John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Could the Chair tell us which of the documents that have been coming forth so profusely is to be used today for consideration of the legislation? [[Page H 10319]]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards]. (Mr. EDWARDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out that my good friend's district would be cut $251 million between now and the year 2002 to give to the wealthy a large and unrequested tax cut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. announcement by the chairman

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, there are some facts that are very clear now. Let me go over the situation. Under current law, Medicaid beneficiaries are guaranteed coverage for premiums and co-pays and deductibles. The House Republican bill repeals that law. The Democratic amendment in the House Committee on Commerce offered by my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], to restore this current guarantee was rejected by a vote of 24 to 18. Every member of the committee on the Republican side of the aisle voted against it. Under the Republican block grant, Federal payments are cut by 20 percent over the next 7 years. No State is required to cover any elderly. There are no requirements to provide anything to the current Medicaid eligibles. Only 7 percent of State dollars have to be spent on low-income seniors. This is simply not enough, and there is no guarantee. Now, the House has already found, regrettably, that no one here really understands the entirety of the bill. The Speaker in a rather powerful statement has been proven to be entirely in error. How many other Members who have talked about the wonders of this legislation we passed today or the legislation that we are going to pass to amend Medicaid are going to be wrong? The process under which this was conducted was intolerable. The bill was put in the committee, hearings were requested, none were given. The matter was considered without any hearings whatsoever, without testimony from any agency of the Federal Government, without hearing from any governor, from any citizen, or without hearing from any Federal agency as to how this would impact the people of the country. There is no understanding of what is in the bill, including whether or not the fraud provisions are in fact adequate, which in fact, by the way, they are not. The bill was passed out of committee without being read. On at least three separate occasions, different versions of the legislation were presented to the House or to the committee. Last night, the third or fourth version of the bill was presented to the House. It again was not read. The Committee on Rules had no opportunity really to understand what was presented to them. Today, we saw a discussion of the legislation in which there appeared to be great confusion and in point of fact there was, because no Member had had opportunity to know or understand what is in this bill. The process could have been abated by the ordinary way in which legislation is considered. Hearings could have been held. Proper markups could have been held. This matter was reported to the House by our committee with minimum consideration of the legislation, and similar activities took place in the Committee on Ways and Means. My colleagues on the Republican side will tell us how hearings were held on Medicare. Hearings are routinely held on Medicare and on Medicaid hereabouts in this body, but it must be observed that not one hearing was held on this bill. The only hearing which was held on this subject in connection with this particular process was to hold a hearing in the Committee on Ways and Means on a press release, hardly a matter which merits congressional consideration. The result is that the House has acted upon this legislation in great confusion. The Speaker has been led into the unfortunate position where I am sure unknowingly he misrepresented the facts as regards the content of the legislation on a point which is extremely important to the American people. That is, that 11 million widows will not have their Medicare payments paid on their behalf on Part B because of the way the law is going to work out when the consideration of this matter is at conclusion. I say this is a sad and intolerable event. I say it is an event which has been created by a deliberate determination on the part of the Republican leadership of this body to present this matter to the House without giving adequate opportunity for this body to be properly informed through the orderly and regular process of this body which go back to the earliest days of the Republic. I think that this is a shameful way to proceed on legislation. It results in intolerable surprises to the Members of this body, results in lack of proper information on how the legislation has been constructed or what will be its impact. I think we need only to look forward now to see what fresh new surprises are going to plague this body, are going to plague the senior citizens, are going to plague the administrators on a State and Federal level and are going to plague the people who would be beneficiaries under Medicare who today would enjoy benefits which are going to be taken away from them tomorrow. I think that the surprises are going to be substantial. It is regrettable that we have done this this way. It is to be hoped that we will at least learn from it, will not repeat this kind of abuse. But a greater hope is that we might take the time to scrutinize the evil that we have done today and set about trying to correct it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. I note H.R. 2485, in its current form, is not reported from either the Committee on Commerce or the Committee on Ways and Means, and the amendment which is offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], and it is offered by authority of the Committee on Rules. We are, therefore, the managers of that particular amendment and not my good friends on the Republican side of the aisle.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, is it possible for the Chair to inform us what is the committee position? I would note that the committee has taken no action on this particular proposal. If I read the rule correctly, the amendment is offered by authority of the Committee on Rules, which has empowered the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] and I to offer this particular amendment. The amendment was never considered in the Committee on Commerce or in the Committee on Ways and Means. That being so, Mr. Chairman, if the Chair could help us greatly by informing us what is the position of the committee so we can understand if it qualifies under the Chair's prior ruling?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, as I recall the ruling of the Chair, it was that if the committee has a position on the amendment, it is the right of the committee to conclude the debate on that point. Is that correct?

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a novel ruling, but I will not challenge it. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DINGELL. I am sure that is true in the case of the debate on the bill. I note that this is not debate on the bill. This is the debate on the amendment. I would note as a further parliamentary inquiry that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] and I are essentially the managers of the bill as the managers of the amendment.

Mr. DINGELL. Is it not in the rules that where the offeror of the amendment is designated in the rule that it is the right of that individual to close?

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

Mr. DINGELL. Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, that we get to close on this side?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I believe that since we are offering the amendment which is set forth in the rule, that the right to close is on this side. That would leave my colleagues on the other side to deal with that.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, we have one last speaker that I share with the distinguished gentleman from Florida and that would be to close.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself three-quarters of a minute. Mr. Chairman, I just received a copy of Congress Daily, and I want to call it to the particular attention of my dear friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley]. Under the subject ``Health'', it reads ``Bliley Hints At Compromise On $270 Billion Medicare Savings.'' ``Even as President Clinton suggested he might be willing to meet Republican demands that the budget be balanced over 7 years rather than 10, a key House Republican today hinted the GOP might be willing to compromise on the previously inflexible $270 billion savings target for Medicare.'' It looks like my Republican colleagues are being asked to walk the plank. I think that is a fine idea. But my friends over there should be told what they are facing and that maybe a compromise is in the offing.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah]. (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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