John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want my colleagues to understand that today they have a choice between going home and telling people they did something about levees and levee reconstruction or going home and saying that they made wonderful speeches and brought down the legislation which could have helped those people; that they have assured a veto or a filibuster in the Senate which will kill this legislation. I want to give my colleagues one example of what this means. In the West, salmon streams now are faced with a situation where salmon are becoming endangered species. What this says is that we are stripping those homeowners and others along the shore of the protection of Federal flood control, but we are also doing something else, we are stripping the salmon, which is one of God's great gifts to the people of the Western United States, of all protection. And we will find the great runs of salmon being a matter of cold hard history with those species now gone from the western rivers. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from New York and against the legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize U.S. Air Force Captain James Huard, who today was laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery, 25 years after his death. Captain Huard was born on March 17, 1946 in Dearborn, MI. James was a 1964 graduate of Dearborn High School, where he participated in basketball, choir, operettas, and track. He was also very active in his church. James went on to graduate from Central Michigan University. Upon completion of college, he became a math and science teacher at Woodworth Junior High School. He soon decided to follow his dream to become a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force. James learned to fly F-4E Phantoms and left his beloved family to go defend his country in Vietnam. James was stationed at Ubon Royal Thai Air Base, Thailand with the 433d Tactical Fighter Squadron. On July 12, 1972 Captain Huard and his weapons system officer, Captain Samuel O'Donnell, Jr., were reported missing when their F-4E Phantom disappeared from radar somewhere over North Vietnam. James' father passed away in 1991 without knowing the fate of his son. Late last year the U.S. Government was finally able to identify Captain Huard's remains from a group of 38, believed to be those of U.S. servicemen, that the Vietnamese Government returned in 1988. Captain Huard's remains were returned to his family on January 29 during a ceremony in California. As the city's only MIA from the Vietnam War, the citizens of Dearborn have striven to keep the memory of James Huard alive for 25 years. The Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 267, Dearborn, MI is named after him. An oak tree was dedicated in his honor in April 1973, which stands in front of Joshua Howard Elementary School. The James Huard Drive was dedicated in the fall of 1986. Finally, a monument in his honor was erected by the citizens of Dearborn, in front of Dearborn High School, where today there will be a service to coincide with the Arlington service. Seldom has one person engendered such an immense outpouring of emotion from a community. Today my heartfelt wishes go out to James' family--his mother, wife, three sons, brother, and sister--who have had to endure the pain of not knowing their loved one's fate for 25 years. Today James Huard, American patriot and hero, is home and at peace.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, children are the future of our Nation. It is important that we give them a healthy start to their lives. Unfortunately, many children are not given the opportunity to grow up healthy because they cannot get access to a doctor because their parents cannot afford insurance. The bill that I am introducing in the House today on behalf of my 14 cosponsors--the Child Health Insurance Provides Security [CHIPS] Act-- provides a strong inducement for States to provide health coverage for more children. Medicaid already covers one-third of our Nation's children. It therefore makes great sense to build on this existing program that has been so successful in providing access to health care services for children for 30 years. This legislation gives States the option to expand coverage for children in families with incomes up to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level--or $24,000 per year for a family of four--and provides incentives for them to do so by increasing their Federal Medicaid assistance percentage by 30 percent. For the working poor this means that the variations in eligibility within existing families will be leveled out. This will reduce the number of families who have children of different ages, some eligible for Medicaid and some not. Children also can be made eligible for 1 full year at a time, thus protecting them from losing their health care coverage because of changes in family income. Outreach is another important aspect of children's health care coverage. An estimated 3 million children today are eligible to receive services through the Medicaid Program but are not enrolled. In order to encourage States to step up their efforts to identify and enroll children in health insurance programs, we have included $25 million per year in grant money to improve and increase outreach efforts by the States. This bill is not a mandate. States are not required to take advantage of any of these options. We are providing a number of vehicles that States can use to help improve access to health insurance for their children. The CHIPS Act also does not penalize States that already cover children up to 150 percent FPL. States which have moved beyond the 150 percent FPL are eligible for the 30 percent enhanced match if they implement the 12 month continuous eligibility provision. Also, the Child Health Insurance Provides Security Act does not preclude other approaches to expanding health insurance coverage for children. This bill complements approaches like the Hatch-Kennedy or the Daschle bills. CHIPS sets a floor below which no child should fall, and other approaches could fit nicely on top of CHIPS. I invite my colleagues in the House to join me and the other cosponsors in this bipartisan effort to provide health insurance security for our Nation's most vulnerable population: Children. A strong bi-partisan group of Senators supports CHIPS. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the House will come together behind this sensible proposal that will expand access for children to health insurance.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend for yielding. I want to commend him for having this special order. I think the product of the work of not only the delegation but also this particular special order is going to be valuable to the country. I want to commend the gentleman. I want to commend the Speaker for the work which was done. It was done in a thoroughly bipartisan fashion, and it focused on a number of issues of enormous moment to the United States and to the people of this country. More importantly, it addressed the issues of security and trade in Korea, Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China, and in Taiwan as well as in Japan. Our interest in Hong Kong was, of course, the question of reversion to Chinese sovereignty which will take place shortly. We met with Governor Chris Patten, with Mr. Tung who will serve as Hong Kong's chief executive officer after the reversion, the financial secretary of the colony, senior legislators, human rights activists, leadership of the Hong Kong Christian Council, members of the United States and Hong Kong business communities, ordinary citizens and large numbers of others. In China the delegation reviewed a whole broad range of issues with the entire top leadership of the People's Republic. I must say in these two, and in all of the other activities in which the delegation functioned, it functioned in a thoroughly and completely bipartisan and proper fashion. The delegation's focus in Japan was economic, again, and security issues. We met with the Prime Minister, the Foreign and Defense Ministers, the Minister of International Trade and Industry, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as well as Japan's most wealthy and successful business leaders and the Chamber of Commerce there. Our discussion related to trade, unfair trading practices, opening the markets with regard to all kinds of American exports and the need for achieving a fair and more evenhanded trading relationship with that country. Similar discussions were held, of course, in Korea, which is an area of major concern, as we also discussed these matters in the People's Republic of China. As a result of the trip, I have come home more firmly convinced than ever that the United States has enormous political, economic, and security interests in east Asia, interests which we are safeguarding and on which we are pledging our interest and determination for the maintenance of peace by having some 37,000 of our fine young men and women standing watch along the most dangerous and heavily fortified border in the world. We spent considerable time inquiring, I would observe to the gentleman as he has already observed, into not only the relationship between the United States and the countries there, but very specifically the situation with regard to North Korea, a curious closed nation which is witnessing with great distress the economic collapse of its economy, with a continued annual decline in economic activity of about 7 percent. Again, we discussed not only the question of our security but the situation with regard to the North Korean country and what is happening in that unfortunate place and what its meanings are. Does it mean implosion, does it mean explosion, does it mean invasion to the south, does it mean democratic change or some kind of soft landing? The answer is no one knows the answers to these questions. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman who has gotten this special order, for the outstanding work that he is doing and does do and for his leadership in this particular matter. I have recently returned from a 10-day trip to Asia led by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. The bipartisan delegation, on which I served as ranking Democrat, visited South Korea, Hong Kong, China, Japan, and Taiwan. In South Korea the delegation focused on security and trade issues. We met with President Kim Young Sam, Gen. John Tilelli, who commands United States Forces Korea, Foreign Minister Yoo Chong-Ha, Korean trade officials and senior legislators, and representatives of the United States business community in Korea. In Hong Kong our primary interest was in Hong Kong's reversion to Chinese sovereignty, due to take place on July 1, 1997. We met with Gov. Chris Patten, C.H. Tung, who will serve as Hong Kong's chief executive after the July 1 reversion, the Hong Kong financial secretary, senior legislators, human rights activists, leaders of the Hong Kong Christian Council, and members of the U.S. and Hong Kong business communities. In China the delegation reviewed a range of issues on the United States-China bilateral agenda, with particular emphasis on Hong Kong, Taiwan, human rights, and trade. While in Beijing we had meetings with President Jiang Zemin, Premier Li Peng, Vice-Premier Zhu Rongji, Foreign Minister Qian Qichen, and other senior Chinese officials. The delegation also spent 1 day in Shanghai, where we attended Easter morning services and met with Shanghai's mayor, the chairman of China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, and the American Chamber of Commerce. The delegation's focus in Japan was on economic and security issues. We met with Prime Minister Hashimoto, the Japanese foreign and defense ministers, the Minister of International Trade and Industry, the speaker of the Japanese House of Representatives, and some of Japan's wealthiest and most successful business leaders, as well as the American Chamber of Commerce in Tokyo. The delegation's final stop was in Taiwan, where we met with President Lee Teng-hui, Vice President and Premier Lien Chan, and Foreign Minister John Chang. Relations between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong's reversion, the proposed sale of Taiwanese nuclear waste to North Korea, and the WTO dominated the discussions. As a result of this trip, I have returned to the United States more firmly convinced than ever that the United States has substantial political, economic, and security interests in East Asia, including the maintenance of peace on the Korean Peninsula, where 37,000 American troops stand watch along the most dangerous and heavily fortified border in the world. These interests can be protected only by an active American engagement in the region. The United States is a Pacific power today, and should remain so for the foreseeable future. This will require active and imaginative diplomacy, backed by the presence of approximately 100,000 American troops in the region. I had the privilege of visiting with many of these men and women who represent the United States armed services in East Asia, and I am pleased to report to you that they are an impressive lot--dedicated, serious, committed professionals whom the Nation owes a great debt of gratitude. China and the difficult United States-Chinese relationship figured prominently in our discussions at each of our stops. We found widespread agreement among the Asian leaders with whom we met that the Clinton administration's policy of constructive engagement toward China offers the best means of safeguarding our interests and pursuing our political, security, and economic objectives in East Asia. Our relationship with China will inevitably be a rocky one for many years, for we are divided by profound differences. But we also share important interests in common--a desire for peace and stability throughout the region, a prosperous, open global economy, a nonnuclear North Korea that does not threaten its neighbors or disrupt the strategic status quo, a successful Hong Kong reversion process--and it is very much in our interests to remain engaged with this prickly but important country. During each of our stops, I raised difficult trade issues and preached the need to break down barriers to American products and services. In South Korea I focused on Korean restrictions that block the import of United States automobiles--the government's frugality campaign, tariffs and taxes on automobile imports, vehicle certification procedures, matters relating to financing, and politically motivated tax audits and other forms of harassment--and arranged for meetings outside the delegation's official program with South Korean trade officials and representatives from the Big Three United States automakers. If Korea persists in refusing to open its trading system, I warned, the United States would be forced to reconsider its options, which might include placing Korea on the watch list or initiating a complaint before the World Trade Organization. In China I emphasized the need for China to accept more United States goods and to take other steps to reduce Beijing's sizable trade surplus with the United States. American support for a policy of engagement, I cautioned, will evaporate unless China treats American business fairly. Opening up China's vast markets, I told economic czar Zhu Rongji, will set up a win-win situation. Not only will such actions strengthen the bilateral relationship; they will also help both countries address their domestic economic problems. While in Tokyo, I spent considerable time looking into why the import of U.S. autos, while slightly higher in 1996 than 1995, was still so sluggish. I was told that in addition to Japan's well-known trade barriers, the weak yen was now making foreign autos more expensive for Japanese consumers. Tokyo, I warned, must avoid the temptation to deal with its current economic difficulties by aggressively promoting exports that create an even larger trade imbalance with the United States. Japan, we repeated at every opportunity, must do more to open its markets to American goods. While we do not seek special treatment, we have a right to expect the same treatment from Japan that we afford Japanese companies doing business in the United States. As a result of this trip I have a renewed understanding of how the prosperity and well-being of Americans, including the people of the 16th District of Michigan, is inextricably linked to an active and enlightened American presence in East Asia. Equally important, our delegation was able to spread the word that if the peoples of East Asia desire the fruits of American engagement, they will have to help us shoulder the burdens as well--politically, militarily, and not least in importance, economically.

Mr. DINGELL. If my good friend would yield, with his full support, cooperation, and also with that of the Speaker and the rest of the delegation, for which I thank the gentleman, the Speaker and the other members of the delegation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 410, a bill that would extend the April 9 effective date of the Investment Advisers Supervision Coordination Act by 90 days to July 8, and urge its immediate adoption by the House. These investment adviser provisions were enacted as title III of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act in October of last year. The process by which a final agreement was brokered between the House and the Senate involved a take-it-or-leave-it package that was delivered by the Senate to the majority on Friday, October 27, and to the minority conferees on Saturday, October 28, a mere 3 hours before the conference report was due to be taken up on the House Floor. We were reading the final language on the House Floor in the minutes before it was brought up, leaving no time or process for the correction of technical errors or substantive problems. S. 410 corrects the problems created by the other body having allowed just 180 days, or 6 months, for the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt all the necessary rules and rule changes, and for the necessary registrations and deregistrations to be effected at both Federal and State levels as required by the act. This timing makes absolutely no sense and would result in the statutory reforms being frustrated and would provide regulatory breaches for crooks to operate in. To remind my colleagues, the number of investment advisers registered with the SEC has increased dramatically from 5,680 in 1980 to approximately 22,500 today. By 1995, the SEC was able to examine smaller advisers on a routine basis only once every 44 years on average. Investment advisers, no matter what their size and complexity, only pay a one-time fee of $150 to register when they apply for SEC registration. House efforts over three Congresses to enact an industry- crafted graduated-user-fee table to give the SEC more resources to supervise investment advisers were repeatedly frustrated by opposition in the other body. Alternatively, therefore, title III of NSMIA, among other things, reallocates Federal and State responsibilities for the regulation of approximately 22,500 investment advisers currently registered with the SEC by providing that the SEC will be the primary regulator of first, investment advisers managing assets of $25 million or more and second, investment advisers to registered investment companies, with smaller investment advisers required to be registered with and regulated by the State in which the adviser has its principle office and place of business. The role of the States is not entirely preempted for federally regulated investment advisers. A State where an adviser has a place of business may continue to require licensing of the adviser's individual representatives. Moreover, NSMIA also preserves the right of States to bring enforcement actions for fraud and deceit against any adviser, and to require notice filings of all documents filed with the SEC, as well as a consent to service of process. Furthermore, the availability of the Federal preemption is conditioned on the payment of current fees for the next 3 years. Title III also requires the SEC to establish and maintain a readily accessible telephone hot-line for investors to access information about disciplinary actions and investor complaints, if any, involving investment advisers they contemplate doing business with. As Members can clearly see, this new scheme involves a lot of hard work and coordination between State and Federal regulators. The SEC is to be commended for getting a very complex set of rulemakings out for public comment in December. The proposals have received a large number of thoughtful comment letters and the agency is actively reviewing them and working toward final rules and forms as well as interpretative responses to a myriad of complex questions. However, it is nowhere within the realm of possibility for all this work to be completed by April 9. It is unfortunate that the author of the investment adviser provisions did not provide for an adequate and reasonable effective date. S. 410 corrects that deficiency so that the important reforms of title III can be achieved.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are unveiling today is not based on theoretical or theological constructs. It is rooted in the real-life experience of people dealing with their health care system. Ten years ago, fewer than one in seven Americans with private insurance were enrolled in some form of managed care. Today, three of every four Americans with private insurance are in managed care. Including Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries, more than 140 million Americans were covered by managed care plans as of 1995. There is a growing body of anecdotal and statistical evidence to suggest that many of the changes in our health care system over these last few years are not without flaws or imperfections. Let me be clear. Managed care plans, and health maintenance organizations, perform good and great works every day. With managed care, we get a better overview of the care provided, so that we can identify and end improper or unnecessary practices. We can better coordinate the care received by a single patient. And we can get the benefits of bargaining collectively with providers to cut costs. The traditional fee-for-service system built in a series of incentives to generate more revenue by providing more services. My concern is that the pendulum may have swung back too far in the other direction. We've gone from cost being no consideration to cost being the only consideration in providing health care. And neither extreme is healthy for the public. You may have heard the stories: Heart attack victims forced to drive miles to an approved emergency treatment hospital. Patients denied payment for emergency care. Medicaid HMO's refusing to pay for antibiotics to stop a childhood dysentery epidemic. Cardiac surgery centers selected on the basis of price rather than survival rate. Marketers charged with mail fraud, forgery, or bribery. According to surveys, 80 percent of the American people agree that quality care is often compromised to save money. I don't believe these problems are necessarily typical of HMO's or the managed care business. The vast majority of plans are operated by honorable men and women. The same can be said of any other endeavor or profession. Most stockbrokers are honest, as are most doctors, or police, or even--believe it or not--most Members of Congress. But that doesn't obviate the need for laws or regulations to corral and control the bad actors. Concern about the practices of some managed care plans prompted us to pass legislation in the last Congress to guarantee that a woman and her doctor would decide how long she should remain in the hospital after giving birth. This Congress, Congresswomen DeLauro and Roukema and I introduced similar legislation on the length of stay after a mastectomy. I'm well aware that some have criticized legislation on births or mastectomies because they are specific to one condition. I find that criticism amusing. When we tried to enact comprehensive health care reform, many of the same people told us we were doing too many things all at once. I'm also aware of another criticism, and that is that Congress should not be making medical decisions. I couldn't agree more. Congress shouldn't have to concern itself with the length of a hospital stay after a mastectomy or birth. Those decisions should be made by qualified medical professionals and their patients. But the harsh fact of the matter is that when cost, and not care, is the primary consideration, the wisdom of doctors and patients is too often supplanted by insurance companies. The Congress is simply acting to restore some balance to the equation. That's the guiding principle behind the legislation that Senator Kennedy and I are introducing today, the Health Insurance Bill of Rights Act. This legislation deals with the four cornerstones of a system that tips the balance in favor of the client--a system that puts patients first--access, quality, information, and dispute resolution. First, the bill would ensure that patients can get their health care in the best place and from the best people--whether it is a primary care provider, a specialist, a specialty hospital, or even a high- quality clinical trial. The key here is the health of the patient, not whether a provider is a member of the health plan's network. The legislation will make sure that a sick patient can complete a course of treatment with the doctor and hospital the patient knows and trusts, and that a healthy patient will have real choice of providers in receiving routine health care. For example, a woman who regularly sees an obstetrician-gynecologist can consider that doctor as her primary care provider. Or a cancer patient's oncologist can refer the patient to other specialists for related treatments, without going through a ``gatekeeper.'' Our bill deals carefully with the thorny issue of drug substitution. We don't mandate prescription drug coverage, and we don't forbid drug formularies. We simply say that health plans ought to consult with their own doctors in developing their formularies, and ought to provide a way for those doctors to substitute drugs when they believe it's medically necessary. Second, quality. This bill lays out a number of components of a good quality assurance program--components that mirror what the best of your health plans already do for their patients. We would require health plans to collect data and make information available in plain language, so patients can compare different plans and make wise choices. Third is patient information. The minimum quality and information components in this bill are things we have been told patients want and need to know: The plans' criteria for determining medical necessity, appropriateness, efficiency, and access; their policies to ensure confidentiality of medical records; the scope of their utilization management activities; and the way the plans evaluate consumer satisfaction. In other words, the bare-bones components of a top-notch health plan. Our bill would require health plans to provide simple information like addresses, telephone numbers, what benefits are included, the cost of premiums, and any cost-sharing requirements. Patients also need to know about the credentials of providers, how to obtain authorization for services, and how to get referrals to providers who are not plan participants. In other words, patients ought to have enough information at their fingertips to navigate the system without frustration and failure. I am sure that any good health plan would be not only willing but anxious for consumers to have all of this information. And while on the subject of information and communication, I should also mention that this bill incorporates the patient-friendly concepts first introduced by Representatives Markey and Ganske in the last Congress--the concepts that underlie the ability of doctors and patients to communicate freely and understand each other effectively. Finally, the legislation provides an absolutely essential component of a consumer-friendly health plan--an appeals process that works: Timely notice of a plan's decision not to provide a certain benefit, or not to pay for it, and a workable process for the patient to appeal. This process must be fast when it needs to be fast--such as when the patient is seriously ill or near death. And, as the icing on this cake, the plan must have a real, fair, dispute resolution process which takes account of the views of the patient and provider as well as a third party, such as an ombudsman, who can look at the situation from a new perspective. This legislation was developed through consultations with literally dozens of interested and affected parties: Consumer groups, hospitals, medical professionals, health plans, and others. It is modeled on State statutes that were fully bipartisan. For instance, the State of New York, with a Republican Governor and Democratic legislature, has enacted similar legislation. I'm well aware that I'll be criticized for proposing Government intervention and regulation. But the fact is that through our democratic institutions, we routinely establish fair terms for competition. We prohibit practices we deem unfair, discriminatory, outlandish, or improper. The American people expect Government to set minimum standards of behavior, and keep the playing field level. In the area of health insurance, we need to see that competition is based on more than just price. Price often tells us very little about value or quality. One of the arguments for changing the Consumer Price Index is the argument that it fails to take into account improvements in quality. And let me observe that if price were the only consideration in buying a care, we'd all be driving around in Yugos. When it comes to health care, I don't want a Yugo, and I don't need a Rolls-Royce. A Dodge or Chevy or Ford will do quite nicely. In this instance, that means a system in which patients receive appropriate, quality health care, in which they can understand decisions about their care, and in which they can act effectively on their own behalf. My legislation will accomplish that.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, prior to yielding myself time, I would inquire who is it that has the right, under the rule, to close?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, just to respond to what the gentleman from Florida had to say. Mr. Chairman, term limits; if Members are for term limits and they really mean it and they want it to take effect immediately, this amendment is for them. If Members want term limits to take place in 19 years, 7 years for ratification, 12 years following, so that they can have a secure and happy career in this institution, then by all means oppose the amendment and by all means support the resolution as it is drawn. Mr. Chairman, this is a real test of the sincerity of those who say they are for term limits. If Members are sincere, support the amendment. If they are not, oppose it.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], my good friend, the ranking minority member of the committee.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, if Members believe in term limits, this is the amendment for them. Our existing system of term limits works splendidly. They are called elections and have resulted in a 75-percent turnover since 1990. With the Committee on the Judiciary reporting House Joint Resolution 2 without recommendation, it is clear that there is no consensus as to how we should amend the Constitution, but a number of people, inside and outside the Congress, are in a desperate rush to see that such is done. The House, under their fiat, shall amend the Constitution, do so quickly, without regard to the wide differences which exist amongst even the supporters of term limits. There is a gigantic quibble taking place amongst the traditional supporters of term limits. They cannot decide whether it should be 6, 8, or 12 years for Members of the House. Should it be uniform amongst the States, or should the States choose for themselves? Should it include partial terms? Most importantly, should term limits count the service of those who have already served in Congress? I would think that we should count current and past service. That is why I have offered a bipartisan amendment with my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton]. I want to salute him and commend him as not only a loyal friend, but as a vigorous and able proponent of this amendment. The amendment would apply term limits immediately; not retroactively, but immediately, with regard to the service which Members have committed, and it would count every partial election. It would ensure that the turnover desired by term-limit proponents is given them now. If this amendment is not passed, the proposal before us assures that the 7 years which it takes for ratification, plus the 12 years which is in the proposal, will give each Member 19 additional years, enough to qualify for their pension. Now, why make term limits immediate? If the American people are angry at legislators, they are angry at today's legislators, not tomorrow's, and changing House Resolution 2 to make term limits immediate should make sure that we are not going to hold future legislators to higher standards than those to which we hold ourselves. Our existing system of term limits all ready works quite well. They are called elections, which have resulted in a 75-percent turnover rate since 1990. With the Judiciary Committee reporting House Joint Resolution 2 without recommendation, it is clear that there is no clear consensus on how to amend the Constitution to put term limits in place. Instead this effort seems driven by outside forces--which have determined that the House shall vote to amend the Constitution, do so quickly, and without regard to the wide differences that exist even among supporters of term limits. There is a gigantic quibble taking place between the traditional proponents of term limits * * * shall they be 6 years, 8 years, or 12 years? Should they be uniform among all States, or should we let the States choose for themselves? Should they count partial terms? And, most importantly, should term limits count the service of those of us who have already served in Congress? I think we should count current and past service. That's why I have offered a bipartisan amendment with the gentleman from Texas that would: Apply term limits immediately, not in a couple of decades. Count every partial election. Ensure that the turnover desired by term limits proponents is given to them now, not in as long as two decades. Why make term limits immediate? The American people are angry at today's legislators, not tomorrow's. Changing House Joint Resolution 2 to make term limits immediate will make sure that we do not hold future legislators to a higher standard than ourselves. Opponents of immediate term limits say they fear the massive turnover. I suspect what they really fear is being part of that massive turnover. In fact, if term limits were effective for the 106th Congress, at least 123 Members would automatically be disqualified from service. Among this list of 123--besides myself--are 19 cosponsors of House Joint Resolution 2, who themselves will have served an average of 18 years--50 percent longer than they would allow future legislators to stay. Without immediate term limits, all current Members can serve almost 20 more years, when you include up to 7 years for ratification by the States. If we are for term limits, let's have them now. Vote ``yes'' on Dingell-Barton. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. He has been very gracious in conducting a very fine debate here. I would just observe that during the time that the States prepared their ratification, Members could, of course, prepare for the consequences of the amendment on which we are now voting. In other words, if it took 7 years for the States to ratify, Members could have 7 years during which they could run, during which they could make arrangements to seek other office, during which they could make arrangements for their retirement. There is no disorder here. We have the period between the time that the House and the Senate passed the legislation and the time that it is ratified by the States.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I want to utter great respect for the distinguished gentleman from Florida who has handled this bill. I want to express my personal sorrow that he finds so few who are ready to stand with him in opposition to this amendment. The amendment is very simple. It says that term limits take place immediately upon ratification of the States, not 19 years later. I believe that that is the way it should be. If we are really for term limits, then let us have term limits immediately. Let us not allow ours to remain around here in some cynicism, building our seniority, collecting seniority and eligibility for pensions. Let us just simply say that, if the people wanted term limits and they wanted them now, they should have them now. I think that there is some arrogance on the part of any Member to go home and say how he is for term limits when in fact he is for term limits 19 years in the future, as it is under the legislation before us. Let us have term limits immediately. Let us not debase the proposition of term limits by deceiving the people that in fact there is going to be term limits but at some distant and indefinable future time. Let us have it immediately. If term limits are good, they should in fact go into effect at the earliest possible time. That is the proper and the responsible vote. Vote for term limits now. Do not vote for term limits in the future. If we are really for term limits, let us have them now, not at some distant and obscure time in the foggy future.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker. Over the course of the last 2 years, we have spent a great deal of time in Congress debating the future of Medicare. The debate between my colleagues from both sides of the aisle has been sharply partisan and at times bitter. It is my hope that we can move past the rhetoric and begin to work on legislation which will improve the health care coverage of seniors in our country. I am happy to say that the legislation we are introducing today accomplishes these goals. I am proud to join Congresswoman Johnson and Senators Chafee and Rockefeller in introducing this legislation. Our targeted Medigap bill will provide the same guarantees of portability and pre-existing condition protections to seniors enrolled in Medigap, achieved in the health insurance portability and accountability law. This very important legislation will improve the health care coverage of America's seniors. This legislation embodies a policy I have always supported to ensure that seniors can get continuous coverage for their Medigap policies. With this legislation, seniors will be able to explore options such as managed care, secure in the knowledge that they can return to Medicare as they know it. Seniors are now free to try new health managed care options without being permanently locked into potentially costly out-of-pocket expenses from which they were previously protected by their Medigap policies. I look forward to working with my colleagues in passing this legislation and I commend Congresswoman Johnson and Senators Chafee and Rockefeller for their work on this issue.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you the following article from the January 14, 1997, business section of the Washington Post. Written by Allan Sloan, this article accurately highlights some of the pitfalls with Social Security privatization. The golden goose, which some regard the stock market to be, may, in fact, be a red herring. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the above-referenced newspaper article be printed in the Record at this point. In Stocks and Social Security, a Free Lunch Is Pure Fantasy If you're so worried about Social Security that you stay awake nights, cheer up. A solution is at hand. To ensure a good night's slumber, sit down at bedtime with the report issued last week by the Advisory Council on Social Security. This 752-page, two-volume opus is so complicated, technical and jargon-laden that it makes your average computer instruction manual look like a comic book. By now, you're probably over-familiar with the details. The council, formed in 1994, was expected to propose rescuing Social Security by raising taxes and trimming benefits. Surprise! Instead of relying on this traditional but painful fix, the council proposed to ``reform'' the system's retirement and disability programs by betting trillions of dollars on stocks. That's trillions, with a ``t.'' Talk about the temptations of a bull market. Rather than bite the bullet on Social Security, we can all chow down on a free lunch. Stock market profits will keep baby boomers fat and happy in retirement; Generation X's taxes won't go through the roof to make the boomers' golden years glorious. But you know what? It's all fantasy. Lots of Americans favor putting some of the funds into stocks. But if we're silly enough to try it, it won't work. Let's back up a bit before explaining why. The free lunch proposed by the council comes in three varieties, because the members couldn't agree on the most appetizing dish. The first would make the federal government the world's biggest stockholder. The second would establish a new 1.6 percent tax on Social Security-covered wages and require people to invest the money in one of a half dozen or so government-sponsored funds. The third would require people to save 5 percent of Social Security wages in accounts holding any kind of publicly traded securities they wish, would have Uncle Sam borrow as much as $7 trillion to pay benefits to make up for the money that would be invested rather than redistributed to retirees, and would finance it all with a 1.52 percent tax on top of the existing 12.4 percent tax. Let's concentrate on the idea of putting the Social Security fund in stocks, which seems more likely to be taken seriously in Washington than the forced-savings approaches. What all three plans have in common is that they would throw us willy-nilly into a high-stakes game of retirement roulette, betting the nation's financial future (or the futures of millions of individual retirees) on the stock market. The council didn't start out to do this. Initially its members tried to agree on a cuts-and-taxes fix. But some members feared that sharp tax increases and benefit cutbacks would erode Social Security's political base by making people think the program is a lousy investment. How did the council's biggest faction--6 of 13 members-- decide to put 40 percent of the Social Security fund in stocks? ``That's the amount that makes things come out,'' says panel member Robert Ball, the former Social Security commissioner who's pushing this plan hard. Ball says it's perfectly safe for Social Security to have its money in the hundreds (or thousands) of stocks that make up an index such as the Standard & Poor's 500 or the Russell 3000. Why does Ball say that's safe? Because unlike individual investors, the government won't panic during downturns or be forced to liquidate its holdings at low prices to generate cash. Unfortunately, he's wrong. The Treasury would in fact find itself a few trillion dollars in the hole if stocks merely rose at a rate lower than the council projects. Here's the problem. In a triumph of statistic over common sense, the council's plans all assume that stock prices will rise more quickly than they have in the past. A dubious prospect, considering that stock prices already are at such nosebleed-high levels that even many bulls have gotten nervous stomachs. Anyone who has studied financial history, even a little, gets very nervous when people confidently predict what stock prices will be in 75 years. Betting that stock prices will keep rising rapidly because they have been rising rapidly ``is like the guys on Noah's ark projecting six more weeks of rain on the 39th day,'' says Joseph Rosenberg, chief investment strategist at Loews Corp. and one of Wall Street's most respected investors. ``You can't believe how dumb a government can be.'' Rosenberg points out that stocks don't necessarily spring back quickly from deep drops the way they did after the 1987 market crash. Stocks didn't regain their 1929 highs until 1954, Rosenberg notes, and it took almost 10 years for stocks to match the highs they reached in 1973. But even absent a 1929 or 1973 disaster, stocks aren't likely to make the money the council projects. Here's why. Combining several different assumptions, the council projects that inflation will be 4 percent a year, bonds will yield 2.3 percentage points more than inflation and stocks will produce 7 percent more. That works out to 6.39 percent for bonds and 11.28 percent for stocks, says Stephen Goss, deputy chief actuary of the Social Security Administration. The stock number includes capital gains and reinvested dividends. Now, 11.28 percent a year may not strike you as a big hurdle, given that stocks earned three times 11.28 in 1995 and twice as much last year. But it's a huge number. Consider Corporate America's expectations of the market. Greenwich Associates, a consulting firm, says the corporate pension managers it surveyed expect stocks to average 9.6 percent annually for the next five years. Maybe my harping on the 11.28 percent projected return for stocks is wasting your time. But look what happens when numbers differ by small amounts over decades. Let's compare the 11.28 percent a year the council projects with the 10.71 percent a year that Ibbotson Associates says stocks earned from 1926 through 1996, a 71-year period. Do the math--don't try it without a compounding calculator--and you see that $1 invested in 1926 had become $1,372 by last Dec. 31. But if stocks had earned the council's projected 11.28 percent, our dollar would have grown to $1,975. A big difference, eh? It means that if stocks rise for the next 71 years at the Ibbotson rate instead of the council's rate, Social Security's stock portfolio would be worth 30 percent less than the council projects. What terrifies me and many Wall Street types is the prospect of the government pounding into the stock market running prices to the moon with automatic buying, and then having the market crash on us for some reason that we can't yet foresee. It's one thing for someone like me, who makes a very good living, to bet on the stock market. I can afford to lose. But betting the federal budget on stocks is madness. And forcing millions of people who don't know stocks from smocks to let the market determine whether their retirement dinners will consist of cat food or caviar doesn't seem like the way we should treat people. If we're going to fix Social Security, let's do the boring, painful things that we know will work. And let's try to remember the prime rule of economics. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great man and friend, former Michigan State Representative Bob DeMars. Bob was devoted to his family and committed to his work and his cherished memory will not fade from the hearts and minds of those who knew and loved him. Bob died as he lived: serving the people of his district in Lincoln Park, Melvindale, Ecorse and Allen Park. As a Michigan native, Bob spent his entire life in public service, first as a teacher, then as mayor, city councilman, city treasurer, and State representative. Bob taught for 26 years in the Lincoln Park Public Schools. He served as a local president for the Michigan Education Association and as a local president, state vice president, and national vice president of the American Federation of Teachers. Bob was a veteran of World War II where he served in the U.S. Navy's Submarine Service. He introduced many bills to assist veterans, introducing legislation that provided special license plates for veterans of World War I, World War II, and the Korean and Vietnam wars to honor those who served their country. In community service, Bob served as president of the Lincoln Park Jaycees and the Lincoln Park Kiwanis Club. He was also a member of the American Legion, V.F.W., Chamber of Commerce, Eagles, Masons, Scottish Rite, Shriners, Moose, Optimists, Historical Society, and the P.T.A. He sponsored two Little League baseball teams. In the Democratic Party, Bob served as vice-chairman of the 26th District and was a precinct delegate. He was a member of the Michigan Democratic Party and the Lincoln Park, Allen Park and Melvindale Democratic Clubs. Bob's 15-year-old daughter Maeann and wife of 32 years, Deanie were the light of his life. Today we join his friends and family in remembering Bob DeMars and thank him for the growth and encouragement he gave to our community and its people. He is greatly missed.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, tucked away in the package of rules changes being proposed by the Republican majority is a reduction in the time permitted for the minority to file its views on legislation reported by a committee. The change would reduce the number of days for filing these views from 3 days to 2 days. I find it ironic indeed that during the 40 years of control by the Democratic Party, we never considered limiting this fundamental right of the minority to file views on legislation. Yet after just 2 years in control of the House, the Republicans now have found the granting of 3 whole days to the minority to file its views as somehow being too onerous. What is the motivation of this change? Was there some important business we failed to complete in the 104th Congress because of the 3 day filing period? Of course not. Certainly there appears to be no rush to pass legislation in this Congress. If that were the case we would be in session for more than the proposed 10 days over the next 2 months. The reason seems pretty obvious. The majority wants to make it harder for Members to hear the arguments being made by the minority. They know that the logistics of drafting dissenting views and circulating them for signatures takes time, and if they can limit the time, they hope they can limit the debate. It is truly shameful that a party which served in the minority for 40 years would be so quick to trample on one of the most important minority rights--namely, the right to express your views.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my name as an original cosponsor of the Medicare Diabetes Education and Supplies Amendments of 1997, introduced today by my colleague from Oregon, Representative Furse. This long-overdue legislation will assist millions of diabetics, by ensuring that the relatively small costs of diabetes self-management training and glucose test strips will be covered by Medicare. The cost- effectiveness of managing diabetes has been well documented. Management significantly reduces and delays the onset of disabling or fatal consequences of this disease. Thus, the small investment Medicare makes ``up front'' pays off several times in savings over the long term. But most importantly, these simple, cost-effective techniques notably improve the quality of life for people with diabetes. Many of my colleagues will recall Representative Furse's valiant attempts to enact this legislation in the 104th Congress. Throughout that Congress, in the context of Medicare legislation and budget reconciliation, even to the last night of the second session, she worked to achieve that goal. I was glad to work with her in that effort. However, despite tremendous support from people with diabetes and their families, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and the White House, the elusive prize was not to be won in that most rancorous of seasons. I hope that as we begin this quest again, we can place health policy ahead of partisan wrangling, and people with diabetes ahead of politics. Let us enact this fine legislation as one of the first examples that we can and will work together to serve the American people. Let us take as our example the outstanding commitment of Representative Furse to accomplish this objective not for personal or political gain, but because it is the right thing to do. I am happy to be part of this effort, and look forward to speedy enactment of this important legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join my colleagues Representatives DeLauro and Roukema of New Jersey, in introducing the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 1997. This legislation seeks to ensure that women and doctors--not insurance company bureaucrats--will decide how long a woman who has a mastectomy should remain in the hospital. For any woman, learning that she has breast cancer is one of her most frightening experiences. Learning that she must have a mastectomy, a surgical procedure that will change her body and her life, can be devastating. To have an insurance company dare to say to this woman, who is facing one of life's great crises, that she must leave the hospital whether she is healed or not, is the ultimate insult. It is something that we should not tolerate, and that we must not allow. Every medical specialty organization in this country challenges the right of insurance companies to interfere in the decision of what treatment is medically necessary or appropriate for a patient. Whether that patient is a young woman giving birth to a baby, or a woman having surgery to treat breast cancer, the insurer has no right to be in the middle, between the patient and the doctor. Respresentative DeLauro and I, along with many other Members, placed this issue on the table at the end of last session because we wanted every Member of this body to think about this matter before the convening of this new Congress. We have spent the past several months researching the best, most effective way to accomplish the goals we laid out last year. We believe this legislation does that. We have made sure that we do not preempt responsible State legislation and we have defined health plans to be consistent with the Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance reform bill and with the MOMS bill I introduced last session, which provides for 48-hour maternity stays. This legislation goes where many angels have feared to tread, into the hallowed halls of well-heeled industry that is trying to make cost, rather than care, the driving principle of our health care system. This legislation just says ``no.'' It says to anyone who is not the patient or the patient's doctor: ``No, you may not dictate when a patient must leave the hospital.'' The devastation of breast cancer is too great. The difficulties, both physical and psychological, associated with mastectomy are too complex. This legislation seeks to ensure that insurance snafus and mindless refusals do not make these already difficult situations impossible.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add voice to those who want to recognize two wonderful public servants and truly special people, my colleagues Pat Schroeder and Cardiss Collins. It has been an honor for me to serve with these two distinguished Members, who have worked hard to help the people of Colorado, Illinois, and the United States. Their dedication, passion, and commitment to the betterment of our country will be missed. For 11 terms, Pat Schroeder, my friend from Colorado, has been an active and influential leader on behalf of women's and children's issues, health care, educational opportunity, constitutional rights, and foreign and military policy. In doing so, she has shaped legislation that has affected every American and has earned the respect of legislators on both sides of the aisle. By holding strong to her convictions and by keeping an unwavering commitment to help America, Pat Schroeder has become one of the best- known Members of this body. To many Americans, Pat Schroeder has become synonymous with women's rights, and rightfully so. Allies on important issues are always thankful to have Pat fight on their behalf, while foes on issues fear her powerful voice. Pat Schroeder's legislative accomplishments are countless. Some of her most recent bills that are now law include the Violence Against Women Act, the Economic Equity Act, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention Act, the Child Support Responsibility Act, and the National Child Care Protection Act. Pat Schroeder has won recognition from a wide range of groups because of her dedication, including the National Women's Hall of Fame. We'll all remember Pat, though, for some of the every day things she does, like the smiley faces in her signature, the bunny suits and her flair for language and the art of debate. As I told her earlier this year, without Pat we never would have know whether Presidents were Teflon or Velcro, or which hawks were really chickens in disguise. My colleague from Illinois, Cardis Collins, also has had a most distinguished career of service to her constituents, and significant legislative contributions during her tenure here. Since arriving in 1973, Cardis Collins not only has been a remarkable congresswoman, but has been a leader. Cardiss Collins has led the charge on minority, women's, children's, and safety issues. By doing so, she has enhanced equality and helped our Nation become stronger and safer. I have had the honor to serve with Cardiss on the Commerce Committee, where I was able to witness her hard work and commitment to not only the people of Illinois, but to all Americans. During her tenure as chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness, Cardiss Collins was instrumental in enacting the Child Abuse Prevention Act, the Child Safety Protection Act, the Gender Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, and many, many other bills. She also conducted investigations which helped triple the number of child care centers in the General Services Administration. Cardiss Collins' tireless efforts have also resulted in increased safety standards for America's airline passengers, tougher safety standards in the transport of toxic materials, and an increased African-American participation in advertising. She has led a dedicated staff both in the Government Reform Committee, and before that in the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection and Competitiveness. It was on this panel that Chairwoman Collins led hearings on gender equity, insurance redlining, and deceptive practices in the sale of life insurance. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have served with such noble individuals. Pat Schroeder and Cardiss Collins will not be forgotten. America owes them both a debt of gratitude. I urge all my colleagues to salute Pat and Cardiss for their exceptional accomplishments as Members of the House. They both will be greatly missed, but I know they will both find great satisfaction in their future endeavors.