize we had a gang problem in Baltimore. I have met with our police commissioner in our city, Mr. Frazier. He has pointed out that we are starting to see more and more gang activity in our cities. As a result of the legislation passed last year by this Congress, Baltimore is now one of the 11 communities which have a GREAT program operating. It is going to provide police officers in our schools in Baltimore, working with our youth to deter gang activities. Currently, there are nine communities that had GREAT programs, prior to the enactment last year of this legislation. As a reslt of last year's legislation, 11 more communities have this program. We are doubling the funds for the GREAT program. Originally only Hawaii; Phoenix; Albuquerque; Portland, Oregon; Kansas City; Detroit, Philadelphia; Tucson; and Prince Georges County had GREAT programs. As a result of the legislation last year, Trenton, New Jersey; New York City; Washington; Boston; Miami; Memphis; Las Vegas; Los Angeles; Milwaukee; Wilmington; and Baltimore now are in this program. Mr. Chairman, I am imploring the sense of fairness of all Members of this House. We are here to set priorities. The amendment that I am suggesting will be a very modest cut in prison construction, $7.2 million. According to the information that has been made available for me, the average cost of a medium-security prison would cost $36 million today, and a maximum-security prison in Florence, CO, costs $66 million. $7 million will hardly build the entrance to these types of facilities or the reception center. Compare that to building part of a prison, to developing 11 programs in our communities working with the police and students to stop gang activities. Clearly we are better served by putting the money into our schools, putting the money into prevention. Yes, prevention. Last year we had a good balance between prevention and prison construction. I am just asking that in this one case a program in which the Federal Government has assumed a good deal of responsibility in making funds available to local governments, that we provide the wherewithal through this amendment so that we will be able to continue that program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for his comments. Clearly we are here to make choices, and this is a very minor cut as far as prisons are concerned, cannot even build part of a prison of any significant size.

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, along with my Ways and Means Committee colleague, Representative Clay Shaw, legislation to repeal a provision of the 1993 tax bill that has reduced secondary market liquidity for municipal bonds and complicated the Tax Code unnecessarily. The existing law will likely make it more difficult for States and localities to invest in our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. The provision in question changed the way certain municipal bonds are treated under the Internal Revenue Code and caused some of these bonds to be less attractive to investors. As a result of this provision, State and local issuers attempting to address America's chronically underfunded public investment needs may be forced to offer higher yields on their securities, which would drive up their borrowing costs. Of critical importance to the success of the American system of public finance is the liquidity of the secondary market for municipal bonds. Investors are willing to accept lower rates of return on State and local government securities because of the tax exemption, but also because they know they can readily sell their bonds, if necessary, before maturity. It is this indispensable characteristic of the municipal bond market that was handicapped in 1993 by the Budget Act. In certain situations, holders of municipal bonds seek to sell their securities at what is known as a market discount. Market discount is the difference between the purchase price of a bond and its stated redemption price at maturity. In general, market discount occurs when a bond is purchased on the secondary market at a price below par or below the adjusted issue price. Market discount is typically caused by a rise in market interest rates or a decline in the creditworthiness of the borrower. Before the enactment of the 1993 budget reconciliation bill, accreted market discount on a municipal bond was taxed as capital gain at the time the bond was sold, redeemed, or otherwise disposed of. A strong public policy argument can be made that, consistent with the tax exemption on municipal bond interest, market discount on State and local government securities should be exempt from taxation altogether. However, the legislation Congressman Shaw and I have introduced today seeks only to restore the traditional capital gains treatment of market discount bonds. We believe that increases in the value of market discount bonds should be treated as capital gains, consistent with the standard treatment of increases in the value of most investments. Under the new law, however, accreted market discount is taxed as ordinary income. Since they are now subject to higher ordinary income tax rates, market discount bonds have become more difficult to sell on the secondary market than other municipal bonds. Furthermore, any security issued by a State or locality could become a market discount bond at some point during its life, so secondary market liquidity for all municipal securities has decreased. With the repeated rises in interest rates over the past year, the 1993 change has had dramatic consequences for the secondary market in these bonds. The change to ordinary income tax treatment for market discount bonds also reduces their liquidity because investors cannot use capital gains on market discount bonds to offset capital losses. Investors in secondary market municipal securities now demand higher rates of return to compensate them for higher tax rates on discount bonds and for increased risk that the securities will be more difficult to sell. The bottom line on the higher tax rates for market discount is that State and local governments could ultimately face higher costs in issuing securities to pay for much needed public infrastructure investment. Early anecdotal evidence suggests that yields on market discount bonds are as much as 25 basis points higher than they would have been under the old rules. These effects have been exacerbated over the past year as interest rates have risen and bond prices have fallen. Moreover, the new market discount rule has resulted in a reporting nightmare for bond dealers, mutual funds, bank trust funds, and others who are required to sort out and document income to taxpayers. Some tax-exempt mutual funds have simply stopped buying market discount bonds altogether because of this complexity, further reducing the liquidity of and demand for these securities and driving up their yields. The new market discount rules could result in higher capital costs for State and local municipal bond issuers, raise extremely complex financial considerations that repel investors, and provide little or no economic advantage to the Federal Government. As Federal and State budgets get tighter and tighter, the importance of the tax-exempt market increases. For those reasons, I propose that Congress restore the law to its pre-1993 status. The current proposal to cut the capital gains tax presents us with an opportunity to address this important issue. Consistent with that effort to encourage investment, we should reverse the destructive proposal enacted in 1993, and remove the penalty on investors and issuers it imposed. I encourage my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a strong line-item veto proposal. The debate over the line-item veto is mostly about shining the bright light of public attention on bad small ideas. Battles in Congress tend to be fought over big ideas. When Congress and the President clash over major policy issues, the constitutional authority of the President to veto legislation serves as a meaningful tool. President Bush used the veto effectively in headline issues like most-favored-nation status for China, the gag rule on abortion counseling, family and medical leave, and campaign finance reform legislation. Individual Members might agree or disagree with those vetoes, but we can agree that the veto power served the President well and functioned as the Founding Fathers envisioned. The reason we are here today is that the veto power provided the President is virtually useless to combat small bad ideas. Any of the individual 13 regular appropriations bills sent to the President each year is likely to include major spending decisions that are supported by broad majorities of the American people. Funding for the interstate highway program, for instance, enjoys broad support. But the bills are also likely to include special pet projects, sought by individual Members, that might not have the same national base of support. Under the current structure, the President has a choice. He can stop the smaller projects, at the risk of delaying the national priorities and shutting down entire agencies of Government. Or he can hold his nose and sign the bill, accepting the crumbs in order to keep the main program on track. Those of us who support the line-item veto say the President should have a third choice. He should be able to weed the garden. He should have the option of identifying spending or tax items which he considers wasteful and unjustified and forcing Congress to act specifically on those items. The value of line-item veto is in its potential to help restore confidence in Government. The public perception of Members of Congress hiding away goodies in spending and tax bills underscores the public's suspicion and distrust of this institution and their Government. Let's shine a spotlight on wasteful spending and tax loopholes, and help restore the confidence of the American people that we're managing their money wisely.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of George Herman ``Babe'' Ruth's 100th birthday. In Baltimore, MD, they are celebrating this historic occasion in the house where he was born. They are celebrating a man who was larger than life, one of America's true heroes. A man who, many claim, ``saved'' baseball. They are celebrating a man who earned his nickname ``The Sultan of Swat'' by creating new standards for baseball players and setting extraordinary batting records, many of which still stand today and none of which were broken in his lifetime. They are celebrating not just the baseball accomplishments and records of a legend. They are celebrating Babe Ruth the Baltimorean; Babe Ruth the devout Catholic, Babe Ruth the devoted son, Babe Ruth the friend to every kid he ever met. Above all, they are celebrating Babe Ruth the man. I am proud to be from Baltimore and proud to say that George Herman ``Babe'' Ruth, born at 216 Emory Street in Baltimore, MD on February 6, 1895, is a native son, long to be remembered not only for his athletic ability, but also for the goodness of his heart.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stenholm-Spratt amendment. I would just urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It accomplishes the purpose for why a line-item veto is needed, and that is to shine light on an individual appropriation so that it cannot hide within a massive appropriation bill. I am a supporter of the line-item veto legislation. I am going to vote for it. But I think this gives us an alternative in the event that the traditional two-thirds override is declared to be unconstitutional, to have on the books a procedure that works and will accomplish the exact same purpose. The amount of the vote is not important. It is important to segregate that appropriation to allow an individual consideration of it so that it cannot be hidden in a large appropriation bill. I congratulate my colleague for bringing forward an alternative and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to first restore, and then to increase, the income tax deduction for health insurance premiums paid by those who are self-employed, at a rate of 25 percent for 1994, and 80 percent for 1995 and thereafter. Fully one-quarter of self-employed Americans--3.1 million farmers and craftsmen, professionals and small business proprietors--have no health insurance. Compared to all other workers, the self-employed are one and a half times more likely to lack essential health care coverage. As we search for methods to increase access to necessary medical services and reduce the crushing burdens of uncompensated care, which threaten the fiscal stability of both affected individuals and the entire health care system, there can be no doubt that U.S. tax code should encourage the self-employed to purchase health care insurance. Instead, current regulations discriminate against the self-employed and discourage the individual initiative that has always been a bedrock of the American economy. As part of the expense of employee compensation, businesses can deduct the full cost of any health insurance provided to employees. Similar treatment of health care premium costs has never been fully available to the self-employed. And, unless we act quickly, the loss of the limited deduction in effect during recent tax years will soon be keenly felt by the self-employed. In order to provide consistent tax treatment of medical insurance expenses, my bill restores for 1994 the 25 percent deduction that has enjoyed nearly a decade of strong bipartisan support. The availability of this deduction should not only be renewed, it should be adjusted equitably. Because businesses, on average, contribute--and fully deduct as an expense--80 percent of the total cost of employee health insurance premiums, my bill increases the percentage of premium costs which can be deducted by self-employed persons to 80 percent, effective with tax year 1995. This is similar to the provision thoughtfully considered and passed by the Ways and Means Committee of the 103rd Congress. With approximately 41 million medically uninsured persons in the United States currently, measures which encourage working people to provide for their health care coverage within the private sector are essential. The particular form of an individual's employment situation should not determine the tax treatment of health care costs incurred as part of the cost of doing business. Rather, as nearly as possible, parity of deductibility should be obtained within the tax code. In the interests of both fairness and sound health care policy, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 691.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Neighborhood Housing Services of Baltimore on its 21st birthday. This outstanding organization is dedicated on helping low- and moderate-income residents of Baltimore become first-time homeowners. I also want to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes to John R. McGinn, an inspirational leader who is retiring as NHS chairman. The NHS has an impressive record. It has been involved in rehabilitating more than 620 vacant houses and has helped convert more than 900 renters into first-time home buyers. Since 1974, NHS has been an important force in providing adequate housing in the neighborhoods of Govans, Coppin Heights, Patterson Park, and Irvington/St. Joseph/ Carroll. In addition, since 1993 NHS has instituted the Closing Cost Loan Program to provide from $500 to $5,000 in loans to help prospective home buyers with settlement and closing costs. They have successfully used $300,000 of NHS capital to leverage more than $4 million in conventional financing. Much of this could not be accomplished without the help and advise of John McGinn, who has been a dedicated and inspired chairman of the NHS board for the past 3 years. In the past decade, in addition to being chairman, John McGinn has given many hours of this time serving on different NHS boards. His advice and professionalism has been a big part of NHS's success and its branching out into new projects. I hope that my colleagues will also join my fellow Baltimoreans and me in congratulating NHS and John McGinn on a job well done. Our housing crisis is very serious, but the efforts of NHS and John McGinn have done much to help others realize their dream of home ownership.