John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker. I have been waiting for an apology from the gentleman. I know he wants to apologize and does not want to leave these things on the record, because I am sure he realizes that it reflects unfavorably upon him, as it does upon me, so I am waiting for the apology. I know the gentleman wants to give it to me.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. DINGELL

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I accept the apologies of the gentleman, and I thank him.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by paying respect to all of my colleagues. Members here are said to represent their people. We are sent to go home and to justify what it is we do and what we have done and how we have served our people. I regard public service as an honorable calling. I have heard talk about citizen legislators and lack of citizen legislators. Under our system, we have seen people like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Clay. We have seen Rayburn, we saw Michel, we have seen Newt Gingrich, we have seen Tom Foley, we have seen all of the other leaders, Gephardt. We have seen my friend Henry Hyde. No one is going to tell me these are not citizen legislators. There is a huge turnover in this place. If you look, better than 50 percent of the Members are new. Very few remember Watergate. Virtually none remember World War II. We need to have people here who are able to understand history, some who can recall it, some who can understand what it is we did and why, and why it was right, and why it was wrong, and why we should have done it, and why we should have not. That is what makes this institution great, the fact that we do produce people who are able to go home year after year and justify to the people the propriety of their service, what they have done, how they have done it, and why, and then come back and assist us by providing us with a corporate memory and an understanding of what it is. I regard public service as a great calling, as an honorable calling, as something in which we give back to the people we serve something for what they give us. And we work together as their spokesman, as their voice, as their representative in the Congress, to do what it is that they would like to have done. Government is an honorable calling. It exists to enable the people to rule themselves, to keep order, to see to it that we have a just society, to address all of the proper responsibilities of government, such as the national defense, or seeing to it that we have a just society which sees to it that no one suffers unduly in times of distress or hardship, to take care of the old, to educate the young. These are great callings, and these are callings in which we are at the center. It cannot be said that Members will not seek this job under the current situation. Look and see the number. Look at the number of new Members who have come here. There has been a turnover. But it is necessary to have people who understand what it is, why it is, how this institution works, and why, and where the public interest lies. Those are the real things which are important. According to the Congressional Research Service, the average length of service in the 104th Congress is 7\1/2\ years in this body, 10 years in the other body, well under the 12 years that we are talking about here in some of these amendments. Throughout history only 13\1/2\ percent of all House Members have served for more than 6 years. I would observe that in the 19th century, the total percent was only 2.6 percent. It is important we recognize not only the honor of this calling, but we recognize the right of the citizens to choose who it is will serve them. That is why we have elections. We go home to talk to our people, to tell them what we did. I have a home in Michigan. I live there. I stay there. I talk to my fellow citizens. I find out what their concerns are. And were that not so, I can assure you, I would not still be serving in this institution. One thing that has to be observed, I oppose term limits. I think they are unwise and I think they rob the people of a choice. However, if we are to do something about term limits, they should commence immediately.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, absolutely, and I have made no bones about it, and I have told my people so. By the way, I was elected by a very large majority.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is the real thing. I say to my colleagues, if you're for term limits, you're for this amendment. If you're not for this amendment, you're not for term limits. What this says is that term limits go into effect immediately upon the ratification of this amendment if the States act upon it. A large number of Members will depart. If that is the will of this body and the will of the people, then so be it. I, as the dean of the House, will be amongst the first to go. Many of my colleagues think that this is just fine because, ``It's not going to affect me in the immediate future.'' The answer to all of this is that immediately, upon the adoption of this amendment, if you have served your 12 years, you will be ineligible for reelection. A lot of people think that the people are in favor of term limits. If they, in fact, are in favor of term limits, they are in favor of this amendment because it is immediate, and the polls so show. If the Members are trying to identify whether people are angry with them, and with whom they are angry, and on whom they want term limits, my colleagues, it is upon you, it is upon me, and it is upon all of us because that is what the situation is. Let us reflect a bit on what we have: First of all, it will be 5 to 7 years before term limits are approved by the States. Then it will be an additional 6 years or an additional 12 years. So we are now up to somewhere between 11 to 19 years before term limits will go into effect. The newest of the new Members will at the time that term limits have gone into effect have served probably as much as 20 years. During that time they would have achieved all of the emoluments of long-term service, and, if a Member who serves here for a long time is achieving some measure of corruption by having so done, they will become amongst the most corrupt then of the Members. Now here is again what happens with regard to term limits under the Contract With America: Years of service. At the time this goes into effect, instead of having served 40 years, I will serve 59 years. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] under the McCollum-Hilleary amendment will have served 36 years, almost as long as I have served today. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] 38 years; the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] 30 years; the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonoir] 38 years; the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] and all of his class will have served 20 years. They will have achieved the status of old bulls. They will have served here a long time. Now I say to my colleagues, contemplate yourself going home and trying to explain to the people that you serve. ``I'm for term limits,'' you say, and they say, ``Hooray,'' but you don't tell them that you are for term limits which will begin somewhere between 13 and 20 years from today. It's pretty hard to say that you are expecting that people are going to believe you if they know the facts as to whether you're really for term limits or opposed. The hard fact is, if you don't vote for the amendment which is cosponsored by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], and I, you're voting for something which essentially is an illusion. It is, in fact, regrettably something which deceives the average person because you will never make a person believe that you are out to clean up a situation with which you say they find fault if you don't vote to make this of immediate effect. What this says is that immediately upon ratification term limits goes into effect. Under McCollum-Hilleary it will go in somewhere between 17 and 19 years in the future, and under Inglis, somewhere between 11 and 13 years. My counsel for my dear colleagues is, ``If you want to be judged fairly as having been somebody who believed in what you did and believed in what you said, real honest limitation on term limits, and then go home and justify what you have done.'' Mr. Speaker, George Santayana once said that, ``Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.'' This point seems particularly relevant today. You might recall that in 1947, a constitutional term limit on Presidents was ratified by a Republican Congress, which had been entrusted by the American people to make the difficult decisions necessary to move our Nation forward in the postwar era. In reality, the 22d amendment was a Republican attempt to get even with Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. Almost a half century later, we find a Republican Party still spooked by FDR's legacy, and 40 years of progress under a Democratic House. Showing a renowned lack of originality, they have dusted off term limits as part of their new agenda in the Contract With America, this time to limit the length of service for Members of Congress. I am pleased that, despite the inclusion of term limits in the contract, that this plank is in trouble because of opposition from Republicans and Democrats. These are Members on both sides of the aisle who share a faith in the ability of Americans to make up their own minds when they go to the polls. Those who charge that retroactive term limits are unfair may recall that President Truman was grandfathered from the 22d amendment. At the time, the Republicans did not want to appear too partisan by attacking Truman. For them, the pleasure came in attacking his deceased predecessor-- who was elected to the Oval Office four times and is viewed by most historians as among our best Presidents. Despite the Republican special exemption given to President Truman, he limited his own service and chose not to run for reelection in 1952. In the spirit of this Truman exemption, the Republican leadership has presented us with four amendments under a closed rule. Three of these choices exempt the service of current Members of Congress, so that when this debate is over, the Speaker will have the chance to serve almost as long as I have. This is because under the main amendment, it could take another 19 years before any constitutional amendment would completely remove current Members of the House. Mr. Speaker, beside me is a partial list of current Members who would be forced into retirement the Peterson-Dingell amendment were ratified by the States today. As you can easily see, it limits all sorts of people from both side of the aisle. To give a little more perspective, in 2014, that would give me just over 59 years of service--if I run and the people of Michigan's 16th Congressional District so choose. The Speaker would have 36 years under his belt, although not all of those could be as Speaker, since under the new House rules, he is under a self-imposed term limit of four consecutive terms that will force him to leave the Speakership for a 2- year sabbatical every 8 years. Santayana also observed that those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Today's debate fulfills that prophecy. When one examines the history of the Presidential term limit. Moreover, only two Presidents--Republicans--have found themselves constrained by it, and the Republicans sought vigorously to find away around it for the patron saint of their party, President Reagan. One of the major arguments for adopting a term limits constitutional amendment is because its popular. We have been bombarded by reports in the press that up to four out of five Americans wants term limits. If any of my colleagues are basing today's decision on popular opinion polls, I feel it is my duty to inform you of one fact: that same majority wants congressional limits applied to you. Only the Peterson-Dingell amendment gives Members a chance to avoid the charge of hypocrisy by addressing immediacy; in other words, the immediate application of all time served by sitting Members of the House and Senate. The Peterson-Dingell amendment is simple: apply to yourself that which you would apply to others. Under the amendment, all service counts, whether you're in your first term or your 20th term. In the 104th Congress, this means that 157 House Members would be ineligible to run for another term if Peterson-Dingell were ratified today. A list of those Members is available for those who wish to consult it. In addition, 67 Senators could never again run for the U.S. Senate under the Peterson-Dingell amendment. As some of your might guess, I must confess that Senate term limits would trouble me quite a bit less than House term limits. It was expressed in earlier debate that Peterson-Dingell might lead to a very disorderly transfer of power. However, a look at recent history shows that chaos is unlikely. In fact, the House has just completed a transfer of power between the parties, and the Republic is still in tact. In 1993, 11 freshman Members took seats in the 103d Congress. So 157 retirements would not be devastating on a numerical basis. As I have long stated, the loss would be in terms of legislative experience which would empower bureaucrats, lobbyists, and congressional staff to make decisions made today by all of us, who are held accountable by the people every 2 years. It's no secret. I oppose term limits. Why? Because I believe in the power of democracy, the sanctity of the ballot box, and most of all, the ability of voters to decide for themselves who will best represent them. I am joined by like-minded people from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats who understand that term limits would imperil democracy. However, if in a rush for results, we decide to impose congressional term limits to address problems better solved through meaningful campaign finance reform, we have a duty to approve a constitutional amendment which is free from hypocrisy. The other amendments cast a shroud of self-interest over the Constitution. There is only one amendment which puts truth in term limits. Vote only for Peterson-Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, some days back I announced an award which I give from time to time. It is entitled ``The Golden Grab,'' a hand extended outward with palm up. This is an award which I will be giving to people in the defense business who are unfaithful to their contracts, who charge too much, who fail to be responsible in terms of meeting their deadlines; to Government officials who fail to properly carry out their responsibilities. This is an award dedicated to those who disregard their responsibilities to the people of the United States. I will give the first award on April 1, on April Fools Day. I will give it to a class of persons who are particularly deserving of this award. I will be shortly announcing the first honoree of honorees. I urge my colleagues to be present to note who will be receiving the Golden Grab Award, a golden hand, palm up, hand outstretched to receive things to which the individual is not entitled at the expense of the public.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. It is not important what I think about term limits. It is important what is right and what is wrong. The substance is important. I never heard any of my colleagues on that side complaining about the fact that this matter was to be pushed into the future some 19 years. What we are talking about is truth in term limits. The Speaker yesterday said the United States no longer needs or desires a class of permanent career politicians. Neither he nor anyone on that side of the aisle has ever told us that what was really here before us in the amendment they laid before us today is a 19-year delay in the effective date.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from the Committee on Rules for having made available this opportunity for me to offer an amendment to the legislation before us. When our Founding Fathers debated the term limitation idea 200 years ago and more, they decided it was a bad idea. That was as a result of extensive debate on the merits and flaws of putting additional qualifications on persons seeking election to the Congress of the United States. It was the feeling of the Founding Fathers that those decisions should be left to the voters, a wise judgment and one which I always supported. The decision not to include term limits in the Constitution was based upon free and open debate. Regrettably, we will not see free and open debate here because the Rules Committee has only permitted that four amendments will be available to the legislation before us. So, again, we have a rule which, as all will note is closed again. Having said that, it was only just a few minutes after the House convened on January 4 that the first piece of legislation was brought to this body under a closed rule. Democrats argued that this was unfair. Republicans said, Do not worry. There will be free and fair debate in the future. That we still await. We have now an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that will be considered, again, under a closed rule. It is interesting to note that it was so sloppily done in the Committee on the Judiciary that it was not even possible for the Committee on Rules to make that particular pronouncement by the Committee on the Judiciary in order. It is interesting to note that that proposal has been rejected in its entirety and we now have a quite different matter than that which was originally laid before the House by the Committee on the Judiciary. One interesting thing, and I speak now as the dean of this body, a Member who has served longer than anybody else, about the legislation is that it does not count the prior service of all of us who have served here. And so while we bravely and boldly say we are going to limit terms, we are limiting terms only of those in the future. And I will be permitted to serve here somewhere between the year 2014 and the year 2019. And every other Member who is here will have somewhere between 14 and 19 years. Now, we are being charged outside of these halls with this being a hypocritical act. I am not going to say not term limits which is going to affect anybody who is not in this chamber. Indeed it is only going to affect those who will follow us. And all of us here present will be able to serve long enough to qualify fully for our pensions and to achieve the very continued circumstance about which everybody complains. And that is, on this side, that we have served here too long and that we must have some kind of a purgative which will clean this institution. If that is what we should do and if we are going to amend the Constitution, then it should be done by having it have immediate effect, not retroactive. Just say if you have served here and it is evil to serve here so long, then what we should do is to see to it that the term limits should apply fairly to all and that all should depart according to the vote. We look to see how many of the enthusiasts for term limits will be voting for real term limits or whether they will want to shaft.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join with the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee as an original cosponsor of the Insurance State's and Consumers' Rights Clarification and Fair Competition Act. This is important consumer protection and competitiveness legislation that deserves strong bipartisan support. This legislation requires that anyone who sells, underwrites, or solicits the purchase of insurance regulatory requirements. This will ensure a level competitive playing field and consistent consumer protection. On September 22, 1994, Congresswoman Collins of Michigan, joined me in introducing a substantially similar bill, H.R. 5075, the Insurance Sales and Underwriting Consumer Protection Act of 1994. I commend the gentleman from Virginia for expanding upon those efforts. While some of you may wonder at the necessity of having a Federal law saying that people in the insurance business must comply with State insurance laws, I assure my colleagues that it is very necessary indeed. The hearing record in past Congresses in the Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee and its Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness Subcommittee, as well as recent actions by the Comptroller of the Currency and the courts, demonstrate the urgent need for this bill. First, during our oversight hearings on the problems faced by financial services providers as a result of savings and loan failures, we discovered that a number of failed savings and loans had sold insurance products to their customers, and that they had done so without disclosing to these customers that the insurance products were not insured by the Federal Government. When the savings and loans failed--and the insurance company that had underwritten many of these policies also failed--customers were stunned to discover that the FDIC did not cover their insurance. As a result, they suffered both significant emotional and financial losses. A second example can be found in the aftermath of the Los Angeles riots following the Rodney King trial. Many of the small business people devastated by the riots filed claims with their insurance companies, only to find out that these companies had violated California law by selling insurance in California without authorization. Many of these companies would not, or could not, pay these valid claims. Many of these businesses were forced to close and others suffered extreme financial difficulties because the insurance they purchased was no insurance at all. Finally, there is the so-called retirement CD. This is a product, originally offered by the Blackfeet National Bank, that is designed to obtain FDIC insurance protection for an annuity, that is, insurance, product. The promoters of this product have described it as free from taxes on inside buildup, as is true of life insurance; as insured by the FDIC; and as free from all State insurance regulation, whether these regulations apply to underwriting financial requirements to protect the safety and soundness of the bank or to consumer protection requirements. In May 1994, the Comptroller of the Currency approved this product for bank sales subject to certain conditions, in apparent agreement with the proposition that Federal banking laws preempt State insurance laws, and that banks may provide insurance. Not only is it absolutely clear that Congress has never preempted State insurance laws as to banks providing insurance, it is also a clear misreading of the laws Congress has passed. The National Bank Act has been interpreted to prohibit national banks from engaging in the business of insurance. In addition, the Glass-Steagall Act prohibits banks from engaging in commerce. In 1990, the Comptroller ruled that national banks could sell annuities. The Comptroller further concluded that annuities should be classified as investments, rather than as insurance. The Comptroller's ruling was challenged in Federal court by Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co., a unit of Houston-based American General. In January of this year, the Supreme Court ruled that national banks may sell annuities. Last month, a Federal judge in New Mexico ruled that the State insurance commissioner could not prevent First National Bank of Sante Fe from selling the retirement CD. The impact of these decisions on consumers is troublesome and significant as pointed out by Jane Bryant Quinn this past Sunday, ``Think Twice About New Retirement CDs.'' Washington Post, Sunday, March 12, 1995, at H2: The rates are lower than you would get on the open market. That's the price you pay for the tax deferral and the deposit insurance. But the banks can't pay you less than 3 percent. You face serious penalties for early withdrawal except in the case of death, disability or, at the Santa Fe bank, lengthy hospitalization. At maturity, you must turn at least one-third of your savings into a lifetime income from the same bank--so you shouldn't buy this CD unless you intend to keep it. You can't even switch banks without creating tax obligations on the money. Bottom line: There's no escape from a retirement CD except at considerable cost. With an insurance company annuity, you can switch to a new insurer, tax free, if the new one pays a better rate. But with a bank, you're stuck. The banks know you're trapped, which may tempt them to pay low yields every time you renew your CD. Even now, the bank's return is poor. Given a $51,000 accumulation, for a 65-year-old woman, the retirement CD would pay $229 to $279 a month for life at the banks now offering the product. By contrast, the top 10 insurance company annuities are paying an average of $386, according to Annuity Shopper magazine in Englishtown, N.J. That's a lot of money to give up for deposit insurance. I think the banks should try again. It is no secret that the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee has had many hearings on the inadequacy of the current State insurance regulatory system, and that I believe that there should be Federal regulation of this interstate and international industry. I still hold that belief. However, the State insurance regulatory system is all that currently exists to protect insurance consumers and to ensure the financial stability and safe operation of insurance providers. It is imperative, for the protection of consumers, and to ensure the financial soundness of insurance products, that, at the very least, existing State insurance standards and protections are met by everyone selling or underwriting insurance, whether they are a bank, foreign company, or insurance company. The bill I am cosponsoring today, does not impose any new substantive requirements on anyone who provides insurance. It simply says that if you provide insurance in interstate commerce, regardless of who you are, you must comply with the insurance sales, licensing, and financial requirements of the State in which you are providing the insurance. I urge my colleagues to support this sensible and fair legislation when it comes to the House floor.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, several amendments have been offered to improve the unwise and unwarranted provisions of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act, relating to legal immigrants. Sadly, none of them goes far enough to correct a serious defect in this poorly drafted bill. The legislation now before us prohibits most legal immigrants from receiving certain welfare benefits, food stamps and Medicaid. It also contains an ill-advised ``deeming until citizenship'' provision that could render legal immigrants ineligible for benefits under a wide range of federal, state and local programs. This punitive approach, that runs counter to our best traditions of fairness and decency, is strongly opposed by the Catholic Church, the Council of Jewish Federations and a host of other prominent organizations. As we discuss this issue, I would remind my colleagues that under current law legal immigrants are effectively barred from receiving most welfare benefits for several years after entry. Moreover, they are required to fulfill virtually the same responsibilities as citizens. They must pay taxes, and they can be drafted. Under the proposed restriction, a legal immigrant, who has been working for years and paying taxes, will be denied assistance if he becomes disabled. Many others who have worked hard but never officially become citizens will be refused coverage for valuable health care services. For those who assert that legal immigrants represent a drain on Government, I commend to them a study conducted last year by the Urban Institute. The Institute estimated that immigrants contribute $30 billion more in revenue than they collect in services each year. These findings echoed an earlier study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showing that immigrant families on average contribute about $2,500 a year more in taxes than they obtain in public services. We should also remember why many immigrants come here. Like many of our ancestors they land on these shores because they want to work and be productive, self-sustaining individuals. I believe it can only be characterized as callous and mean-spirited to bar taxpaying, law-abiding persons from participating in programs that they must help support. Refusing benefits to legal immigrants will clearly not translate into savings for everyone. State and local governments will be forced to make increased expenditures as those noncitizens left with no means of support turn to their programs. Under the proposed bill, states and localities are able to deny assistance to legal immigrants. However, I believe the damaging repercussions of such a decision will make them reluctant to do so. I am sure that state and local officials around the country are surprised to see my colleagues creating these financial burdens less than a week after Congress sent unfunded mandate legislation to President Clinton, which he signed. Eliminating Medicaid coverage for legal immigrants will be particularly costly to state and local governments, as well as hospitals. 1.7 million noncitizens--many of whom are children--will be forced to let their illnesses go untreated until they become emergencies. As we all know, treating persons on this basis is generally far more expensive than providing routine care. Past experience shows that it can also be fatal. Two studies that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine are particularly instructive. One focused on the State of California's decision to terminate Medicaid eligibility for 270,000 people in 1982. Public health experts examined the effect on a number of patients with high blood pressure. Within 6 months of losing coverage, these patients suffered an average increase in blood pressure associated with a four- fold increased risk of death. prescription drug coverage in 1981. This policy change, which was reversed 11 months later, limited people to three prescriptions per months. Among chronically-ill elderly patients nursing home and hospital admissions rose significantly. In fact, the resulting increase in mental health costs alone exceeded the $400,000 savings realized by a ratio of more than a 17 to 1. It is clear that this poorly drafted legislation will leave states and hospitals with unfair choices. Do they absorb 100% of the costs of providing non-emergency care, or do they only treat legal immigrants on an emergency care basis. Focusing on emergency care potentially risks the health of citizens, as well. In addition, as CBO noted in its cost estimate for this legislation, this approach requires significant federal spending. Medicaid expenditures will be needed to finance emergency services and disproportionate share payments to hospitals. These are just a few examples of the dangers that America's less fortunate will have to face with passage of H.R. 4. I would welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues across the aisle to enact well- reasoned and effective welfare reform legislation that does not imperil the children, elderly, and legal immigrants of this nation. However, I refuse to blindly support extreme legislation that is contrary to personal responsibility.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today we take up the welfare reform bill sponsored by our Republican colleagues. This would end cash assistance for mothers, children, and legal immigrants. Last week my own cardinal for the archdiocese of Detroit said this: ``The measure of any such reforms will be whether or not they enhance the lives and dignity of poor children and their families.'' The truth is that these welfare reform proposals fail the cardinal's test and they fail the test which was set forth by the Catholic archbishops and bishops last week. Almost $70 billion will be removed from welfare programs; $2.2 million legal immigrants will lose eligibility; 6 million needy children will lose their cash support; 65,000 children in my own State will lose their lunch money. The Republicans cut money but they do nothing to improve the way the welfare reform programs operate. That is not reform. It is wrong. It is mean-spirited. These programs have flaws. They should be corrected. Protect the children. Be fair. Respect the dignity of human beings.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle--under great pressure--have now agreed to permit his amendment requiring that the balance of bill currently allows money not needed for last year's California earthquake to be set aside for tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations. As my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin said earlier, this bill is a charade. That is why I will not dignify it by voting for the ``either/or'' amendments forced upon us by the closed rule. While I view the Murtha amendment as a positive change, I regret that the process by which we are considering this flawed legislation is such a disgrace. It stifles responsible efforts to improve a rescissions package that takes direct aim at our children, veterans and elderly poor. As we have seen throughout the day, the restrictive arrangement we are operating under has forced Members to choose between important issues like caring for veterans, providing adequate housing for seniors and educating our children. It has also placed the defense budget, which represents close to half of the discretionary budget, off limits. Star wars, contracting cost overruns, and low priority or questionable defense programs are preserved in full. While I am supporting the Murtha amendment which places deficit reduction above financing tax cuts for the wealthy, I still have serious problems with the bill. The responsibility for drawing down the deficit is being placed squarely on the backs of those Americans who need our help most. This is occurring at a time when steps are being taken to make the wealthy better off. I can't help but ask two questions; ``Are we going to focus on slashing programs which help the poor to reduce the deficit?'', and ``How do my colleagues plan to finance the $189 billion in tax cuts scheduled to come before the House next week?'' I believe the rescissions now being proposed by my Republican colleagues provide a very clear answer to these questions. Money to improve the quality of medical care available to our veterans is being cut. This is being done despite the fact that the projected veterans population requiring health care services will far surpass available facilities in the future. The Low-Income Heating Assistance Program is being terminated. This vital program helps two million elderly households and better than 3 million low income families meet their home heating needs each year. Without it these families will be forced to make difficult choices between heat and other basic necessities such as food and medicine. Today it is supposed to be 70 degrees in Michigan. After my friends on the other side of the aisle are finished, we all better hope that next winter is just as mild. Cuts from housing programs will leave 14,500 seniors homeless. Another 530,000 elderly households will have the security and quality of their housing severely impaired as a result of these changes. The Women, Infants, and Children Program, and the Healthy Start Program which provide nutrition supplements and valuable prenatal care to mothers are also being cut. The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program is being terminated despite recent studies showing that drug use among students is on the rise. I find it very surprising that my colleagues would propose this cut less than one week after former First Lady Nancy Reagan stressed to a House subcommittee the importance of educating our young people on the harms of drugs. Other valuable programs to construct schools and enhance their technologies are being terminated. Programs to help move disadvantaged children from school to the world of work have also been put on the chopping block. The elimination of the Summer Youth Employment Program will translate to more than 600,000 lost opportunities for high risk youths. Funds are also being stripped from the Youth Job Training, Job Corps and School to work programs. At a time when we are preparing to consider the issue of welfare reform, we should not terminate or reduce funding for valuable programs that expose our young people to the dignity of work. The rescissions package before us clearly represents bad legislation. However, I commend my colleague from Pennsylvania for offering a measure to correct a defect in this bill that runs counter to the strong desire of the American people to see the deficit reduced. Regrettably, the Members on this side of the aisle are barred from offering amendments to ensure that we proceed in a responsible fashion. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to vote against the bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the function of this motion to recommit is a very simple one: One, to include what essentially would have been a bipartisan amendment to this legislation, which would have been offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon], that would have raised the amount of punitive damages to $1 million or three times the economic damages, a very fair and a very humane amendment which would protect the rights of persons injured by serious wrongdoing by manufacturers and others. The other thing that the amendment does is something which was voted on yesterday and in which by 258 to a substantially lesser number this body came to the judgment that we ought to see to it that foreigners are treated the same way as Americans are. The Cox amendment yesterday struck from the bill a requirement that foreigners appoint an agent for purposes of receiving service. The striking of that provision meant that no longer is it easy to get jurisdiction over foreigners who engage in improper processes in manufacturing. Let me give you an example. An American manufacturer manufactures an automobile. In it he includes foreign parts. He is sued for product liability because of the manufacturing of that automobile. Service is easy on the American manufacturer. Under the Cox amendment, it is almost impossible. Mr. Speaker, if you wanted to treat Americans fairly with foreigners, vote for the motion to recommit. Otherwise vote for the bill as it is.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to reserve the right to object.

Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman would yield further, could the gentleman tell me whether there will be changes in the legislation between now and the time that the printing requirement bites, so that we can understand that our amendments if drafted will be drafted to the legislation that will be considered by the House?

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. This amendment does absolutely nothing to deter litigation. It simply cuts the amount that can be paid to a person who has been wronged by medical malpractice or by other unfortunate improper practices. It denies them proper recovery. If that is medical reform, I do not know what it is. I urge the rejection of the amendment. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want Members to look at what this amendment says, at page 13. It covers anything of a medical character. It caps pain and suffering and noneconomic damages at $250,000. Let us look at some of the things for which a person will get $250,000 maximum for pain and suffering and other noneconomic damages. A person is blinded, a person is rendered a paraplegic, loss of a leg or an arm, loss of reproductive capacity. A woman can never have a child again, she gets $250,000. How can this body justify the enactment of a proposal which has this, on which there has been no hearings whatsoever; no hearings, no testimony, nobody knows what this does. It springs like Hebe from the brain of Jove, without the faintest appreciation of what is done, without the least awareness of what it acccomplishes. Think of the hurt and pain and suffering that you are not properly compensating with this outrageous amendment. This is an outrageous amendment. I cannot in conscience see how I can vote for it, and I cannot imagine anybody else who could contemplate voting for this kind of outrage. No hearings, capping pain and suffering, without the faintest acknowledgment of what it will in fact cost. Let me remind the Members, a citizen can get more on workmen's compensation, on railroad compensation, or on maritime compensation than they could get under this.

Mr. DINGELL. The House has already spoken. Foreigners should respond in discovery. But this amendment strikes the ability to even get them in court. It takes away the ability of an American injured by foreign misbehavior in the area of product liability to even get service, because no longer must the foreigner appoint an agent for purposes of receiving service under this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it strikes the provision relative to service of process. It strikes the proper requirement that foreign companies appoint an agent for purposes of receiving service.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the FDA defense has been a topic of considerable discussion and controversy over the years. In the past I have supported the adoption of provisions affording the FDA defense. This was done based on my belief that strong support and appropriate oversight by the Congress would enable the FDA to provide thoughtful, careful review for drug and medical device approvals and scrupulous post-market surveillance, all of which are essential to the protection of the American consuming public. If this were to be the case, there would be no question but what Congress should afford the FDA approval as a defense against punitive damages. Regrettably, that appears not, however, to be the case. Times have changed and it appears that congressional support for FDA and support for a strong, viable, adequately-funded, well-staffed agency is at risk at this particular time. We have been hearing about privatizing, cutting back, reducing and eliminating FDA. It is my strong belief that until these questions have been satisfactorily resolved and until we are satisfied that FDA approval really means something, that we should not then afford a weakening of the civil suit process which affords protection to the American consumer from misbehavior by manufacturers of devices and prescription pharmaceuticals. The ability of FDA to properly process the business before them, to see to it that the new drugs are properly approved, that all information necessary is produced, to see to it that there is no deceit or duplicity in the offer, to see to it that there are no changes in the drugs as manufactured, to see to it that the Food and Drug Administration's requirement for good manufacturing practices be met during the manufacturing of the drugs is absolutely essential to consumer safety. If that is to be tampered with or impaired with through the budget process or through actions of Congress or through less than vigorous enforcement by the administration because of lack of adequate funds or because of congressional pressure, then clearly this kind of amendment is not in the public interest. I would urge, therefore, that until we have seen more fully the state of affairs with regard to the strength and the adequacy of FDA supervision of new drugs, new drug applications, and with regard to the safety and adequacy of supervision by FDA of devices, that this Congress should not relax the supervision that is given to manufacturers of both devices and prescription pharmaceuticals until we are more sure that the protections of FDA are meaningful and have not been impaired by budget cuts, by reductions in the authority of the agency, by roll back of the abilities of the agency to carry out its responsibility or by actions like those taken more recently by the Congress in setting up cost-benefit analyses and things of that kind. Those are actions which are inimical to good protection of the consumer and to assurances of adequate safety, because if FDA must take that length of time to do these things, they will not be looking at the question of safety of prescription pharmaceuticals or devices from the standpoint only of health and safety of the individual who purchases that commodity. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.