June 6, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1161

high deductible catastrophic insurance coverage is not the solution to our nation’s

health system problems because:

MSAs do not address the need for insurance by millions of working Americans

whose employers will not contribute to the

cost of health insurance; and

MSAs do not address the need for insurance by millions of low-income individuals

who are self-employed or unemployed and

who cannot afford to buy health insurance.

THE ADVANCED MEDICAL DEVICE

ASSURANCE ACT OF 1995

f

HON. WILLIAM M. THOMAS OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, June 6, 1995

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased

today to introduce the Advanced Medical Device Assurance Act of 1995 in order to clarify

the scope of coverage and amount of payment

under the Medicare Program of items and

services associated with the use of certain

medical devices approved for investigational

use.

Questions have been raised as to whether

Medicare should reimburse for hospital and

physician services when procedures involving

a medical device approved for use by the Federal Drug Administration [FDA] under the Investigational Drug Device [IDE] is used. Our

Nation’s leading clinical researchers and doctors, and the patients who depend on these

improved medical technologies are losing because of this confusion. Additionally, the use

of these advanced devices is dramatically declining around the country. Many of the medical technology companies are moving all of

their research out of the United States to Europe, Canada, and Japan where payment policy is not an issue.

These advanced medical devices reduce

length of surgical procedure, hospitalization,

patient mortality, and the need for repeat procedures. All of these patients, whether they

get an advanced device or not, would be in

the hospital anyway receiving medically indicated care. Clarifying the policy to provide

coverage for newer devices would not increase costs because the DRG pays a set

rate for set therapies regardless of whether

there is a clinical trial involved.

The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, American College of Cardiology, American Hospital Association, American Medical

Association, Association of American Medical

Colleges, Association of Professors of Medicine, California Health Institute, Catholic

Health Association, Cleveland Clinic, Coalition

of Boston Teaching Hospitals, Federation of

American Health Systems, Greater New York

Hospital Association, Health Industry Manufacturers Association, Mayo Clinic, North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology,

and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons all believe we need to clarify this policy. These are

all well-respected health care organizations

and I believe this bill brings about the clarity

that is needed.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this important, cost-neutral legislation

and to work for its prompt enactment so that

Medicare beneficiaries will have access to

safe and high-quality medical care.

STATEMENT IN RECOGNITION OF

2D LT. REBECCA E. MARIER

HON. SUE W. KELLY OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, June 6, 1995

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker I rise to acknowledge and salute the outstanding achievements

of 2d Lt. Rebecca E. Marier. This impressive

young woman recently graduated from the

U.S. Military Academy in West Point, NY at

the top of her class—top of her class academically, physically, and militarily.

Second Lieutenant Marier opted to forgo an

education at prestigious Harvard University, in

order to pursue her dream of a degree from

an institution which has a proud tradition of

molding our Nation’s leaders. Marier is unquestionably a role model for all of our Nation’s young people, men and women alike.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and all my colleagues join me in not only commending Second Lieutenant Marier’s achievements, but

more importantly her spirit of selfless dedication to the service of our country. I would also

ask, Mr. Speaker, that the New York Time’s

article which appeared this past Sunday, noting Second Lieutenant Marier’s achievements,

be inserted at this point in the CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD.

[From the New York Times, June 4, 1995]

WOMAN IS NO. 1 IN WEST POINT CLASS

WEST POINT, NY—For the first time in the

United States Military Academy’s 193-year

old history, a woman took the No. 1 class

rank as the Academy graduated 988 new

members of the Army officer corps today.

The woman, Second Lieut. Rebecca E.

Marier, 21, of New Orleans, was the head of

her class in the school’s three programs—

military, academic and physical.

‘‘It was the greatest feeling in the world,

throwing up that white hat,’’ Lieutenant

Marier said after the ceremony. ‘‘I’m just

glad to be part of the progress women are

making all over the country.’’

Four years ago, she startled her family and

friends by choosing the Academy over Harvard University for her undergraduate work

because she wanted the ‘‘all-around challenge’’ and leadership training West Point

offered.

But she plans to get to Harvard, after all,

becoming the second cadet in West Point history to go on to medical school there, said

Andrea Hamburger, an Academy spokeswoman.

Women began attending West Point in 1976,

and with today’s class, more than 1,400

women will have been commissioned second

lieutenants.

At the ceremonies, the Army Chief of

Staff, Gen. Gordon Sullivan, addressed graduates, telling them that in an age of changing circumstances, there was no way to predict where they might serve.

General Sullivan omitted remarks about a

possible United States role in Bosnia, which

had appeared in an advance version of his address received by reporters.

In the prepared text, General Sullivan reviewed the American role as a member of

NATO and said the United States was ‘‘prepared to act with NATO should the need

arise.’’

Pressed afterward for an explanation of the

omission in his speech, he replied: ‘‘I felt I

had made the point of the uncertainty of the

world. I didn’t think I needed to go into the

details.’’

General Sullivan’s advance text read:

‘‘In response to the appalling Bosnian Serb

behavior over the past week, we have been

meeting with our NATO allies to consider

the next steps to keep the U.N. protection

force in place, because it remains our best

insurance against an even worse humanitarian disaster there.

‘‘Although our policy remains that we will

not become combatants in the conflict, we

are prepared to act with NATO should the

need arise.’’

ACDA IS ESSENTIAL FOR OUR

NATIONAL SECURITY

f

HON. JAMES P. MORAN OF VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, June 6, 1995

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express

my support for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency as an independent agency

and to urge that we consider how important

arms control continues to be for our national

security. This is also the conclusion of a recent editorial from the News & Observer, from

Raleigh, NC. H.R. 1561 would abolish this

small federal agency which has proven itself

to be an economic bargain. Not only does the

operation of the agency come with a modest

price tag of under $50 million, its efforts have

saved the Government millions, if not billions,

of dollars in defense outlays over its 30-plus

years of existence.

I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on final passage of H.R.

1561. We should not merge ACDA and the

other separate foreign service agencies with

separate missions into the State Department.

The U.S. ACDA is pursuing the biggest and

broadest arms control and nonproliferation

agenda in history. As the following article

makes clear, now is not the time to be dismantling the agency that is charged with getting these agreements negotiated, implemented and verified.

[From the News & Observer, May 30, 1995]

FOREIGN POLICY MEDDLING

A proposal to reorganize foreign affairs

agencies has consequences beyond mere

streamlining. Some in Congress would like

excessive control over foreign policy, a bad

idea in today’s unstable world.

Overhauling the nation’s foreign policy

agencies, as proposed by Senator Helms,

seems on first glance to make sense. Separate organizations tend to be inefficient, and

as long as the rest of government is being

‘‘reinvested,’’ foreign affairs shouldn’t be exempt.

But a closer look unveils flaws in the proposal, which is advanced in pending legislation in both the Senate and the House.

For one thing, the assorted foreign services

agencies don’t all have the same mission;

merging them into the State Department

risks diluting their influence in the sea of a

single mighty bureaucracy. In a recent visit

to The N&O, John Holum, director of the

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,

made a strong argument along this line for

preserving his office as a separate expert

voice.

As Holum pointed out, the agency’s advocacy of arms control and nonproliferation is

crucial in the face of new threats from the

spread of weapons. His worry, and it comes

across as legitimate, is that the arms-control quest could become secondary to the

State Department’s concerns for smooth diplomacy and maintaining good relations

with other countries.