John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is always fun to remind my Republican colleagues that in the last Bush budget there was a deficit of $290 billion. The budget deficit, having fallen 3 years running, is now down to a little over $164 billion. Think of that, my Republican colleagues. But I do not rise to talk about that. I rise to talk about something else. It is something which will not save a nickel of money for the taxpayers of the United States but which will do irresponsible and unlimited harm and hurt to one of the most helpless groups in our society. I refer to the nursing home patients. This bill absolutely does away with the nursing home protections for patients who are incarcerated in nursing homes. In the 1980's our Committee on Oversight Investigations conducted a lengthy investigation of this. We found nursing home patients lying in their own human excrement, covered with bedsores. We found them tied to their beds. We found them drugged. We found their assets stolen. And we found them [[Page H 11418]] impoverished improperly by raids upon their assets. We also found that they were in fire traps which burned, and they were burned to death in these fire traps. We found inadequate care. We found inadequate facilities. We found people who were not able to get the care they needed because there was neither an adequate number of employees nor properly qualified employees. These are the most helpless people in this country. We passed bipartisan legislation to do away with those abuses. That bipartisan legislation is repealed by the legislation before us. This legislation is rich in hortatory language that, like the Tale of the Idiot in Shakespeare, is full of sound and fury but signifies nothing because it does nothing. It is long on hortatory language. What this bill will do if the motion to instruct is not adopted is to return to those sad, unfortunate, unsavory days when the most helpless in our society were abused. That is the kind of legislation we have before us. Adopt the motion to instruct.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, hearings have not been held on House Resolution 247. The chief participant in the Bosian peace negotiations, the administration, has not been consulted on House Resolution 247. The American public has not had the opportunity to discuss House Resolution 247 with their Representatives. Common sense tells me that evaluating the merits of a resolution--before passing it--is an essential step in crafting good legislation. Under the cover of night, hidden away in a back room of the Capitol late last Friday, Newt Gingrich and his Republicans decided, once again, to abuse the legislative process for political purposes. This time they are risking peace in Bosnia with their behavior. Simply put, the Republican leadership has crafted a political document. They are rushing it to the floor without proper consideration. If we are to interfere legislatively with the peace process, let's at least proceed with proper legislative process. Let's have hearings, let's let the people hear the administration and others, and let's hear from the people. None of this has been done. I wish Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic, and Secretary of State Warren Christopher Godspeed in the negotiations. Their efforts can make the world a safer place, and can return peace and democracy to a desperately troubled area. There will be a time when it is appropriate for Congress to enter the peace process. That time is not now--this resolution is not how. With serious constitutional and territorial questions for Bosnia hanging in the balance of the Dayton negotiations, Congress should not charge into the middle of the process demanding that all parties bend to our will, or weaken our President's effort to achieve a negotiated settlement. [[Page H 11409]] I do not oppose this resolution on its merits. Peace, with congressional approval, is good. Military deployment, with congressional approval, is good. I oppose the resolution because of the process in which it is being considered. No hearings, no committee consideration, no adequate debate, or discussion. Let us allow the negotiators to negotiate. If and when they are able to come to an agreement for peace in Bosnia, then let the Congress judge the merits of that settlement. And in the meantime, let us process important business like this in a proper legislative fashion.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would observe that it is usually the practice for the majority to set forth what a great piece of legislation this is. I am waiting for somebody over there to tell me what a great piece of legislation this is.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I can understand the reluctance of my Republican colleagues to tell us what a great bill it is because, quite frankly, this is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen in the 40 years I have served in this body. The bill includes both Medicare and Medicaid cuts and tax breaks. Our Republican colleagues said that they were not tying the two together. Well, they are tying them together in this bill. The poor and the aged are going to understand that the contributions that they are making of about $500 billion is being made so that a tax cut can be given to the wealthiest Americans. That is finally proven in this piece of legislation. The pernicious approach violates the contract we have with seniors who have paid for their Medicare benefits. It means seniors will pay more and get less choice of doctors, poor quality lab tests, and nursing homes that do not meet common standards of decency. By separating action on Medicare from the rest of reconciliation, Republicans tried to convince us that $270 billion in Medicare cuts do not pay for $245 billion in tax breaks for the rich. But Americans can perform the simple math required. They know when someone is pulling the wool over their eyes. The bill also destroys Medicaid. Under the mantra of State's rights, Republicans are pulling the safety net out from under middle class families, poor children, women, seniors, and the disabled--the most vulnerable of Americans. Up until last night, the Republican bill arbitrarily cut $182 billion from Medicaid. Now they say they have fixed it by cutting only $170 billion. But this midnight deal does not change the fact that this bill abdicates the Federal Government's role in Medicaid, reduces health care for the most needy, and invites abuse by States. It takes away vitally important guarantees under current law: protection from having to sell the family home or farm to pay for a loved one's nursing home care; guaranteeing coverage for seniors with Alzheimer's; setting minimum standards of safety, cleanliness, and decency for nursing homes; and guaranteeing health care for children and pregnant women. I and other Members tried to correct one of the most glaring defects in the bill by offering an amendment on behalf of Mr. Gingrich. In debate last week, the Speaker obviously was under the misimpression that his new MediGrant Program does what current law guarantees-- covering the cost of Medicare premiums for seniors under the poverty line. In fact, this bill repeals what current law provides. Our amendment would have restored provisions the Speaker erroneously relied on and guarantee that the poorest of seniors have Medicare coverage. But the Rules Committee gagged us from amending the bill so that it will do what the Speaker says it does. I also want to point out the devastating impact that this bill has on health care for veterans. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs says that the harsh spending caps in the Republican plan will require 41 veterans hospitals to close their doors. As a result, more than 1 million veterans will be denied health care by 2002. I do not share the misguided view of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the best way for veterans to stay healthy is not to get sick. This bill walks away from responsible government to help people in need in favor of lining the pockets of the wealthiest Americans with unneeded tax cuts. In addition to health care cuts, this bill slashes education, job training, and other programs upon which we empower people to help themselves. Most Americans will get nothing, or pay more under the GOP tax break. The small percentage of the tax cuts that will go to families earning less than $50,000 a year will be more than offset by spending cuts. These families stand to lose $648 a year or more under the GOP plan. Those earning more than $350,000--the richest 1 percent--will get $14,050 a year for the tax cut. I find it curious that my Republican colleagues, who criticize the President for not cutting middle class taxes enough, are rushing to raise taxes on many low income families. I must confess I am not surprised, however, that they would follow through on their threats to slash programs vital to the financial security of working Americans. Finally, I must object to the cavalier manner in which the Republican leadership has included massive changes in farm programs. The so-called freedom-to-farm proposal was found to be so objectionable that the House Agriculture Committee failed to get it out of committee. On an issue as vital as our Nation's food security, this bill shreds responsible legislating for partisan game playing and makes rural Americans the pawns. This is not the way to legislate, and it is a dangerous way to govern. Mr. Chairman, this is the biggest and the most important bill to be considered by the House this year. The cuts are too large. It hurts terribly the health care coverage of millions of Americans. I strongly oppose the bill. I now look forward to hearing from my Republican colleagues about what a great piece of legislation this is. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have listened all during this debate to my Republican colleagues say that Medicare does not work. I do not like to hear that, and I do not think the senior citizens like to hear it, because Medicare has worked. Medicare has prolonged the lives of senior citizens. Medicare has given a better standard of living to the American people. Medicare has prevented young people from having to choose between college for their kids and health care for their parents. Medicare has seen to it that, instead of less than 50 percent of the senior citizens having health care, that now almost 100 percent do. Americans are covered by health care amongst the senior citizens. Americans are urged by the New York Times, and they say, reject the big Medicare cuts. The big Medicare cuts we are talking about here are nothing more or less than something that is going to hurt the senior citizens, and it is being done by the Republicans to ensure that they can give a tax cut to the very rich.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, does the majority not want to use its time? It is such a great bill they have got. I would be delighted to defer to listen to that.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the gentleman's unanimous-consent request, and, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DINGELL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, is this the legislation which relates to securities reform? Is that correct?

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

Mr. DINGELL. This is legislation which the gentleman has talked to me about going to conference on?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I express myself in opposition to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, with no hearings, no report, no adequate consideration of this legislation in committee the House is taking up legislation passed just today in the Senate. This is no way to legislate. It disregards the normal, correct, and proper practices of the House. It, like other recent actions in this body, raises questions of the propriety of the process here. Adoption of this legislation at this time raises real fears as to the continued viability of the peace process in the Middle East. I do not take the view as to where our Embassy in Israel should be located. Perhaps we should decide that it should be located in Jerusalem, but only if we are satisfied such action is fully consonent with our national interests, and in the interest of peace in the area. The peace process is ongoing. This Nation is subsidizing the Israeli economy to the amount of more than $3 billion per year, and have been doing so for years. We are subsidizing other countries with billions more of our tax payers dollars. A peace process, pedaled, pushed, and driven by our efforts goes on. What happens to that process if this legislation is passed. Secretary Christopher warns of the peril of this legislation. The U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Martin Ludyk warns, ``Any move now, (on the location of our Embassy) I believe strongly, would explode the peace process.'' The Foreward a major Jewish newspaper in New York says ``Efforts (by Presidential Candidate Dole and others) to emerge as the greater champion of Israel would be laughable, were it not so blatant a play for positioning in the coming primaries.'' The Israeli Minister of Communications said, ``If the Americans decide to do it immediately, they would be liable to cause tensions, which we don't need.'' Shimon Peres, Israeli Foreign Minister said, ``There is no need for our involvement at this point.'' And a spokesman for Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister had this to say, ``The rightist Likud opposition is behind the effort in the hope of torpedoing the peace negotiations.'' Why then are we considering this legislation? The Israeli government does not want the legislation and it will be offensive to other parties to the negotiations. It will severely threaten the peace process, and it will hurt our efforts to bring peace to the Middle East. The United States has major interest in returning a just peace to the Middle East. We are spending billions of dollars of American taxpayers money there to promote peace and restore stability as well as to sustain governments of Israel and other countries in the area. This legislation can be passed enthusiastically when the time is right. I will happily support it then. Now is not the time for this action. It is not in the interest of our country. Nor is it in the interest of peace in the Middle East, or of the people there. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I note for the record that, under the Gingrich Medicare plan, hospitals in and around the district of my good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Franks], in Waterbury, CT, will lose $211.8 million over the next 7 years so the rich can get a tax cut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I will take it off, and I will be delighted to give it to the gentleman from California. It will benefit him highly. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure I understand what was said. I note they have 8 minutes over there and we have something like 4.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)