John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. If there is no change, Mr. Speaker, then why were the words changed, and what is the impact of the change of the words?

Mr. DINGELL. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Well, am I permitted or is another Member of this body permitted to raise questions about the propriety of the behavior of Members of this body under the rules and under the statutes of the United States? Or does the ruling of the Chair preclude Members from raising questions of that kind in appropriate fashion on the floor of this body?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the Chair has made the ruling that it is not parliamentary language to raise questions by innuendo. May I inquire of the Chair what that means with regard to the right of Members to raise questions about the propriety of the behavior of other Members of this body under either the rules or the statutes of the United States and the House of Representatives?

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

Mr. DINGELL. Have the rules been changed to effect a different order of precedents and dignity to the Speaker? Is he now treated differently than other Members of this body so that questions about propriety of behavior of other Members may be raised but questions about the propriety of the behavior of the Speaker may not now be raised?

Mr. DINGELL. What about questions, though, Mr. Speaker, relative to the propriety of the behavior of Members under the rules of the House of Representatives and the laws of the United States? Are those questions still permitted to be raised under the rules and have the rules of the House been changed with regard to those matters?

Mr. DINGELL. And I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but that does not respond to my question. I asked, are Members now precluded from raising questions about the behavior of other Members of this body?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. DINGELL. I object.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I came here to the House floor to discuss the unfunded mandates question. But a much more important question is before this body. This is not the Duma, this is not the Reichstag. This is the House of the people, and in the 40 years that I have served here, it has been my pride that we have had free and open debate, and that great questions, including questions of the propriety and the behavior of Members of this body, could be discussed on the floor in an appropriate fashion. Today we find that that cannot be. Members on this side get the distinct impression that a gag rule is being imposed and that Members of this side Speaker. It is interesting to note that there has been no appointment of an ethics committee. The behavior of the Speaker cannot in any way be addressed in that body. It is interesting to note that the ruling of the Speaker has precluded a discussion of that question here in this body. We need the appointment of an ethics committee, because perhaps that is the only place we can address it, and we also need the appointment of a special prosecutor to inquire into matters that cannot be addressed on the House floor.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, half a century ago, my father introduced into the House a bill providing for a program of national health insurance. In each of the past 18 Congresses I have introduced this bill, both as a testament to the wisdom of the 1943 Murray-Wagner- Dingell bill and as a hopeful harbinger of an enlightened change in our Nation's approach to health care. In almost every decade since, hopes were high that such a program might be enacted. The bill contains the seeds of the essential elements of a viable national plan: Universal coverage, cost containment, malpractice reform, and a fair financing system that puts competitiveness first. For fully 40 years, the introduction of this bill has reminded us of the justice, wisdom, and necessity of national health insurance. The consequences of our inaction are apparent. No more families need be ruined, nor more industries destroyed, for our imperatives to be clear. Let us most forward, with the lessons of history as our guide, to finally enact national health insurance.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I agree with your statement before the House that today is an historic day. In the elections of 1992 and 1994, Americans gave their elected leaders a clear signal that they expect the Federal Government to do a better job in spending the Nation's treasure and tending to the needs of its citizens. As we continue the debate begun by President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and the 103d Congress to reform the operations of the Federal Government, I believe it is important that we not lose track of needs of ordinary Americans. People who must live with the fears and anxieties created by job insecurity, global competition, and rapid technological change clearly feel caught in the middle of these forces. Their faith in Government to help solve these problems is badly shaken. Two years ago, the President and Congress began a process of deep budget cuts and Government reorganization. Contrary to assertions made about failure, the 103d Congress put forth a $500 billion deficit reduction plan which has more than met its target--it is now estimated that the 1993 deficit reduction plan will result in close to $700 billion in savings. Congress achieved true reductions in Government spending in a manner which lessened the deficit, reduced interest rates, and allowed capital expansion and vigorous economic growth-- while containing growth-killing inflation. What does this mean for middle Americans? Employment levels are at their highest in years. In fact, between January, 1993 and September, 1994, more jobs were created than in the previous 4 years combined. Lower interest payments on the Federal debt meant banks could make loans to small businesses and families at lower rates. Millions of homeowners were able to save thousands of dollars on their home mortgages. Retail sales were up more than four times as compared to the previous 4-year period. By all indications, the 1993 deficit reduction plan continues to give direct benefits to American families. As the 104th Congress begins its debate to further reduce the deficit and make Government services more effective, it is crucial that the changes adopted by this Congress help those Americans who are still trying to catch up from the excesses of the failed supply-side economic strategies. Mr. Speaker, I commend to your attention to an editorial published earlier this week in the Detroit Free Press, which very succinctly lays out my belief that Congress must fight to protect the interests of our Nation's working families. As this debate about our future begins, let us not forget them. [From the Detroit Free Press, Jan. 2, 1995] Poverty's Trap--The Poor Still Get Poorer, Even in a Healthy Economy When Michigan's unemployment rate is at an unprecedented low, why are so many people in our state still poor? By 1988, as the supply-side Reagan administration drew to a close, some observers were fretting that the share of national income held by the poorest fifth of U.S. households had dropped to 4.6 percent. But that figure has declined even further, to just 3.6 percent by 1993. Meanwhile, the richest 20 percent of U.S. households now control nearly half the nation's income, the highest percentage recorded since this statistic has been kept. The numbers also show a deterioration in the proportion of wealth held by people in and around the middle. Some analysts argue that this divergence reflects an educated, well-paid elite pulling ahead of the rest of American society. But the statistics also may suggest how many jobs are not what they used to be: More jobs are part- time, or temporary, or full-time but without benefits. Even solid jobs can vanish in the blink of an eye; ask your neighbors who work at Kmart and Perry headquarters about that. Michigan has had plenty of experience with what happens when factory jobs dwindle and corporations downsize. The next job is rarely as good. So it's not surprising that our cities, where these trends come together, are especially afflicted by poverty and the maldistribution of income. Among the nation's 10 biggest cities, Detroit ranked second only to New York in disparity of income between rich and poor, according to an analysis of 1990 Census figures recently prepared for the New York Times. Detroit's top fifth of earners had the lowest average income among their counterparts in the largest cities. And Detroit's poorest group was an even more distant also-ran in its category. We dare not underestimate the economic difficulties facing urban residents and people who struggle everywhere else in Michigan. Good jobs may not be where they live. It may take a succession of jobs, or a combination of jobs, to sustain a family. And job loss can hit anywhere, anytime. A booming overall economy may be a necessary condition for reducing poverty. But as too many Michiganians know, it is not by itself a sufficient condition. Elected officials, and the people who put them in office, ought not forget that.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing five pieces of legislation that received overwhelming bipartisan support in the last Congress. They cover a range of important issues the 104th Congress must address: telecommunications reform, Superfund reform, safe drinking water, and interstate waste and flow control. These bills are largely the same as the final versions of the legislation written or acted upon by the Commerce Committee or the House in the last Congress. Interstate waste and flow control passed the House by unanimous consent. Safe drinking water was approved under the suspension calendar. Superfund was approved by a 44-0 margin in committee. And the House approved telecommunications reform by a vote of 423-5. The telecommunications legislation will reform our Nation's outdated telecommunications laws, and create an environment where competition, rather than government regulation, will govern the services that customers will have available. The text of the bill that I am introducing today is identical to last year's, with two exceptions: First, the requirement for the Justice Department to hold a hearing in every case in which a Bell Operating company requests relief has been deleted. This requirement imposed administrative burdens on the Justice Department, yet served no useful purpose. At the request of the Justice Department, it has been deleted. Second, there was some confusion last year about a provision that could have delayed Bell Company entry into certain long distance markets as a result of an ambiguity in the statute. During the House consideration of the legislation, Chairman Brooks and I engaged in a colloquy to clarify that ambiguity. I have made changes in the text of the legislation I am introducing today to conform the statutory text with the colloquy. The interstate waste and flow control bills resolve some long- standing disputes between state and municipal governments, and between different regions of the country. The Superfund reform had the support of a broad coalition of industry, small business, State and local governments, the environmental community, banks, and many more efficient and more economical, and will restore some sense of reason and fairness to the liability system. The Safe Drinking Water Act revisions uphold water quality standards while accounting for the special needs of smaller communities. All of these bills were the product of extensive discussions and negotiations involving the full range of interests. While these are good bills in their current form, I neither expect nor ask the 104th Congress to enact these measures without full discussion or amendment. I am prepared, and even eager, to work with my Republican colleagues in fashioning productive legislation that achieves the same solid degree of consensus we were able to reach last year. I am introducing these bills today in that spirit of cooperation.