John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to my dear friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, one of the most gentlemanly, courteous, gracious, and most well-liked Members of this body. He has always figures, however, how we could come up with closed rules which appear to be open rules. Now, with all affection and all respect for my good friend, I had a little amendment which I appeared before the Committee on Rules with. I received the same gracious attention I always do up there, and I want the gentleman to know how grateful I am for both his friendship and the kind way he treated me. He did not treat me kindly enough because he did not allow the offering of the amendment. And the amendment offers a really good choice, something which the gentleman from New York and the Committee on Rules have denied this House again. So I am compelled now to call my dear friend ``closed rule Solomon'' because he presents us these wonderful rules which in fact do not permit the House to have a fair exposition of the business before it or to engage in a proper discussion of all the important questions. The amendment that I would have offered was specifically designed to address the problems associated with the policy direction that many in the House are moving with respect to block grants. It would have allowed the return of Medicaid and four welfare block grants to the States over a 5-year phaseout period. Better than $539 billion in savings would have been generated. I would have taken as a base text the language of my Republican colleagues' bill. It would have restored $282 billion. It would have permitted $18 billion to be returned to graduated student loans, and it would have allowed $50 billion to go to the middle-income people in forms of a tax cut which would have redistributed the moneys in a way which would not only have been fairer but could have contributed more greatly and speedily to the well-being of this country and to the assistance of the middle class.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the House is going to make a decision on the budget for 7 years. Every year between now and the year 2002 is going to be affected by the actions that are going to be taken on the House floor. We are going to deal with policy. We are going to deal with economics. We are going to deal with interest rates. Mr. Speaker, we are going to deal with employment. We are going to deal with Social Security. We are going to deal with economic issues. We are going to deal with the level of Federal expenditures. We are going to affect the rights and concerns of every American, from the very young to the very oldest and from the unborn to the dead. I think to have these kinds of discussions and these kinds of decisions made while the committees and the subcommittees are marking up important matters, but matters nowhere near as important as that which we will be discussing today, is absolutely wrong. I would tell my colleagues that this resolution should not be agreed to for that reason. I will also point out something else: This is one example of high- handedness. Another example of high-handedness we will be seeing in the Committee on Commerce very shortly. A member has been added to that committee without a word of consultation with the leadership on this side of the aisle. Very shortly, without any consultation with the leadership on this side of the aisle within the committee, members will be having their concerns and their interests in the structure of the committees and subcommittees of the Committee on Commerce rearranged. It is an interesting game that the Republican leadership is playing. What it says is that any time the Republican leadership chooses, they can change the composition of the teams on the field. If they do not like playing football with 11 men, they can put 12 or 13 men on the field, simply because they changed the rules, without adding another member on this side of the aisle. That is an example of arrogance, high-handedness, and quite honestly, a series of practices which are totally inconsistent with the traditions and practices of this House, where the business, when the Democrats were in the minority, and when we were always exquisitely careful, both on the leadership level in the House and on the leadership level in the committee, to consult and to afford the Republicans full opportunity to be fairly treated and to be heard before actions affecting the structure of committees, subcommittees, and of the House, was taken. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to rise up against heavy- handedness, high-handedness, and arrogance on the part of my Republican colleagues in connection with two matters: First, consideration of the budget resolution; and second, the structuring of committees and subcommittees.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. My comments will be brief. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Maryland and my dear friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], who serves so ably with me on the Migratory Bird Commission for their fine leadership on this matter. This is a good amendment. I want to thank my friends, the chairman of the committee and also the ranking minority member and the other members of the committee who have been accommodating to us on this. This will make possible the conservation of a very precious natural resource much loved by millions of Americans, by duck hunters, by nonhunters and by ordinary citizens who enjoy it. I am grateful to the gentleman for the leadership he has shown. I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania. I urge the amendment be adopted.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as this body meets today, the conferees are discussing the rescission bill a number of substantive changes in the Clean Air Act; first, to prevent EPA from imposing sanctions on States that violate the Clean Air Act, no matter how deliberate or egregious the violation; to eliminate the requirement that new highway projects funded with Federal monies must conform to the Clean Air Act by taking air quality considerations into account; and to eliminate the requirement that EPA give 100 percent credit to all State inspection and maintenance programs, no matter how deficient, how inadequate, or how patently empty those particular programs might be. These are amendments which eliminate EPA's sanction authority, and effectively makes the Clean Air Act voluntary. If a State wants to opt out of the act and allow limitless pollution in that State, it is allowed to do so. This is fundamentally inconsistent with the position that the Congress has taken time after time for so many years, that we need a national Clean Air Act to prevent and to protect our people against interstate pollution.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. DINGELL. I do not care whether it is heartfelt or not, I want to know if it is factual. I gather you are telling me some of the concerns expressed are not factual.

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman says all this talk about how your substitute is going to hurt agriculture; it cannot, because it is the same language they have in the bill?

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. I commend the authors. I urge that the amendment be adopted. And I hope that in so doing, we will improve the bill. I would inform my colleagues that the Clean Water Act is not only the most successful but it is the oldest of our major environmental statutes, and it was not passed by a bunch of left-wing kooks. It was passed overwhelmingly by bipartisan majorities on both sides of the aisle, and it came out of the Committee on Public Works overwhelmingly. There is good reason for everything that is in the current law, and the wonderful fact is that it works. What would the bill that is now before us do? First of all, in the State of Michigan, it would eliminate wetlands protection for some of our 5,583,000 acres of wetlands. Altogether, it would risk the potential loss of 3,629,000 acres. The current law is a good law, but it does not do all that it should. In recent times, better than 10,000 beaches have been shut because of pollution of coastal waters, and better than one-third of our shellfish beds are at risk. Now, what does the bill do here? First of all, it does not really protect wetlands as it should. As I mentioned, it puts Michigan wetlands and Michigan migratory waterfowl populations at risk. Indeed, I would warn my colleagues that this bill puts migratory waterfowl and migratory birds and migratory bird hunting at risk. I speak as a member of the Migratory Bird Commission which works to try and save the lands for these species. The bill would go further than that. The bill would repeal the Coastal Zone Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. It would remove 60 percent of our Nation's wetlands from any protection, and allow total destruction of possibly as high as 80 percent. It would weaken the standards governing industrial pollution and discharges into lakes, rivers, and harbors. It would threaten the Great Lakes fishery, which is worth better than $4 billion a year. It would hamper efforts to control nonpoint source pollution, the source of over 50 percent of water quality impairment in the United States, and it would create, interestingly enough, an extraordinarily unworkable bureaucracy which would supposedly address the question of wetlands protection within the Corps of Engineers, and cost the American people millions of dollars a year. The amendment is a responsible piece of legislation. It accepts about 70 percent of the legislation written in the committee. It would make possible continued progress, albeit at a somewhat slower rate than we have seen, because of the programs which we are now addressing which have been, I repeat, enormously successful in terms of preserving natural resources and protecting the clean water and protecting the health of the American people. Tourism is a great industry in this country, and it is one of the most important we have. I know of no one who will go to see dirty water. They go to see places where the water is clean, where the fishing is good, where the swimming is safe, and where one may eat the fish that they catch. They do not go to Gowanus Canal or to places which are fabled with their filth. Legislation which we have before us would roll back in a startling fashion better than 40 years of progress which we have made in cleaning up the waters of the Nation. It would not help the polluters particularly. It would simply allow them to evade their responsibilities. It would not help the American people. It would simply inflict upon them continued destruction of their most precious and important natural resource, the water of this country. The legislation which this country wants, if you ask the people, and better than 70 percent of them will say so if inquired of, is legislation which protects the waters, which protects the environment, which protects the health of the American people. I would urge that the amendment sponsored by my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] be adopted. I would urge that my colleagues reject the bill.

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished police officer who is retiring as a hero from the Allen Park, MI, Police Department. Cpl. Bruce Bardell was honored last month by the city he has served with bravery and skill for 29 years. Since being wounded by a gunshot fired by a fleeing felon in 1978, Corporal Bardell has undergone four major surgeries, the most recent of which was in January of this year. I would like to share with my colleagues a little about the incident that led to this injury because it reveals much about the character of this officer, and the other officers on the Allen Park police force. On June 3, 1978, Corporal Bardell was among the officers dispatched when a larceny was reported in the north end of the city. The suspects fled in a car. After the police gave chase, the suspects abandoned their vehicle and escaped through back yards on foot in the dark. When a resident reported a prowler, Officer Bardell responded. Upon arriving to the area of the report, he viewed a shadowy figure darting in a nearby yard, and gave chase on foot. Officer Bardell was surprised by a second suspect hiding behind a garage, who fired two shots at point blank range, striking Officer Bardell in the abdomen. He managed to return fire, striking the suspect, who was immobilized until other officers arrived on the scene. Officer Bardell returned to duty following his recovery from his injuries, and I am pleased to be able to report that his assailant is still imprisoned, serving a 60- to 100-year term. However, I must also note that Corporal Bardell has suffered continuing health problems as a result of this craven criminal act. Despite these problems, he has continued to serve with distinction and honor. For his years of dedicated service to the people of Allen Park, for his bravery in the face of great danger, and for his record as a good and faithful citizen, I call upon my colleagues in the House to join me in saluting this great American.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I joined many of my colleagues on the Commerce Committee in the introduction of H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995. I would like to congratulate the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, Mr. Fields, for their cooperation and work in drafting this landmark piece of legislation. This legislation closely tracks the legislation overwhelmingly passed by the House last year, H.R. 3626. That bill passed by a vote of 423 to 5, and it is my hope that H.R. 1555 will have the same level of support when it goes to the floor. The legislation does several important things. It removes the artificial barriers to entry that restrict competition in several telecommunications markets. Upon the enactment of this bill, telephone companies will be permitted to offer cable service. Cable operators will be able to offer telephone service. Long distance companies will be able to resell local telephone service. And ultimately, the Bell operating companies will have the ability to enter the long distance market. The dismantling of these barriers to entry will result in several significant improvements for the American public. Perhaps most importantly, services that have traditionally been offered by regulated monopolies will become competitive. Cable operators will have to fight with telephone companies to attract--and keep--consumers. Telephone companies will face a variety of competitors, each seeking new and innovative ways to attract subscribers. The long distance industry will face the entry of seven large, well-financed competitors. The result, for the American public, will be lower prices and greater responsiveness to the needs of consumers. In addition, we are likely to see the pace of innovation accelerate. Markets that heretofore have been responsive to Government edict will listen to consumers. Companies will refine their marketing efforts to make certain that consumers come first. And by allowing competition across the telecommunications landscape, competitors are likely to create packages of services that appeal to consumers. Consumers can have the option of one-stop shopping, in which local and long distance telephone service can be obtained from a single vendor. Cable subscribers will be able to obtain a package that also includes telephone service. Consumers will be able to obtain greater convenience and save money--or, if they choose, they will still be able to purchase their service on an a la carte basis from a variety of service providers. This is a good bill. But like any piece of legislation, it can be improved. I am particularly troubled by the provisions that end the regulation of cable rates on the day that the Federal Communications Commission issues its rules governing the offering of cable service by telephone companies. My concerns are shared by are shared by the administration; and I think it's likely that we will see some amendments to ensure that consumers are not gouged by monopolies until a competitive alternative is available. But despite my reservations about this provision, I expect that we will be able to resolve our differences here in a manner comparable to the way we have developed a consensus on the other provisions of this bill. In that regard, I would like to commend both Chairman Bliley and Chairman Fields for the manner in which they have treated the Democrats during the drafting process. This has been a truly bipartisan process, and the legislative text that was introduced today reflects the many compromises and changes that were made by both sides. Telecommunications issues have never been partisan, and have never been ideological. The manner in which the majority has treated the minority in this case is exemplary, and it is my hope that it will serve as a model for the many legislative initiatives we have before us. I would like to thank both of these fine legislators, and look forward to continuing this bipartisan approach as H.R. 1555 moves through the House. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1555 is a good bill, and before it is sent to the President for his signature, it will be a better bill. I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this legislation, and enact a statute that will enable the telecommunications industries to bring to the American people the benefits that the twenty-first century has to offer.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the first 100 days has made clear what the Republicans are up to. The contract on America gives new meaning to the words ``women and children first.'' Programs that benefit working Americans are being cut, not for deficit reduction, but for rewards and tax reductions to special interests. Who lost? Women, children, students, working middle-class families and the elderly. Spending for school lunches, nutrition programs like WIC, senior housing, and even Medicare have been slashed. Summer jobs programs for disadvantaged youth, low income heating, housing assistance for over 5 million low- income and elderly families have been terminated. Cuts in the program have taken place for more than 100,000 police on our city's streets. New school loans, programs for students are being targeted and being cut. Even Social Security is at risk. Half the tax cuts benefit Americans with incomes over $100,000. That is the richest 12 percent of Americans. In fact, the top 1 percent of the wealthy people get more benefits than 65 million families at the bottom. Repeal of corporate minimum tax provisions will result in many of our largest and most profitable corporations paying no taxes. The contract effectively repeals major provisions of environmental law meant to preserve human health and the quality of our air, water, soil, and, indeed, our life. Republicans pushed term limits because they know it could not pass rather than addressing the real problem by reforming our broken campaign finance system. Who Won, Who Lost--A Summary The story of who and who lost in the first 100 days of the Republican Congress is clear. Who won: Billionaires, corporate interests, and wealthy Americans who can hire lobbyists to protect and promote their interests in the GOP Congress. They clearly won, as the GOP Congress sought to: Provide special access for GOP lobbyists; provide tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans; wipe out the corporate minimum tax; ignore Democratic efforts to reform lobbying and gift rules and campaign financing; transferred $1.1 billion that was feeding women, infants and children into a windfall profit for big drug companies; and, let lobbyists undo Federal protection for food, health, and safety. Who has paid for this unprecedented array of special breaks and privileges is equally clear. Who lost: America's working families and their children, and our senior citizens. They clearly lost, as the GOP Congress sought to: Cut school lunches and nutritional standards for meals served in schools; slash national college scholarships and increase the cost of student loans for almost five million families; cut the 100,000 cops program to put more police in neighborhoods; cut aid for needed school reform; decimate job training and eliminate more than one million summer youth jobs; cut funds for Big Bird and Sesame Street as well as other educational TV programming; weaken Federal protection for our drinking water, food, and automobiles; make huge cuts in Medicare; abandon America's promise to our senior citizens by opposing Democratic efforts to protect Social Security from budget balancing plans; and, eliminate home heating assistance for senior citizens and working * * *. A Contract on Michigan Winners: Billionaires, Washington lobbyists and well-heeled special interests got huge tax breaks and unprecedented access and influence in the GPO's first 100 days. Who Paid For It: Working families, children and seniors in Michigan. 1. Michigan Loses Education and Job Opportunities. 151,594 Michigan students will pay more for student loans. 620 of Michigan's kids won't participate in national service and earn college tuition. 458,200 Michigan residents will not benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. 527 entire Michigan schools districts will lose money to make schools safe and drug free. 3,800 Michigan special needs students will lose the extra help they need to learn and succeed. 42,900 Michigan kids will lose summer jobs. 2. Michigan Loses: Feeding and Housing Our Children and Senior Citizens. 743,665 Michigan children are in danger of losing their school lunches. 188,089 mothers will lose some or all of the help they receive to provide nutritious food and milk to their infants and children. 9,930 Michigan children are at risk of losing access to safe, affordable child care. 377,883 Michigan senior citizens, families and kids will lose heating assistance they depend on to get through the winter. 32,852 Michigan families who could have counted on an FHA loan to buy their first homes are in danger of losing their only access to an affordable loan. 3. Michigan Loses: Safer Streets. 387 fewer cops will walk Michigan's streets as a result of the Republican Contract. 561 new cops are keeping Michigan communities safer because of Democratic initiatives in 1994.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on this side we are ready to bring up debate and deal with H.R. 483. I would urge the majority to call it up at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I will not burden the House with the discussions which took place during the consideration of the rule. Suffice it to say my displeasure with the way the rule has been handled in its substance and the way the rights of the minority have been constrained remain. I observe also that those constraints affect the ability of this House to legislate well, as they affect the rights of the people who look to us to see to it that their concerns are properly protected in the consideration of legislation. I will speak, rather, Mr. Chairman, of the substitute which will be offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], and I point out that this substitute is a reasonable alternative. It permits Members to support an extension of the program and an expansion of the program while providing very important consumer protections. First, the substitute differs from the newly-drafted underlying bill in three particulars. It expands the Medicare Select Program to all 50 States for a 5-year period, just like the bill reported out of the Committee on Commerce. Five years permits an ample opportunity to execute the program, to evaluate it, and to permit the Congress to come back and to extend the period, if necessary, or to make whatever changes might appear appropriate at the conclusion of 5 years. Second, it bans attained age rating that lets insurance companies raise rates on elderly people as they age. I want to comment a little on this. One of the perils of the people who would be seeking insurance under this program is that they will find that their initial purchase of insurance will be done on the basis that the prices are going to be very reasonable. Under the attained age rating practices of insurance companies, it means that there can be a substantial annual increase in cost to the insured. This is a deceptive practice. It is increasingly employed. It has the function of misleading consumers, and it makes it impossible for them to make meaningful comparisons of products of insurance. It also arranges matters so that misrepresentations can be made by unscrupulous insurance salesmen and that the consequences of the annual rating increases are not known to the purchaser of insurance at the time the insurance is first negotiated for. Third, the substitute allows people in restricted networks, that is, Medicare Select plans of the type we are dealing with here, to get out of those plans, something which they may very well want to do and something which is consistent with their rights as insured and enables them to get into an unrestricted Medigap plan. Specifically, it requires select insurers also to offer to individuals who disenroll from a select plan a fee-for-service plan under terms comparable to the terms they would have enjoyed had they initially joined a fee-for-service plan. Thus, choice is maintained for the persons who would enroll in these, fairness in achieving the kind of service they might want, protection of their basic liberties and their economic and other concerns. It is a fair way of addressing the failures which exist with regard to the legislation before us. These proposals do nothing to disturb the underlying bill. They do provide important consumer protections to the elderly. They create a level playing field for insurers, stabilize the marketplace and assure that insurers who would behave fairly toward their insured are not placed at a disadvantage by the behavior of unscrupulous insurers who would utilize these kinds of devices to the detriment not only of the more responsible insurers but also to the different holders of the policies that we are talking about. I urge my colleagues to adopt the substitute at the time that it is offered. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important question. It is not something which is arcane. Attained age rating, which this amendment would compel to be not used, permits an insurer to raise his rates on a policy solely on the basis of a policyholder's age. Some States have sought to place limitations on this practice, and a number of States have already banned that outright, or have community rating. In all of the States where this has been done, there remains plenty of competition for good Medigap products. Attained age rating removes the ability of consumers to meaningfully compare different premiums: Hence, this is a practice which undermines the major objective of the 1990 reforms, to standardize policies. Second, attained age rating can cost consumers thousands of dollars more over the long run than a fairly nicely priced product because it allows insurers to play games with premiums that are hard for regulators to control or consumers to make an intelligent judgment on. who want to use community rating to move away from that method of rating. This will cause the kind of fragmentation that occurred in the health insurance marketplace that led to so many of the problems we have today. Now with thanks to my good friend from California, Mr. Stark, let me go through some of the differences which exist. If you take a policy where premiums do not vary by age, for example the AARP Prudential plan, the plan is, at all times, every year of the life of the insured, $957 a year. But, if you take any of the other plans where attained age rating is used, then you come up with quite a different one. For example, under Bankers Life and Casualty you start out at age 65 with $892.57, but at age 70 it is $1,060. Your savings are beginning to vanish and, as matter of fact, have done so. By the time you are age 80 it is $1,590.66. In the case of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of California, at age 65 to 69 it is $780 if they use attained age rating. But by the time they reach 80 it goes to $1,300.80. In the case of other offerors, for example Life Investors Insurance Co., it starts out at age 65 at $966. It goes at age 70 to $1,200.67. The advantages which you got are now gone. And by the age of 80 it goes to $1,629. In the case of MedCare Plus, it starts at 65 at $833, a saving, but by the time you are at age 80 it is $1,487. What does the Waxman-Dingell amendment do? Very simple: it says first of all no attained age rating, so that you cannot hook a senior citizen. And if you want to get a senior citizen by selling him an attained age rating insurance policy on the basis he is going to make some massive savings, looks good because he says oh, yeah, I will sign on that, but all of a sudden, by the time he is age 80 and his needs are great, his medical costs and the risks to his pocketbook are greatest, the amount he is paying is almost doubled. Now under the bill as drawn, a retiree is not able to get out. The Waxman-Dingell amendment says the insurer has to offer him, if he wants out, another insurance package which gives him more conventional type of insurance availability, so that if he finds he is getting skinned or he does not like his service he has a way out of this plan. The proponents of this legislation have told nobody about these things and they have been somewhat dark secrets and it did not come up very well in the course of the hearings which were conducted in either committee, and we owe particular thanks to the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] for bringing these matters to light, and we also owe particular thanks to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] for having offered the amendment. The harsh fact of the matter is if you want to protect senior citizens from unscrupulous insurers, from exorbitant prices, from bait and switch, and if you want to see to it that they have decent treatment and they can get out of the onerous process of rapidly escalating costs where they are not offered the services, then you should go this route. That is, accept and adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] on behalf of himself, myself, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark]. Mr. Chairman, having said these things, let me simply observe if you really want to protect the senior citizens, if you want to treat them fairly, the Waxman-Dingell-Stark amendment is the way that we should proceed, and to fail to do something different is unfair. Let us just talk about the home State of the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut. That is the State of Connecticut. It requires community rating of all Medigap policies. The Waxman substitute will simply protect that important public policy decision made by the State of Connecticut and will prevent the bill, under the authorship of the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, from skinning a bunch of old folks in amongst other places the State of Connecticut where they may no longer be able to get community-rated policies. And so I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment that has been offered by the distinguished gentleman from California. I have given Members good reason. They will be protecting the senior citizens from being skinned by unscrupulous bait and switch practices and enabling them to exit policies they have found to be oppressive and to assure that there will be policies available to them at the time they exit. Otherwise you will deny them those important rights. Consumers Union, Washington, DC, April 6, 1995. Dear Representative: We urge you to support the Dingell/ Waxman amendment in the nature of substitute to H.R. 483, which is expected to be considered by the House of Representatives on Friday, April 7. Unlike H.R. 483, the Dingell/Waxman amendment offers protections for the nation's senior citizens. The Dingell/Waxman amendment would do the following: Limit the extension of Medicare Select to a five year period, assuring that the program is evaluated thoroughly before becoming permanent. Ban attained age rating for Medicare Select policies. Attained age rating does not belong in health policies designed for people 65 and over; it results in steep premium increases as seniors grow older and have less income, making medigap policies unaffordable for many. Medicare Select policies are at a substantial competitive advantage in the marketplace since, unlike traditional medigap policies, they typically do not have to pay the Part A deductible. Banning attained age rating for Medicare Select policies helps to both level the playing field among medigap insurance policies and provides a first step at protecting seniors against unaffordable medigap premiums. Require Medicare Select companies to make available to previous Medicare Select policyholders a traditional medigap policy. In today's marketplace, there are no guarantees that seniors with Select policies will have access to a traditional policy in the future at a price they can afford. Without this adjustment, many seniors could find themselves locked into a Select policy when they feel they want and need access to a broader choice of doctors and hospitals. Many Members have spoken recently of the need to provide choice to seniors. Without the Dingell/Waxman amendment, many seniors will face reduced choice: they will be priced out of the medigap market or will find they have no choice but to remain in a Select policy with limited choice of providers. We urge you to vote in favor of protecting the nation's senior citizens by supporting the Dingell/Waxman amendment. Sincerely, Gail Shearer, Directory, Health Policy Analysis. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AFLAC Equalizer, AARP--Prudential Bankers Life and Blue Cross of Calif. Blue Shield of American Family Life Medicare Casualty Co. Medicare Select Calif. Medicare Assurance Co. of Supplement Plans Medicare Supplements Plans Supplement Plans Coverage Columbus, GA -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, this is a gag rule pure and simple. It is not needed at this particular time. There is plenty of time to deal with this legislation. If we pass this legislation tomorrow or today, the other body will not be able to move on it until after they come back. If we pass it the day after we come back from the recess, the other body can still consider the legislation within sufficient time to meet the June 30 deadline. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, and I say this with great respect for my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York, who has given us another gag rule. I also object to the extraordinary way in which this bill was brought to the floor and the way in which the minority's rights have been trampled. There are two rules that have been dealt with unfavorably: One is the 3-day requirement with regard to the minority having opportunity to file minority views, and the other is a provision which requires a 3-day layover. Neither of these needs to be waived at this time. This is a closed rule. It is an unfair rule. It is a restrictive rule. It prevents Members from offering amendments other than one substitute that requires any and all amendments to be packaged into one, regardless of whether they are consistent with each other. It simply imposes on the Congress a requirement that we legislate poorly without adequate opportunity for debate or proper discussion on a piece of legislation which is relatively unimportant and on which there is no great need for haste. There is absolutely no justification for this closed rule. Even the justification suggested by my colleagues in the majority collapse on close scrutiny. My friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], has suggested at the Rules Committee that a closed rule shutting off individual amendments is appropriate because she disagrees with the substance of the amendments. It is my view those kind of amendments should be a matter of decision by the House and not by the Committee on Rules, and certainly not by one Member alone. An open rule would have afforded my colleagues the opportunity to argue why amendments should be passed or defeated. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has suggested that matters on which the Members disagree should not be put before the Members for their consideration. That seems to indicate we should make this body more like the Russian Duma or perhaps the Reichstag and that disagreement over facts and policy are not appropriate for Members on the House floor. The gentlewoman has also suggested that a closed rule was justified because the amendments the minority was contemplating were too narrow in scope and should apply to a broader series of insurance policies. Ironically, her bill was narrowed by the Republicans in the Committee on Ways and Means precisely for the purpose of preventing the The bill brought before the Committee on Commerce was similarly narrowed to just this one class of policy. We heard in the Rules Committee that a closed rule might be justified by the fact that the Commerce Committee markup involved a discrete number of amendments and took only 2 hours to complete. That sounds like a bill uniquely suited and qualified for a completely open rule. It would not burden Members with too many votes or too much debate time. Given the relatively small number of issues and the limited time they might occupy, we are here witnessing a rule that has been closed gratuitously. Finally, it was suggested in the Rules Committee that a closed rule was in order because this bill was reported out by the Ways and Means Committee by a large margin. Leaving aside the fact that amendments in the Commerce Committee lost by narrow margins, has the measure for whether minority rights should be protected become the number of people in the minority? We have heard a lot about how a closed rule was necessary because this legislation is urgent. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed the minority has not been in any way uncooperative in bringing this legislation to floor. Nor did we in any way delay the consideration of the legislation in either of the two committees. Even if this legislation were urgent, and it is not, does it mean that debate must be stifled? We managed to debate quite fully the resolution on the Gulf war, and that matter had real urgency and was not so limited, in fact, by time. But the fact is this bill is not urgently needed. Arguments about the legal need for notification of insurers and policyholders are wrong and are being used to alarm senior citizens unnecessarily so that some insurers who might cut a fat hog off this program might scare off any opposition to it. The 15-State demonstration project does not expire until the end of June, and I have not heard of a single Member who objects to the extension of that particular program. But what is really curious here is how the proponents of this rule are using the expiration of a program in 15 States, 3 months from now, 3 months from now, to justify urgent expansion of this experiment to the other 35 States. This is like rushing through a bill that gives flood relief not only to California but the other 49 States and arguing that it is urgent. A further sign that these arguments are phony is the lack of urgency felt in the other body. There is no indication that body will act before the recess. There has not even been a committee markup there. In addition to being unduly restrictive, this rule comes to the floor under an exceptional and highly objectionable procedure. The committee report has not been filed. Indeed the Rules Committee met last night without having a committee report before it. The minority has not had its full 3 days to prepare its views. In fact, the rule contains a most extraordinary provision permitting the committee to file its report at any time. Are we beginning a process whereby the committees will not have to file their reports until after bills are passed? The rule also waives the 3-day layover. These are rights which have always been considered sacrosanct, and whenever any attempt was made to control them on the part of the Democrats when we controlled this body, there was enormous outrage expressed by our colleagues on the Republican side. Finally, the rule is objectionable because it makes in order a bill that no committee has reported out. It purports to be a compromise between Commerce and the Ways and Means Committees, but there was no consultation whatsoever that took place between the majority and minority. Therefore, it is not a compromise. Furthermore, the Ways and Means Committee would not even be represented on the floor under this closed rule. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, I urge my colleagues to let us consider the matter in a more deliberate and appropriate fashion. There is no need for haste. We have not been delaying the matter. I believe that in protecting the rights of the minority, the rights of all Americans are protected as opposed to just some select few in the insurance industry.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I understand that my views on this matter have created vast distress on the part of my Republican colleagues. They are very easily distressed, and this pains me. For the help of my colleagues on that side, I would say I do not mind bringing the bill up today or tomorrow. If the leadership on that side wants to do it, they can do it. They have been quite wanton in disregard of the rights of the minority and in disregard of the rules, and I see no reason why I would object to further practices of that sort at this time. So if the leadership on the other side wants to bring this bill up, they control this place. I would suggest that they should commence doing so forthwith, and then we will hear less complaining on the Republican side about how this side, in insisting on the orderly conduct of the business of the House and the proper conduct of the business and protection of the rights of the minority, is delaying the conduct of the business of the House, which we in fact are not doing. The bill is going to be passed. It needs to be perfected. It will not be passed as perfected because the Republicans will not participate in the perfection of it by eliminating two very significant problems, which the amendments to be offered by this side would perfect.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take the opportunity to congratulate and call to the attention of my colleagues an organization in my congressional district dedicated to the well-being of a rich and vibrant community in Dearborn, MI. The name of the organization is ACCESS, which has delivered immeasurable social service throughout its existence and is marking its success with the ACCESS annual banquet on April 8, 1995. As a Member of Congress, it is a distinct please to serve what is commonly recognized as the largest community of Arab-Americans in the United States. Like every other person I represent in my congressional district, Arab-Americans are busy raising children, running their businesses, getting involved in local civic, cultural, and religious organizations, and trying to make the most of the American dream. The executive director of ACCESS is Ismael Ahmed, an individual with whom I have worked to help secure support for health care, education, other support services for persons in need. During Ish's tenure, ACCESS has gone from a simple shop to a sophisticated organization. This parallels a renaissance in many neighborhoods in our Arab-American community, and tremendous growth in Arab contributions to the local, regional, and national economy. Throughout our history, the American dream has represented the sum of our citizens' hopes, ambitions, and struggles to build a better life for ourselves and our children. Arab-Americans are only one more group of people who are successfully building their lives and planning better futures for their children. This success rests in part on the dedication of ACCESS to providing people with the means they need to overcome cultural and language barriers and become a part of our rich national fabric.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the memories of my Republican colleagues are very convenient. They have forgotten the last time we had a Republican tax cut in this body. That multiplied the national debt by better than 4.5 times, from about $700 billion to $4.5 trillion. They have forgotten most of that went to the rich, not to the poor, and not to the middle class. They have also forgotten that six million jobs were created by the Clinton budget; that that budget cut the national deficit by $700 billion. They have also ignored the fact it gave a tax cut in the President's budget to those who had need. Somewhere in between 16 million and 20 million Americans were removed from the tax rolls and were given tax reductions in each and every Congressional District, including their own, by that particular tax package. There memories are most convenient on these matters. The hard fact is that Voodoo Economics, Trickle-Down Economics II, which this tax package happens to be, is nothing more or less than a raid on the poor, a sop to the rich, and a benefit to those who have no need of tax expense, sweated out of the hides of those who have the least. It is a cut in school lunch programs, education, and every other program that has meaning, not only to this generation, to the young people of this country, but the young people of the future. I urge the rejection of this rotten Republican tax package. Mr. Chairman, the tax package before us is fiscally irresponsible and distributionally inequitable in the extreme. It commits this Nation to a budget structure that runs counter to deficit reduction. It also leaves behind those most in need of tax relief--working middle class families. Better than half of the cuts go to people earning more than $100,000 a year. The last time the American people were promised both a balanced budget and a tax cut was in 1981. That plan, which was put forward by the patron saint of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, President Ronald Reagan, led to an explosion in deficit spending. More than a decade later, the national debt has increased three-fold to better than $4 trillion. During that same period, middle class families have seen their wages stagnate, while wealthy Americans enjoyed substantial gains. My colleagues across the aisle have clearly not learned the No. 1 rule of holes: When you find yourself in one, stop digging. If they had learned this lesson, we would not be debating this unwise legislation, that returns us to the failed supply side economic policies of the past. The costs of this measure are truly staggering--$180 billion over the next 5 years. At a time when one-seventh of the Federal budget is needed to pay interest on the debt, we can ill-afford this extravagance. However, the long-term burdens are far worse. Costs skyrocket to more than $450 billion over the next 5 years, and keep rising after that. The budgetary impact of these cuts are kept artificially low in the early years through accounting gimmicks. However, the out year impact of the capital gains tax cut, the restoration of huge corporate depreciation loopholes and the repeal of the alternative minimum tax for corporations is enormous. These changes, which will principally benefit the wealthy, are expected to cost: $24 billion between 1995- 2000; $221 billion between 2001-2000. As my colleagues may or may not know, the corporate depreciation tax breaks were eliminated, and the alternative minimum tax was set up in 1986 with strong bipartisan support and the backing of President Reagan. This was done in response to the outcry of the American people who were appalled by the fact that large corporations with enormous profits were gaming depreciation loopholes set up in 1981 to avoid paying taxes and in some cases receive a rebate. According to the Citizens for Tax Justice: AT&T received $636 million in tax rebates from 1982 to 1985 despite earning $24.9 billion in pretax profits. DuPont had $3.8 billion in 1982-1985 pretax profits supplemented by $179 million in rebates. General Dynamics had four out of five no tax years from 1981 to 1985. In addition, its $2 billion in pretax profits from 1982-1985 were augmented by $91 million in tax rebates. Under this bill, the secretaries and mailroom workers at many of our most profitable corporations will be required to pay more in taxes than their employers. Many of the specific spending cuts to finance these tax breaks have not been identified. We hear that they will be achieved largely through lowering the discretionary spending caps already in place. However, that still doesn't provide a clear answer to the question--what cuts will be made to finance this package and the better than $1 trillion in savings needed to balance the budget by 2002? The only suggestions we have seen so far from the Republicans are harsh spending cuts that strike right at the most vulnerable in this country--the elderly and children of this Nation. In a rush to keep a political promise that clearly favors the wealthy, my colleagues have slashed funding for the school lunch, child nutrition, summer youth employment, and education programs. Seniors have also watched as home heating and housing assistance has been eliminated. And today, they are faced with significant cuts to the Medicare program. As I have mentioned, the middle income taxpayer is left behind by this package. In fact, 34 percent of America's children are not covered by the middle class tax cut, because their family's incomes are too low. Only 1 percent are denied a credit because their family's income is too high. Middle income families are also being targeted by cuts in student aid programs. My colleagues have proposed cutting $13 billion in college assistance by eliminating or restructuring student loan programs. As a result, the average cost of a college loan will rise by $4,500. In addition, students will now be forced to pay interest from the first day they arrive on campus--not 6 months after graduation as they are currently allowed to do. I cannot support the fiscally irresponsible tax policy laid out in H.R. 1215. This legislation more at the expense of everyone else. It will also further mortgage our children's future by exploding the Federal budget deficit at a time when we should be focusing on paying it down. I urge my colleagues to defeat the bill.