John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, hurry, hurry, hurry. Let us get this bill through. Let us get it through before the facts are in. Let us get it in before it shows that this package for Medicare Select is in fact going to cost Medicare or the taxpayers more. Hurry, hurry, hurry. Let us get it through before it shows that the senior citizen recipients of Medicare are not going to get the option to move from policy to policy on their health insurance packages which would supplement their Medicare policies; and hurry, hurry, hurry, before it comes out that a policy which costs about $870 is going to go up to something like about $2,300 by the time you get to 85, if you buy it for $870 at age 67. Mr. Speaker, let us get this thing through before the people find out what we are about. That is what my Republican colleagues are saying. That is what is at issue today. What is good legislative practice and good legislation? It requires that we should wait and find out what the facts are. The information is already out. Medicare select is costing on the average 17\1/2\ percent more. That means that Medicare select is going to cost the Medicare trust fund 17\1/2\ percent more. It is going to trap senior citizens in policies on supplemental benefits that will not be able to be carried to new insurers because of preexisting conditions. Costs are going to go up. Senior citizens are not going to know this at the time that their good-hearted insurance salesman comes around to peddle them this wonderful new Medicare Select. The taxpayers are not going to know that this is in fact going to cause the Medicare trust fund to go broke faster. Hurry, hurry, hurry. Pass this thing before anybody finds out what is going on. Do it in a conference which takes less than 1 minute by the clock, and then have to be rescued by the Committee on Rules because such a poor job of legislation was done. Mr. Speaker, this is the way we are legislating today. I would urge Members to vote this outrage down and let us proceed more cautiously. Let us protect the public. Let us see to it that senior citizens, the Medicare trust fund, and the American people get decent treatment here from this Congress today.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DINGELL. With great respect for my colleague, what this shows is this is stupid legislation, further done with great speed and limited wisdom.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, is that because we were sloppy in the House or because the Senate was sloppy or because the conference was sloppy in the processing of legislation? I understand that the title is to be changed so that it no longer refers to an amendment to the Social Security Act, but it refers now to an amendment to OBRA; is that correct?

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], my good friend, tell me what momentous Senate concurrent resolution we are adopting in the rule and why we could not consider it out in the open and have everyone know what we are doing here?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to direct a question to the manager of the rule. I note that in the last words in the rule, it says, ``Upon the adoption of the conference report, Senate Concurrent Resolution 19 shall be considered as agreed to.'' To what are we agreeing in this rule? Can anybody help me to know what is in Senate Concurrent Resolution 19? I think this is an important matter, because the Senate would not have passed a concurrent resolution on it unless it were important, but we are being asked to agree to this. To what are we being called upon to agree? Is this something that was considered in the 1-minute conference which we had between 5:00 and 5:01, or was it some matter which was not considered, which now must be considered and added to the proceedings of this body?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule, it is a bad bill, it is bad legislation, it has been handled poorly, it is going to hurt the American people, it is going to raise the cost of Medicare, and it is going to be generally bad for the economy, the country, and the budget. Having said, that, Mr. Speaker, it is probably OK to proceed. I would urge my colleagues to vote this rule down. I would urge them with equal vigor and diligence to vote down the legislation. The bill is being pushed more rapidly than information is available, and more rapidly than the committee or the House is being permitted to gather the facts about what the legislation does. Initial information shows that Medicare has had its costs increased 17 percent on the average in States in which this Medicare Select Program has been made available. What that means is that senior citizens are getting less for more, and the Medicare system is getting billed more for less. This is a wonderful giveaway to the health insurance companies. It is being crafted in a fashion which defies good explanation. The rule is needed today because the Republican leadership pushed this bill through the House without adequate thought, and then rushed it to a conference which did not deserve that honorable title between the House and Senate. We had a conferees meeting, which was scheduled for 5 p.m. one day last week. It was over at 5:01 p.m. Only yesterday did the Republican leadership become aware of the fact that they had a number of significant scope violations in a two-page bill. Clearly slovenly legislation, slovenly legislative process is before this body. The issues presented in the statement of managers and in the offers passed back and forth between the House and Senate were presented as merely technical, but they were in fact highly substantive, and they will, for example, try to make gifts through these devices to the health insurance industry. The result of this action is also to assure that the study which should take place to find out what is really going to happen under this Medicare Select Program will be so crafted as to make it very difficult to in fact obtain the necessary facts that the Congress ought to have, to know whether we ought to continue to extend this outrage, or whether in fact we ought to terminate it, as we indeed should. The scope of the bill was expanded so that insurance companies can sell highly questionable policies not only in 50 States but in the territories and in the District of Columbia as well. I am certain that there are a number of guileless, unsuspecting elderly consumers in these locations that can be plucked for further advantage and further economic benefit to the health insurance industry. Of course, the health insurance industry will profit mightily from this further largesse by this Congress under the Republican leadership at the expense of the taxpayers, at the expense of the budget, and at the expense of Medicare recipients. The subjects of the GAO study in the bill was changed, so it will be more difficult for us to get GAO to present us with options for modifying the MediGap market, and therefore, to be sure that the seniors who switch out of these Medicare select policies can do so in a way where they can get back into a decent package of insurance. Understand, this is insurance which does not go on a level basis, it starts at about $870 a year, if one is 65, but by the time one has reached 85, it is going to cost $2,300 or $2,400. Nobody is telling the senior citizens about that at all. Of course, the process here has been crafted so as to proceed with such blinding speed that no one will see that the senior citizens, the Medicare trust fund, the American people, are going to get skinned by this outrage. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. I urge them to vote against the bill. I predict that if this bill passes and is signed into law, we are going to find that Medicare is going to cost the taxpayers and the trust fund about an additional 17 percent. I tell the Members, they should put that in their book. They are going to have a chance to remember that when we review this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. Like the many seniors who have contacted me, I was shocked to learn that the Republican budget slashes Medicare by $270 billion. And as if that were not enough, the Republicans slash another $180 billion from Medicaid. In my State of Michigan, close to two- thirds of Medicaid is spent on the elderly poor. This is an attack, plain and simple, on America's senior citizens and on the working parents who are being squeezed between love for their own parents and grandparents, on the one hand, and their children on the other. That is the cruel choice being imposed on the average American by the Republican budget. Sadly, the Republicans are playing ``hide the ball'' with their plans for reforming Medicare and Medicaid. The current legislative schedule allows for only 9 days in September to introduce, review, and vote on the proposed changes. If the Republicans have such wonderful ideas for ensuring the solvency of Medicare, turning Medicaid over to the States, and still protecting the health of our seniors, why are they keeping them a secret? What are they afraid of? [[Page H 6573]] It appears that they trying to sneak their radical and extreme cuts past the American public. I can understand why they would be inclined to do so, given the fact that they are also pushing a $245 billion tax cut that primarily benefits the rich. Seniors have a right to know what is in store for Medicare and Medicaid, especially if they are being asked to bear skyrocketing premiums and limited access to quality care to help finance tax breaks for the wealthy. Working families have a right to know whether the Republicans expect them to bear even more of the costs of caring for their aging parents and grandparents so that the richest few in America can pay lower taxes. At present, the Republican leadership appears content to continue operating in the dark, carefully avoiding the bright light of public scrutiny. I call upon them to deliver a full and open debate on how best to strengthen and improve Medicare, Medicaid, and the country's public health system. And in the meantime, I urge my colleagues to join me in performing emergency surgery on this Republican budget resolution by defeating the conference report.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, our committee has been called to the floor for purposes of handling the Medicare Select legislation. Could we have some appreciation of when we will be called back to do this, if we are not going to do it right now?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, behind the Speaker's rostrum stands the glorious symbol of the United States--our flag--the most beautiful of all the flags, resplendent with colors of red, white, and blue, carrying on its face the great heraldic story that of 50 States descended from the original 13 colonies. I love it and I revere it. I have served it with pride, in the Army of the United States, actively in one war and in reserve status in another. Like millions of young Americans in all the wars of this country, I have served under this great flag, symbol of our Nation, our unity, our freedom, tradition, and the glory of our country. This small book, my dear colleagues, which I now hold up in my hand, is the Constitution of the United States. It is not so visible as is our wonderful flag, and regrettably oftentimes we forget the glory, the majesty of this magnificent document--our most fundamental law and rule of order, the document which defines our rights, liberties, and the structure of our Government. Written in a few short weeks and months in 1787, it created a more perfect framework for government and unity and defined the rights of the people of this great republic. As Chief Justice Burger, Chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution observed in his remarks on the Constitution. The work of 55 men at Philadelphia in 1787 was another step toward ending the concept of the divine right of kings. In place of the absolutism of monarchy the freedoms flowing from this document created a land of opportunities. Ever since then discouraged and oppressed people from every part of the world have made their way to our shores; there were others too--educated, affluent, seeking a new life and new freedoms in a new land. This is the meaning of our Constitution. Justice Burger observed the Declaration of Independence was the promise, the Constitution was the fulfillment. This is the most successful and magnificent document ever to create a government. The Government which is the product of the agreement of the people on this Constitution is the most successful government that has ever served free men, now over 200 years old, and still a wonder of the world. The Constitution was designed to assure that it could be amended, but only with difficulty. High hurdles were imposed on successive generations, lest it be too easy to amend, and lest it be too easy to impair the greatness of this wonderous document by unwise actions taken in the haste of a moment of passion or folly. We are today compelled to debate in a process constrained by inadequate time. We are told we must choose between the glorious symbol of our Nation and the great, majestic fundamental document which is the soul and the guardian of principles which not only define the structure of our Government, but the rights of every American. This is not a choice that I like to make, and it is not a choice that other Members of this body like. There is regrettably enormous political pressure for us to constrain rights set forth in the Constitution to protect the symbol of this Nation. And yet when we make the decision today, we must keep in mind that we are choosing between the symbol of our country and the soul, and the guardian principles of our democracy. I call upon this body and all Americans to understand the issue before us. I believe that if Americans understand this issue, they will come to the same wise conclusion. Like other Americans, I say the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag with reverence and pride. I join my colleagues here in reciting this great pledge to our Nation's flag as I do in joining my constituents at home in frequent public ceremonies in saying this important Pledge of Allegiance to the dear flag of this country. I again hold up before you the Constitution of the United States, a small document, successfully amended only a few times, and wisely subject to strong constraints on attempted amendments. On many occasions, because of the difficulty in amending this wonderful document, unwise attempts to amend it have thankfully not come to fruition. The Constitution says ``the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press * * *'' That right of freedom of speech is absolute, not in any way constrained. And there is no power in the Congress to abridge the freedom of speech. That is the question before us here. Only here, we are called on to not simply pass a law, but rather, to amend the Constitution itself, or to permit the States to do so. The Constitution is the soul of our Nation, the guiding principles of both government and protection of our liberties. It is the Constitution which makes being an American so unique and which gives us such precious quality and character to our lives as citizens of this great Nation. The Supreme Court is hardly a group of leftwing antigovernment protestors, but rather a group of conservative men and women, given lifetime tenure, to carry out one of the most singularly important responsibilities in our Government--the interpretation of our Constitution and laws. That court has said plainly and clearly that freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment is a right so precious that it may not be interfered with by a statute which criminalizes the conduct of anyone who ``knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, or maintains on the floor or ground or tramples upon'' a United States flag, United States, appellant v. Eichman, et al. 496 U.S. 310. In this case and in the case of Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, a similar conversion was reached. My colleagues, we are compelled to choose--a great symbol of the Nation, our beloved flag, or the majestic Constitution of the United States and the great 10 amendments to that Constitution, the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of expression. In this there is only one choice, defend the majesty and glory of the Constitution. Protect, support, and defend the Constitution and the rights guaranteed thereunder. Like the rest of my colleagues, I pledge allegiance to the flag, regularly in this body. But, I remind all here and elsewhere, that every 2 years each Member of Congress takes a great and solemn oath, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This oath is a far higher and greater responsibility than that which we take in any of our other activities as citizens. It is a precious commitment to the people of the United States, to those who have served here before us, to those who will serve here after us, and to all Americans throughout history. In this oath we honor all those who have loved and served this country. And, we commit solemnly to all Americans from the first days of its founding until the end of time, that the principles of our Government will be protected and defended by us against all, regardless of how powerful politically they might be or how wonderful a cause that they may assert. When I vote today, I will vote to support and defend the Constitution in all its majesty and glory, recognizing that to defile or dishonor the flag is a great wrong, but recognizing that the defense of the Constitution and the rights that are guaranteed under it is the ultimate responsibility of every American. Whether we hold elective office, or whether we are simply citizens living our day-to-day lives under the protection of the Constitution, this commitment is to defend our greatest Government treasure. When I cast my vote today, it will be for the Constitution, it will be for the rights enunciated in the Constitution, it will be against wiping away or eroding the constitutional rights of Americans in even the slightest way. I remind my colleagues of their oath and I call on them for keen awareness of that oath to defend and support the Constitution. The great and awesome oath binds me to a duty of the greatest importance to all Americans past, present, or future. We do not defend our beloved flag by passing the first amendment to our Constitution to reduce the rights of Americans. Honor our flag. Honor a greater treasure to Americans, our Constitution. Vote down this bill.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, behind you stands the great flag of this beloved country, the symbol of our liberty, the sign of our freedom, the hopes of our people. I love it, I revere it, and I have served it in World War II and for 40 years in this body. It is a precious national treasure, and it deserves to be honored by all. But I have also in my hand something else which is even more precious to any free man in this country. It is the embodiment of our liberties. It defines our freedom, it lays out the structure of our Government. It sets forth those things which distinguish Americans from any other race in the world. It is the document which defines how an American is different from any citizen of any other Nation. This morning I had a call from a veteran who, like me, served his country. In that he urged me to protect the flag, but he said to do so by protecting the Constitution. He shares with me the disgust for those who would dishonor the flag. However, he reminded me, more importantly, that by voting for this amendment I would create a monster that would trample the rights that he fought to protect. If this amendment is adopted, it will be the first time in the entire history of the United States that we have cut back on the liberties of Americans. That is not something which I want on my record. The flag is precious. It deserves honor. But remember, it is the symbol of the country and of the Constitution. The Constitution, however, Mr. Speaker, is the soul of this country. It, above all things, must be preserved and protected. I would remind my colleagues that we take with pride and pleasure the privilege of pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States. But each 2 years when we are sworn in to the Congress of the United States, we take a solemn oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign, and domestic. The Constitution is one of the most extraordinary documents ever written. Insofar as Government is concerned, it is the most perfect document of Government ever written. It is the freedom of expression which is set forth in this great document which the Supreme Court has said is at stake here. In two recent decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional for the States and the Federal Government to enact laws prohibiting flag burning. I find that regrettable, but on careful evaluation, I understand that we are talking really about the protection of rights of American citizens regardless of how odious that exercise might be. We do not protect the flag by defaming the Constitution. The flag is the symbol. I urge my colleagues to protect the Constitution, the definer and the glory of our liberties.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, in a recent meeting between you and the President, it was agreed that you would support the creation of a blue- ribbon panel to recommend long-overdue reforms to our campaign finance system. It has been almost two decades since some of the reforms enacted by Congress in the Federal Election and Campaign Act of 1971 [FECA] were overturned in the landmark Supreme Court case Buckley versus Valeo. The Court ruled that while the Federal Government has an overriding interest in limiting campaign contributions to candidates, it has no compelling reason to limit expenditures under any First Amendment test of free speech and expression. The Court concluded that, unlike limits on contributions, spending caps serve no legitimate purpose in guarding against corruption of the electoral process. However, several years ago a bipartisan commission, the Committee on the Constitutional System, concluded that one of the greatest threats to our political system is the rapidly escalating cost of campaigns and the growing dependence of incumbents and candidates on money from donors who might expect a favorable vote in exchange for a contribution. Moreover, the Commission found that gridlock could take hold by leaving office holders open to multiply-conflicted opponents, all of whom may believe their contributions should engender a legislator's support. Such activities frustrate all participants in the system and encourage the promulgation of unsound public policy. The Committee on the Constitutional System concluded that there was only one effective way to fix the problem, through an amendment to the United States Constitution. There is no doubt that concerns about limiting the quantity of speech will be vigorously debated. They should be, since no one should take lightly any proposal to amend that sacred document. However, limits on some kinds of speech, such as debate on the floor of this chamber, are well established as necessary to orderly deliberation. The underlying logic of time limits on debate is the realization that unlimited speech inhibits our ability to govern. In his dissenting opinion to Buckley versus Valeo, Justice White wrote, ``Expenditure limits have their own potential for preventing the corruption of Federal elections themselves.'' 424 U.S. 264, (1976). The amendment I propose contains 13 words: ``The Congress shall have authority to limit expenditures in elections for Federal office.'' While brief, the weight of these words is mighty. This amendment, possibly combined with other reforms, would allow the Federal election process to be returned to the people, and permit those who seek and hold elective office to place their energies into solving public policy problems rather than political problems. I hope that any commission designated to make a recommendation to Congress on campaign finance reform consider the virtue of turning off the constant flow of cash into Federal campaigns through a Constitutional amendment to limit campaign expenditures.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 882, which requires the Department of Veterans Affairs, consulting with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to put in place standards that will ensure quality mammography for our veterans who receive their health care in Veterans Department facilities. As a principal sponsor of the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, I have been gratified to observe the impact of this legislation. The Department of Health and Human Services, through the Food and Drug Administration, moved quickly to establish and put in place a credible process for accrediting mammography facilities. As of today, more than 90 percent of the mammography facilities in the country have been certified as meeting the standards of the American College of Radiology. With its expert advisory committee, including input from mammography facilities themselves, the FDA continues to work toward development of additional standards as defined in the statute, which will be in place for future inspections and certification of facilities. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women. The potential success of treating this frightening and devastating illness is in large measure contingent on accurate early diagnosis. Since mammography is a critical and effective method for detecting breast cancer early, it is crucial that this service be available, safe, and accurate. The Mammography Quality Standards Act is intended to achieve this result, and early indications are that it is a whopping success. The exemption of Veterans Affairs facilities from the requirements of the MQSA should not mean that women who seek mammograms in Veterans Department facilities must fear receiving lower quality service. H.R. 882 seeks to ensure that these facilities are in line with those of the rest of the country, so that our women veterans can be assured of the safest and highest quality mammography.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, in a time when we are talking about risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, getting the Congress the best possible information we can get is a very important undertaking. And having OTA to provide that kind of assistance to the Congress is absolutely indispensable. OTA, because of the fine technical work and because of the careful research which it has done on advanced questions involving technology and advanced information systems, has saved the Congress literally hundreds of millions of dollars over the time of its existence. To cut it back at a time when other nations are beginning to recognize the importance of this kind of advice to a legislative body would be a great shame, and would indeed cost us vastly more than any piddling savings that could be made by eliminating that agency. I would urge my colleagues to recognize this is a cost-benefit, efficient, and desirable step in continuing the existence of OTA.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is going to sanction the creation of the mother and the father of all closed rules. Very frankly, there is a mechanism to bring matters of this kind to the floor quickly. It is called suspension of the rules. It requires a two-thirds vote. Virtually nothing else is present in this legislation which is not available to the leadership at this time under the process known as suspension of the rules. All of us favor the idea that something should be done about dumb regulations and, like others, I have been extremely critical of legislation and regulation which has not worked in the broad public interest and which has, in fact, been counterproductive because it did not address the problems with which we are properly concerned. The practical effect of the rule change which we are undergoing at this particular minute is to confer on the Speaker the ability to put a piece of legislation on the floor which will be considered under 1 hour's time, with no amendments permitted except that which either the chairman or the leadership wants to take place. It will foreclose thereby all meaningful amendments which are not concurred in by the leadership, foreclose all meaningful debate because clearly any piece of legislation can be brought to the floor under this rule change. It can involve massive termination of programs. It can involve termination of agencies in Government such as the Department of Commerce, Department of Education, Department of Defense, Department of Energy. It can involve termination of programs such as welfare or air pollution or water pollution or the Food and Drug Administration or legislation which would protect the consumers or the Federal Trade Commission or any other piece of legislation which could probably be brought here under an open rule, affording more adequate and proper debate and affording adequate opportunity to amend and to discuss amendments. In short, as I have indicated, this is the mother and the father of all closed rules. It confers on the Speaker the opportunity to pass legislation without consideration of amendments and without more than 1 hour's debate on something like 261 Members of this body. This is not something which is going to lead to good legislative practice. It is not something which is significantly expanding the authority of the leadership to do anything other than one thing, and that is to curb debate, to curb amendments, and to do so with less than two-thirds now required, only requiring three-fifths. Now, it should be noted in the 5 of the previous 10 Congresses, 10 out of the previous 20 years, from 1975 to 1994, one party controlled over 60 percent of the seats. This is clearly a bad proposal, and no fancy language or discussion of wrongdoing is going to change that.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. There is an old adage in the infantry that battles are won and wars are won on things other than money. If this amendment is adopted, we will not put one more nickel into housing, recreation, or anything else. But if this amendment is rejected, the U.S. Army is going to have something that will help all of us who served in previous wars. Point to what it is that the Army has done. The Army is the only service that has no museum of this kind, and this is the only country of which I am aware of where no such museum exists to remind our veterans and our people of what it is that was done. Veterans say ``We would like to you to remember what we did, and we would like you to remember why we did it.'' A museum will help Americans to understand that. Mr. Chairman, I urge that the amendment be rejected. Remember, wars are won by morale. Service is enhanced by morale. Look at the British Army. They are all manner of curious troops, and they all serve enthusiastically. Why? Because of loyalty to their service.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the years of service and achievement of the Reverend Jay Samonie. On July 1, 1995, Father Samonie will retire as pastor from St. Michael Catholic Church, in Monroe, MI. The son of Lebanese-American parents, Jacob and Marie Samonie, Father Samonie is 1 of 11 children and grew up on the east side of Detroit. When he was 14, he enrolled at Sacred Heart Seminary, where he completed high school and obtained a bachelor's degree. He took postgraduate studies in theology at the St. John's Provincial Seminary in Plymouth, MI. He received a master's degree from the University of Detroit in 1971 and a doctorate in 1988. Father Samonie was knighted by the worldwide Order of St. Peter in 1984 and joined the Knights of Columbus in 1989. Before coming to Monroe, Father Samonie served as pastor of Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Detroit for 11 years, where he led medical and social programs serving more than 30,000 people annually. His other pastorates include St. Michael Parish in Pontiac in 1972 and St. Bernadette Church in Dearborn in 1968. Throughout his years of service, Father Samonie has remained active in the community and the Archdiocese. He served as vicar served on the Archdiocesan Pastoral Assembly, Bread for the World, Clergy Advisory Board for the Archdiocesan Office of Hispanic Affairs and Pastoral Alliance of Detroit. Since 1968, Father Samonie has been a member of a pastoral team that assists Latin-Americans and has been Guadalupe Society Director since 1963. He also has the distinction of being the first priest to serve on the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, which investigates charges of misconduct against any State court judge. Father Samonie's hobby is painting. His beautiful compositions are created using oils, acrylics, watercolors, and airbrush on a variety of surfaces. Angels and flowers are the pastor's favorite subjects but all of his works include messages and themes. There have been two successful exhibits of his artwork. During his retirement Father Samonie plans to concentrate on painting people and biblical scenes. From civic duty to painting, Father Samonie has fostered beauty and kindness throughout his career. His life is a testament to the vast good a dedicated person can achieve within a community. Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to join with me in congratulating Father Samonie on his distinguished career of service and to wish him continued good health, happiness, and involvement in the many causes he holds dear.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the Congress is considering legislation of great importance to the American people. The bill before us and the matter on which the conference will commence between the House and Senate is the so-called Medicare Select Program. Mr. Speaker, the bills for which we are appointing conferees expand the Medicare Select Demonstration Program. And although many support this program, I believe that because the Medicare cuts required by the Republican budget are so drastic and will require such fundamental reductions in the Medicare Program, it is irresponsible to pass any Medicare legislation, including extending Medicare Select, without taking these reductions into account. Medicare Select is a preferred-provider managed care plan that pays cost sharing for Medicare beneficiaries if they go to a selected list of providers. It will not pay for cost sharing if beneficiaries go to providers outside the selected list. Both the House and the Senate bills expand Medicare Select to all 50 States, the Senate bill makes it an 8\1/2\-year program, the House bill a 5-year program. Therefore, I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on H.R. 483 be instructed to resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills--taking into account the impact of the budget proposal, including Medicare Select cost increases that may result from increased beneficiary out-of-pocket costs and limitations on beneficiaries' choice of providers. As Democrats, we should remain committed to protecting seniors from cuts that will drastically affect the Medicare Program and, more importantly, from increasing their out-of-pocket health care costs. The Republican budget proposal adds $3,500 to the out-of-pocket health care costs of each and every senior citizen over 7 years. This translates to a back-door raid on Social Security. By 2002, nearly 50 percent of every senior citizen's cost-of-living adjustment in Social Security will go to pay for the increased cost in Medicare. We cannot let that happen. We should also preserve seniors' traditional right to choose their own health care and their own doctors. The Republican's budget proposal will have serious consequences for every aspect of the Medicare Program, including Medicare Select. Therefore, we must act to protect all seniors and take these critical issues into account. I urge all Members to support the motion to instruct.

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the facts from this debate are clear. The Democrats want to see that the discussions in the conference will address the proposed cuts in Medicare benefits. That is all we want. The hard fact is that senior citizens of this country are going to take a $300 billion hit on their Medicare costs and [[Page H5585]] that $300 billion hit is going to be used to finance a tax cut for the well- to-do. Now, I can understand how my Republican colleagues get outraged about this. One of my colleagues from California quoted the President telling that Medicare is in trouble. Everybody has known Medicare was in trouble. The President tried to do something about it last year, and his comments of last year, quoted on this floor by the previous Member who addressed this body, simply said Medicare is in trouble unless you pass his universal health care coverage program. Every single Republican opposed that. Everybody knows health care in this country is in trouble. Everybody knows health care costs in this country are escalating at an excessive rate. Everybody knows that availability of insurance and the affordability of insurance is declining. We can talk about innovation and innovativeness and everything else, and a feeding frenzy of innovation that is supposed to take place. In the health care subcommittee, run by the gentleman from California, there has been no excessive innovation or anything of that kind going on in his committee and certainly nothing vaguely resembling a feeding frenzy of innovation, certainly no sign of innovation in his committee, nothing except cuts for the senior citizens, give a tax break to the rich and talk about how the Democrats are responsible for the problem. The real problem began last year in this Congress and the year before when the Republicans refused to a man to consider any reform in health care overall which would not only have addressed the problem of Medicare and its viability but also every other health care program in this country which would have made health care available to every American and which would have seen to it that the costs of health care for business, for industry, for government, and for the ordinary citizen would have gone back.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, that is a very artful point that the gentleman makes. I want to commend his for it. As a dialectician, he has few peers. However, the hard fact of the matter is that to say we are going to give us two choices and give you two choices does not allow a real debate. All giving two choices is is it limits the choices before the House to four questions. It does not allow us to specifically address whether or not we are, for example, cutting Medicare, which, in fact, we are. Nor does it allow us to properly address the cuts in Medicaid or student loans or school lunches or title I education funding or veterans' medical care or low-income heating assistance, all of which proposals are being savaged by the Republican budget. It does not give us time to debate them. It does not give the House an opportunity to consider amendments dealing with these different points. I love the gentleman from New York. He is one of the finest men around here. I enjoy my little skirmishes with him up in the Committee on Rules more than I can say, but the hard fact of the matter is, even with his charm and skill, the distinguished gentleman from New York cannot deny that, in fact, this is a gag rule which is going to foreclose the House from proper consideration of some of the most important [[Page H5113]] questions, not only for this year but for the 7 years which follow. I again express my respect for my good friend, ``closed rule Solomon.''

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, we are confronting here an interesting exercise in which relatively few choices exist with regard to the Members of this body. The measure before us, the base measure, is fiscally irresponsible in the extreme. It places the responsibility for drawing down the deficit squarely on the backs of the most vulnerable portions of our society: children, veterans, senior citizens. Here are some of the cuts that are proposed: $280 billion reduction in Medicare. This will require senior citizens to pay an additional $1,060 in out-of-pocket expenses in the year 2002. Earlier today a Member on the other side of the aisle asked how anyone could characterize Medicare cuts as being draconian. I would simply quote that the distinguished current chairman of the Committee on Commerce charged that these cuts in the last session were draconian. These reductions are, those reductions were two-thirds below those suggested today. The resolution targets seniors by cutting senior citizens COLAs by $24 billion between fiscal year 1999 and the year 2002. This will reduce the average [[Page H5143]] senior's benefits each year by about $240. The resolution before us also reduces Medicaid by about $184 billion. These changes will limit access to health care for many older Americans and threaten their financial security. They will also result in seniors being ejected from nursing homes. It is clear that the Nation has to reduce the budget deficit. It is a threat to our long-term economic strength. However, attacking the most vulnerable, dealing with those who have concerns and who indeed are our future is unwise. Reducing the educational opportunities of our youngsters is perhaps one of the most foolish kinds of raids on good investment practices and good economic policies this country can make. The benefits, however, that will be accrued from this proposal are those few in this country who already have plenty. Better than half the benefits in the $350 billion tax cut package that are before us in this legislation or will later come will go to Americans earning more than $100,000 a year. During today's debate, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have frequently asserted that the buildup of the national debt over the last 14 years is the fault of the Democrats. Nothing is further from the truth. An examination will show that my Republican colleagues and indeed Presidents Bush and Reagan submitted and supported budgets wildly out of balance, and they made inaccurate assumptions and included asterisks to indicate that there might be some savings appearing at some future time. The Democratic Congress has cut every one of those budgets save one. Indeed the Congress saved some $49 billion that was suggested for expenditure by the prior administrations. I urge my colleagues to reject this outrage. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 67, the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996. This measure is fiscally irresponsible in the extreme. It places the responsibility for drawing down the deficit squarely on the backs of the most vulnerable in this Nation--children, veterans and seniors. The harsh cuts that have been proposed include: A $280 billion reduction in Medicare. This will require seniors to pay an additional $1,060 in out-of-pocket expenses in 2002. Earlier today a Member on the other side of the aisle asked ``How anyone could characterize the Medicare cuts being proposed as draconian?'' I would remind him that the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, the committee charged with making these cuts, characterized the Medicare savings included in the 1993 budget as draconian. These reductions were a full two-thirds below those being considered today. The resolution also targets seniors by cutting Social Security COLAs by $24 billion between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2002. This will decrease the average yearly benefit by $240. The resolution before us also reduces Medicaid by $184 billion. These changes will limit the access to health care for many older Americans and threaten their financial security. They will also result in seniors being knocked out of nursing homes. We clearly must work to reduce the deficit which poses a threat to our long-term economic strength. However, as we work to prevent future generations from being saddled with enormous debt burdens, it is imperative that we proceed in a responsible and fair manner. The budget resolution that the majority has introduced clearly does not meet this standard. As I mentioned the cuts in this resolution fall hardest on those who most deserve our support. Yet, the benefits are localized to the lucky few in this Nation who already have plenty. Better than half of the benefits of the $350 billion tax cut package that has been included go to Americans earning more than $100,000 a year. During today's debate, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have frequently asserted that the buildup in the national debt over the last 14 years is the fault of the Democrats. I believe an examination of recent history shows that the memories of my Republican colleagues, with respect to this matter, are very convenient. For 12 years, Presidents Reagan and Bush submitted budget proposals with rosy economic scenarios, inaccurate assumptions and asterisks instead of savings. While both called for a balanced budget, both submitted budgets grossly out of balance and left it to Congress to cut their requests. Congress did so in every year save one. In fact, the Congress appropriated almost $30 billion less than both Presidents requested. Now we are hearing that the administration is not committed to deficit reduction. This strikes me as peculiar indeed in light of the fact that our President, unlike his predecessors, had done more than just talk about deficit reduction. Two years ago when the President came forward with a very successful budget plan, a Republican alternative was nowhere to be found. Instead we heard fearful cries that the Clinton budget would lead to near term economic calamity. Our distinguished speaker asserted that the budget plan would lead to a recession and actually increase the deficit. And, our majority leader classified it as job-killer in the short run. Despite the unwillingness of a single Republican to vote for the plan, it was passed and signed into law. The successes it has contributed to speak for themselves. Better than $700 billion in deficit reduction; the creation of close to 7 million jobs; and a tax cut for 20 million low-income working families. Yet, only the richest 2 percent have been asked to pay more in taxes. Now we are being asked to consider a package that takes a completely different approach. An approach, which I might add mirrors the failed supply-side economic policies of the Reagan and Bush years. It targets those who have been hurt most by trickle down policies-- the low-income and middle-class families of this Nation. Over the past 15 years this group has seen their annual incomes stagnate and in many cases decline. The wealthy however have enjoyed unprecedented gains. Mr. Chairman, this Voodoo Economics II budget plan does not represent a constructive and sound proposal for bringing the deficit down further. I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution.