John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues have made it plain they have a low regard for the intellect of the American senior citizens. They accuse us of frightening the senior citizens and also the hospitals. The hard fact is that the hospitals and the senior citizens have had the daylights scared out of them by this Republican plan. Because the people, contrary to what might be thought, understand what is going on. My Republican colleagues expect seniors to accept an absurd declaration that, unless we destroy the Medicare plan now, it will destroy itself. What is really very simple here is this: If you drop the tax cut for the rich, none of these Medicare cuts are necessary. Do Democrats want to protect Medicare? Of course. Remember, we created it over united Republican opposition. When I was sitting in the chair 30 years ago and we passed that legislation, 93 percent of my Republican colleagues voted against Medicare. Do we wish to protect trust fund soundness? Of course. Now, there is a difference. My Republican colleagues accomplish that goal by raising senior citizens' taxes through higher premiums, reducing Social Security checks from which premiums are deducted, kicking the seniors out of their own doctor's office, denying them choice, shoving them into HMos which senior citizens do not want, closing [[Page H 10453]] local hospital emergency rooms, repealing nursing home standards that protect patients in nursing homes, allowing doctors to perform office tests in the office sink, and taking away the right of citizens to recover from malpractice. They do this also by eliminating statutory protections against fraud and abuse. The Secretary of HHS, the Department of Justice and the Inspector General all warned that this is a direct consequence of the language in this bill.It is not necessary, as the Republicans do, to cut the budget of the Inspector General of HHS, who deals with waste, fraud and abuse. We Democrats think there is a better way. The gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Gibbons], the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott], and I offer this substitute to show the way. It ensures the solvency of the Medicare part A trust fund for exactly the same length of time that the Republican claim for their bill, the year 2006. It saves the amount that the trustees tell us needs to be saved, $90 billion. It should not and it will not cost the seniors more. How do we do it? Simple. We are not proposing a tax cut for the rich. If we take the tax cut off the table, it is not that difficult. The substitute is good. I urge that we follow this course, that we accept the leadership of the Democratic proposal on the solvency issue. I am happy to offer it with my colleagues, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] and I urge support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Republicans have made clear in this debate that they have a very low regard for the intellect of America's senior citizens. They expect seniors to accept without question their absurd declaration that unless we destroy the Medicare program now, it will destroy itself. I say to my Republican colleagues, it's this simple: Drop your tax cut for the rich, and none of these Medicare cuts will be necessary. Do we want to protect Medicare? Of course we do. Do we want to ensure that the trust fund is sound, today, tomorrow, and for years to come. Of course we do. The Republicans think that to accomplish that goal, they should raise seniors' taxes, reduce their Social Security checks, kick them out of their own doctors' offices, shove them into HMO's they don't want, close their local hospitals, repeal the nursing home standards that protect them, allow doctors to perform office tests in the kitchen sink, and then take away their right to recover when their doctor commits malpractice. We think there is a better way. Mr. Gibbons, Mr. McDermott, and I are offering this substitute today to show the American people that there is a better way. it ensures the solvency of the Medicare part A trust fund. It does so for exactly the same length of time the Republicans claim for their bill, the year 2006. And it does so by saving the amount of money that the Medicare Trustees tell us needs to be saved: $90 billion. And it won't cost seniors more. Specifically, this proposal includes: Only modest reductions in hospital payments--about half of what the Republican bill cuts--but protection for rural and urban hospitals that serve the uninsured; tough provisions to enhance prevention, detection, and prosecution of fraud and abuse; the nursing home quality standards in current law, which the Republicans would repeal. Also, fair reductions in physician payments so that the AMA's members share the burden, rather than make out like bandits in a back-room holdup; reduced copayments for seniors; less than half the Republican cuts in home health care; and new preventive services, including more frequent mammography, colorectal screening, pap smears, and diabetes services. How, you may ask, do we pay for this? The answer is simple: We aren't the ones proposing a $245 billion tax cut targeted to the rich. If you take the tax cut off the table, I say to my Republican colleagues, it's really not that difficult. Mr. Chairman, this substitute is a good one. It is the right approach to the Medicare trust fund solvency issue. I am pleased to offer it with Mr. Gibbons and Mr. McDermott. I urge support for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, I want to express my thanks, and the thanks of all the Democratic members of the Commerce Committee, to the Democratic staff of the committee--Bridget Taylor, Kay Holcombe, Reid Stuntz, Chris Knauer, David Tittsworth, Nick Karamanos, Carla Hultberg, Elaine Sheets, Candy Butler, and Sharon Davis. I add our thanks to Karen Nelson from the Staff of Subcommittee ranking member Henry Waxman, and to the staffs of all the Democratic members of the committee. I also want to commend the excellent staff of the Ways and Means Committee Democrats, with whom we worked closely and cooperatively on this bill and this substitute. And of course, I want to thank the legislative counsels, Ed Grossman and Noah Wofsy, for their invaluable help.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a similar situation. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Costello]. (Mr. COSTELLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, may I discuss how many speakers we have remaining. I know the gentleman from Texas has said he has one, the gentleman from Virginia has indicated he has one, and I am not certain how many my good friend from Florida has.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden].

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

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I note we have, I think on this side, about 2\1/2\ minutes each, something like about 4, 4\1/2\ minutes, but my good friends over there have 8 minutes.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to note that the hospitals of my friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], under the Republican bill will lose $211 million over the next 7 years so we can give a tax cut to the rich.

Mr. DINGELL

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, just prior to our adjournment last August, the House approved H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995. That landmark legislation breaks down the barriers that inhibit competition in the telecommunications industries. I am offering this motion to instruct conferees to ensure that the consumer benefits that will result from the enactment of this bill will occur as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise that many of the companies that are currently shielded from competition would like to preserve their privileged position in the marketplace. As long as they are able to limit competition, however, they deprive consumers of the benefits that competition will bring. And these benefits are many: Lower prices, improved products and services, more rapid innovation, and greater sensitivity to consumer needs. We passed H.R. 1555 to expedite the delivery of these benefits to consumers. They should not be held hostage to the interests of companies that would rather compete with their lobbyists instead of in the marketplace. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this motion. It is my hope that the House and Senate conferees can resolve their differences quickly, and that we can send the President a bill that he can sign without further delay. To do otherwise would deprive our constituents of the many benefits that competition can bring. I urge the adoption of the motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to a most significant event taking place in Monroe, MI. The year 1995 marks the 150th anniversary of the founding of a congregation of extraordinary women devoted to the service of God, their community, their nation, and the world. The Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary congregation was established in Monroe in 1845 to meet a pressing need for Christian instruction in a parish that was maturing quickly, but was not far removed from its frontier past. The zeal and enthusiasm of Rev. Louis Florent Gillett, a Redemptorist missionary, drew the first three members of the community, Marie Theresa Maxis, Charlotte Shaff, and Theresa Renaud. Their first convent was a log cabin on the banks of the River Raisin. The early days were difficult, as poverty and disease sapped the congregation. The community grew in numbers nonetheless, and expanded its educational works. For this first century the congregation served Catholic communities in and near the dioceses of southern Michigan, especially the Archdiocese of Detroit, by providing Catholic education at all levels in local parochial schools and in their own private schools and college. The people of Monroe benefited greatly over the years by the presence of outstanding schools operated by the IHM sisters. St. Mary's School, the first opened by the sisters, provided the young women of Monroe and the surrounding area the chance to get a first-rate education. The Hall of Divine Child, a school for boys, instilled discipline and curiosity in generations of boys. I can vouch for the skill and efficiency of the sisters myself, because I attended this school. Other schools founded and built by the IHM sisters include Immaculata High School in Detroit, Marian High School in Birmingham, MI, and IHM High School in Westchester, IL, In 1910 they established Marygrove College, which was moved from Monroe to Detroit in 1927. IHM sisters have also served in other colleges and universities in the United States, Canada, and throughout the world. Over the past 50 years the IHM congregation has extended its reach, staffing schools in Puerto Rico, and several Western and Southern States in the United States. While the majority of the sisters have devoted themselves to education, some have committed themselves to religious education, parish ministry, health care, social actions, and other forms of service. A small group of sisters began serving among the poor in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia. The sisters also are vocal when it comes to local, national, and international affairs. I can tell you that a week seldom passes that I do not receive an articulate and thoughtful letter from one or another of the sisters, effectively arguing a position on legislation or national policy. Mr. Speaker, I have great admiration for the spirit, the determination, the devotion and the faith displayed by the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It is without reservation that I commend this congregation to my colleagues on the occasion of its 150th anniversary.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we have had 28 days of hearings on Whitewater, 14 days of hearings on Waco-Ruby Ridge. We had 2 days of hearings on the Chinese prison system. Mr. Speaker, 1 day of hearing has been held on Medicare. We were supposed to commence the markup of this legislation right after we returned from the August recess. The legislation was supposed to be ready for the floor. Yet time after time, this proposal has been postponed. We have not had but 1 day of hearing. We have not considered the legislation. The clock is running. The calendar is turning. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to be fair. What do my Republican colleagues have to hide? Why is it that they are afraid to bring the American people into consideration of their proposal to cut Medicare $270 billion, to make a savings that is only necessary to be $89 billion, according to the trustees of the Social Security System? Let us be fair. Let us be open. Let us have hearings. Let us not continue this process of delay, while we at the same time exclude the American people from the process.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the House is embarking on I think a very bad precedent and a very dangerous course. Many of my colleagues wonder why the motion to adjourn today? The answer is very simple: First of all, the rights of the Members of the institution are being severely impinged upon. The House is being called upon in just a few days to consider legislation on which there have been very little in the way of hearings; indeed, in our committee, no hearings on either the Medicare or Medicaid proposals, and in the Committee on Ways and Means, a similar situation. Members are not going to know what the questions are associated with regard to the legislation. The bill, which was submitted to our committee and which is being written in our committee as we speak here at this moment, was submitted to the Congress Monday night; that is, September 18, at 9 p.m. The markup on this in our committee commences today. This is on proposal which was already changed since it was sent up. The staff on the Committee on Commerce spent all night Monday night and all night last night on the minority side looking to try to understand what is in this piece of legislation. A similar situation impends with regard to the Medicare proposal. These proposals have been part of the Republican Contract on America since last summer when my Republican colleagues marched to the front of the Capitol to join in a big signing ceremony. They knew what was going to be in it, but they have not shared it with the American people. Now, the question is, why is this great haste before us? Why are we being compelled to consider legislation which has not yet been made available to the Congress, on which no American citizen has either understanding or appreciation of all of the enormous subtleties? These are pieces of legislation which will run to scores, if not hundreds, of pages. These are pieces of legislation which are going to affect every citizen in this country, which are going to have significant impact on the poor, the young, the old. Indeed, they are going to lend credit to the claims that the Republicans are giving new meaning to the words ``women and children first,'' and that it is the women and children and the old and the poor and the weak who are going to be most afflicted by these changes. Now, I would say on the basis of some 40 years service in this body, that the best legislation is bipartisan legislation when it can be gotten. The second best legislation is legislation which is crafted and contrived in an open fashion, in which everyone here has an opportunity to ask questions and to understand fully all of the issues that are involved and to get the best answers we can, so that we craft the best public policy. Here we have a situation with no hearings on either Medicare or Medicaid. There are not cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. There has been no opportunity for interested persons to be heard. And this is true with regard to either Medicare or Medicaid. The bill on which this rule would be offered has had 6 days of hearings and markup. The bill was started February 8. Discussion has been going on for months. The early drafts were made available to the Congress. There has been fair discussion. And whether you are for or against the bill that this rule would make in order, you cannot say that the process has not been at least basically fair and open. No such claim can be made with regard to Medicare and Medicaid. The matter has been conducted in such a haphazard, sloppy and concealed way, that no person can really tell you what is in the bill or what the impact of it is going to be. We sought responses from Governors of a number of States, interestingly enough, all but one Republicans, and we got an answer from no one except from the one Democratic Governor, in which on Medicaid it was said the result would be devastation of the Medicaid program for the State of Florida. These are not issues which are small. Even President Reagan talked about the safety net. And in his discussion of the safety net, he said it is going to take care of those who are most poor, least able to address change, and least able to sustain hurt, and those who have the least resources with which to address the costs and the stresses of life, particularly from the standpoint of health and things of that kind. This legislation, with regard to Medicaid, which is not being marked up in our committee, is not a safety net anymore. It is simply a big concrete floor on which the poorest and the least well-to-do in our country are going to come smash. No hearings, no opportunity to be heard, and, indeed, a terrible result. Reject this rule. Let us have an open rule, so that we can bring this legislation to the floor after an appropriate period of hearing and after the rule has been amended to enable this side to get full hearings on the matter.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce, with my colleague, Mr. Waxman, the Medicare and Medicaid Payment Integrity Act of 1995. This legislation would improve the Government's ability to detect fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. It would create a new mechanism to increase funding available for combating health care fraud and abuse without drawing down from the U.S. Treasury, or further burdening taxpayers. The bill would establish a new health care antifraud reinvestment fund, into which certain monetary recoveries resulting from health care fraud enforcement cases would be deposited. These funds would be used to support additional enforcement activities by the Federal Government. The account would be available to fund expanded and innovative methods to investigate fraud and abuse, sanction offenders, deter misconduct, and return improperly spent money to the trust fund and the Treasury. Thus, the individuals and corporations who defraud our Nation's health care system will foot the bill for increased policing of these programs. This legislation also provides for a stable funding source for payment integrity activities undertaken by the health care financing administration. These include: First, medical and utilization review; second, audit of cost reports; third, Medicare secondary payer determinations and recovery of payments; and fourth, education of providers and beneficiaries regarding payment integrity. These activities would no longer be subject to the ups and downs of the appropriations process. However, spending could not exceed the amounts that were appropriated for fiscal year 1996 through 2002. This bill is a serious attempt to expand fraud and abuse activities without increasing burdens on Federal taxpayers. In the near future, Senator Bob Graham of Florida will be introducing this bill as part of a larger legislative package that includes further expansion of fraud and abuse activities. We have been talking with Senator Graham and his staff and may be offering an even broader bill in the House in the near future. In the meantime, this is a good first step and I commend it to my colleagues.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, early this morning, this House voted to approve one of the saddest pieces of legislation it has ever sent forward. We heard the astounding arguments that this Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies appropriations bill will maintain, or even increase, funding for health and education programs that are vital to the well-being of our most vulnerable citizens. But these arguments, like the funding decisions themselves, are a sham and a coverup. They coverup the fact that in its allocation of funds to the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, this Republican-led Congress chose to ignore the needs of those citizens to save money for tax cuts for the wealthy, and for spending in the Department of Defense to purchase equipment that even the leaders of that Department stated they do not want or need. For years, that subcommittee has nurtured and supported programs that constitute the discretionary safety net for our children, our seniors living on fixed incomes, and our workers. The grossly insufficient allocation of funds to the Labor-HHS Subcommittee forced Chairman Porter to snip the threads of that net as if with a chain saw. But this bill does some very, very bad things as well. It terminates hundreds of programs, including over 60 programs of the Department of Health and Human Services--such as black lung clinics, State trauma care, substance abuse training and treatment, programs that counsel the elderly about their health insurance, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, programs that provide services to the homeless, nutrition programs for the elderly, and programs designed to reduce the rampant problem of drug abuse among young people. There are many reasons for us to be sad about what this Congress did by passing this bill. I applaud the dedicated work of Chairman Porter and Mr. Obey, for they have done yeoman work under excruciatingly difficult circumstances. I applaud them for increasing funds for the important research activities of NIH. I am pleased that the subcommittee recognized the importance of increased funding for breast and cervical cancer prevention activities at CDC, for childhood immunization, and for other prevention activities. But I am very concerned that this bill achieved those increases through a very short-sighted approach, and through robbing Peter to pay Paul. I want to focus on just two examples of this. The bill increases funding for infectious disease programs at CDC, but decreases CDC administrative costs by $31 million. This decrease takes funds not only from such things as office supplies and taxicab rides, but also for salaries and expenses for the researchers, doctors, and laboratory technicians, who are essential to CDC's activities in preventing and controlling infectious diseases and carrying out other critical activities. It also takes money from the budget that provides for CDC epidemiologists and doctors to travel to other parts of the country and the world, where they are often the only source of expertise related to a new, devastating epidemic. It is already extremely difficult for CDC to recruit and retain qualified scientists and physicians with expertise in infectious diseases. In this era of downsizing Government, the CDC infectious diseases program is losing people faster than it can replace them, and has increasingly limited ability to replace scientists with invaluable and unique expertise. In a March U.S. News and World Report article about CDC, entitled ``Tales from the Hot Zone,'' the deputy director of the infectious disease program stated the problem quite clearly: ``We are losing our expertise.'' In infectious diseases, as in the other areas where CDC on paper receives increased funding, I fear the increase will be seriously undermined by virtue of the fact that this bill limits the agency's wherewithal to maintain the scientific expertise needed to do the job. Another short-sighted approach to this disastrous budget-slashing exercise is the reduction of funding for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health--a reduction that was then applied to allow the supporters of the bill to argue that they had increased funding for CDC. I fear that perhaps NIOSH is being punished because some may believe it is a regulatory, rather than a research agency. NIOSH is not a regulatory agency. The NIOSH funding cut eliminates the NIOSH training grants program and reduces research activities by over 15 percent. It would eliminate 57 training grants, including 14 university-based educational resource centers which serve as regional resources on occupational safety and health for industry, labor, Government, academia, and the general public. NIOSH training grants have trained more than 2,700 professionals in occupational medicine and nursing, industrial hygiene, safety engineering, et cetera. These people have been trained to prevent and treat occupational diseases and injuries. There is a severe shortage of certified occupational health nurses and physicians, amounting to only about one physician and five nurses to every 80,000 active workers and 20,000 retired or disabled workers. NIOSH is the only Federal agency conducting biomedical research on the causes of occupational illness and the only agency conducting applied research to identify, evaluate, and prevent work-related injuries and illness. At at time when Congress seems so intent that in-depth risk analysis must be associated with regulations, it is absurd to reduce the ability of this agency to ensure that there is sound science and risk assessment to underpin regulatory actions relating to worker heath and safety. NIOSH works closely with management and labor in its research activities, and currently is engaged in a tripartite agreement with General Motors and the UAW to conduct health and safety research. In a recent letter to the Director of NIOSH concerning this program, the GM vice president for R&D stated: ``we recognize NIOSH's distinct role as a R&D entity which has been very effective in injury prevention research over the last 25 years. This effort has ultimately saved the nation billions of dollars annually in medical costs, and also improved the health and welfare of every American worker and their families.'' These are just two small but significant examples of the many ways in which this funding bill hurts the public health and hurts the people of this country. The House wants to balance the budget--we all agree on that goal. Many agree that all federal programs need to tighten their belts and contribute their ``fair share'' to important budget-reduction efforts. But the budget cutting in this Congress has not been honest, and it has not been fair. The money being saved is much greater than what is needed to balance the budget; it is being saved for tax breaks and unnecessary defense spending. The cuts have targeted the most unfortunate, the oldest and the youngest, and the most needy in our country. Nowhere is that more evident than in this appropriations bill. The ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations said it best in his dissenting views: this legislation ``will make it harder for ordinary people to hold on to a middle class life . . . more difficult for the disadvantaged to get the education and training which they need to work their way into the middle class . . . workers more vulnerable. . . . this bill marks a retreat from our efforts to be one people with common causes and common interests. Surely this Congress in a bi- partisan way can do better.''

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce, with my colleague Mr. Waxman, the Health Centers Consolidation Act of 1995. This legislation reduces administrative costs, simplifies and reduces paperwork, and lets health services programs focus more effectively on what they really are about--providing health care for the poor and medically needy, migrant farmworkers and their families, homeless people, and individuals who live in public housing. Without reducing the emphasis currently placed on any important aspects of health care, this bill allows programs that currently are authorized separately to consolidate, coordinate their efforts, and work as a real health care team to ensure better health and well-being for some of our most needy and fragile citizens. Today, health centers provide care and give hope for a better life to approximately 7.7 million of our citizens. They do this efficiently, cost effectively, and with a deep understanding and true dedication to the unique needs of the diverse and vulnerable populations they serve. The bill consolidates into a single legislative authority, authorities for community health centers, migrant health centers, health services for the homeless, and health services for residents of public housing. It streamlines the statutory definition of basic and required health services for these centers; replaces detailed application requirements by a general requirement that applicants identify their service populations, describe the scope of services, and show how service needs will be met; and reduces the number of grant applications and awards while maintaining the level of services provided by these centers and establishing an incentive award grant program for grantees with high or greatly improved performance. This is a good bill, and I commend it to my colleagues.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today, my colleague Mr. Waxman and I are introducing, at the request of the administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Performance Partnership Act of 1995. The proposal involves a consolidation of categorical grants into two partnerships, one for mental health and one for substance abuse. The performance partnership grant establishes a new framework for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States. Instead of using an application process partnership grants would be based on a negotiated multi-year agreement between States and the secretary of HHS, which would define objectives and ways to achieve specific health outcomes. This proposal offers an alternative that avoids both the downsides of pure block grants--which were well documented in a February 1985 GAO study--and those of categorical grants, including multiple grant applications, spending restrictions and set-asides, and overlapping data requirements and reports. Grants such as those proposed in this bill could streamline or eliminate such requirements. Under this approach, States would have increased flexibility to set priorities and objectives and determine the means to address them. The administration is making a serious attempt to propose a system that avoids the pitfalls of pure block grants while reducing undesirable and burdensome aspects of some categorical grants. The proposal deserves consideration, as one approach to a decision about the best way to reauthorize certain important programs of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA].

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I have heard a lot of irresponsible talk about how secret agreements were made between the two committees. Well, nothing of the kind occurred. There was open discussion between the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and from that came the managers' amendment, and there is no secrecy involved here. As a matter of fact, for the benefit of those who do not know, the manager's amendments return this legislation to something very close to what passed this House last year 423 to 5. That is what the members' amendment does. The process is open. Members are having an opportunity to discuss this on the House Floor under a rule, and to say otherwise is either to deceive yourself or to deceive the Members of this body. That is what the facts are, and I would urge my colleagues to not listen to this kind of nonsense, but rather, to respect the institution, the Members who have brought forward this amendment, to understand that it is a fair amendment, it is in the public interest, and it is balanced, and it is not founded upon a lot of sleazy lobbying of the kind we have seen and the mail we have been getting from the long-distance industry.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)