John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, tooth decay is the most prevalent chronic childhood disease; it is five times more common than asthma, and seven times more common than hay fever. Without proper treatment, dental caries (tooth decay) can result in serious infection, pain, and swelling, interfering with the ability to eat or drink, and, in severe cases, sleep or school performance. Unfortunately, low-income children suffer disproportionately from oral disease. While dental care is covered for children in Medicaid, and most states opt to cover it for children in Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP), merely covering services does not guarantee children will have access to them. Low participation by providers, program barriers, and parent's lack of knowledge about the importance of early dental care and prevention have greatly contributed to the disproportionate number of low-income children who suffer from tooth decay. Such problems can be overcome. Recent demonstration projects have shown that increased attention to the issue coupled with expanded federal support can go a long way toward ensuring low-income children have access to quality oral health care. My home state of Michigan is an example of where change has begun to take hold. Michigan tried a new approach to dental coverage when they implemented a dental benefit for their SCHIP program. Not surprisingly, by paying dentists market rates, simplifying billing procedures, and requiring that plans prohibit participating dentists from discriminating against SCHIP patients, access and utilization soared to levels never seen under Medicaid. Between 70-90% of dentists participated in the plan networks and nearly three-quarters of children received a dental visit in a year. In comparison, in the Medicaid program where similar changes were not undertaken, only 27% of dentists participated and barely a quarter of Medicaid children had a dental visit. The State of Michigan has had the common sense to expand this effort to Medicaid through a demonstration project and the results have been similar. All children, however, regardless of where they get their health insurance, should be able to count on quality dental care. That is why Congressman Upton and I are introducing the ``Children's Access to Oral Health Act,'' a bill that will provide incentives and new flexibility to states to encourage them to improve and expand the provision of dental care to low-income children. The Children's Access to Oral Health Act establishes improved dental care for low-income children as a priority within the Department of Health and Human Services by establishing a dental health initiative led by a newly created Chief Dental Officer for Medicaid and CHIP. The legislation provides grant funding for states to undertake outreach and improve coordination in the dental care provided through these programs, as well as to improve provider reimbursement rates to secure adequate access to services for these children. The legislation also provides grants to improve the delivery of pediatric dental services through community health centers, public health departments, and the Indian Health Service to address problems in areas facing a shortage of dental professionals. Finally, the legislation ensures that dental care is a part of the core benefits package of the SCHIP program and gives states the flexibility to provide dental coverage (or supplemental additional benefits or cost sharing) for children in families who meet SCHIP income requirements but who have private insurance which is inadequate in these areas. For every child who lacks health insurance coverage, there are 2.6 children who do not have dental coverage. This problem is concentrated among low-income families but currently states' hands are tied and they cannot supplement inadequate private insurance with SCHIP coverage. I believe the Children's Access to Oral Health Act will go a long way in terms of improving dental services for children and in reducing the dental caries among low-income children. Michigan, like a number of other states, has made significant progress in this area, but much more can be done. The gains made in the Michigan SCHIP program should be expanded to children who have coverage through Medicaid. States that have not focused as much attention on this problem can be encouraged to do so. This bill will provide incentives, resources, and new flexibility for states to tackle this problem. I look forward to working with my colleague Mr. Upton as well as our friends in the dental community, like Dr. Dan Briskie, in moving this legislation forward.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the life of an honorable, respected, and valuable member of the Ypsilanti community, Reverend Harvey Leggett, Sr. Rev. Leggett, who passed away Monday, was a man of wisdom and a man of God, and served his community with distinction. He will be dearly missed. Reverend Leggett guided the St. John's Missionary Baptist Church in Ypsilanti for 32 years. His style moved the members of the church. So commanding, in fact, was his delivery and presence that he was nicknamed ``sergeant.'' He was not only masterful on the pulpit, but also was an accomplished writer and singer, who employed a good sense of humor. ``Sergeant'' Leggett's dedicated service was not limited to Ypsilanti, but included serving in leadership positions in national African American Baptist conventions. In so doing, his work touched the lives of many across this great land, and his memory will be broadly remembered. Rev. Leggett is survived by his wife of 42 years, Bernice, as well as sons Steve, Willie, and Harvey Jr., and daughter Angela. They are in the thoughts and prayers of many in the Ypsilanti community, and I would ask that they also be in ours. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to join me in extending our condolences to the Leggett family, and to honor the life of a great man and community leader, Harvey Leggett Sr.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my Democratic colleagues in introducing a real prescription drug benefit bill. Unlike the bill introduced by our Republican colleagues, our bill can be simply explained, because it is built on a simple, known, and effective model--Medicare itself. Just like seniors pay a voluntary premium for Part B medical costs such as doctor visits, our bill provides for a voluntary Part D drug premium of $25 per month. For that, the Government will pay 80% of drug costs after a $100 deductible. And no senior will have to pay more than $2,000 in costs per year. These are real numbers, not estimates. The benefits and the $25 monthly premium are specified on page 1 of the bill. Unfortunately, there are no such guarantees in the Republican bill. On top of that, we will be arming seniors with the most potent protection from soaring drug costs. Forty million seniors banded together under the buying power of Medicare, we can begin to use the necessary bargaining power to rein in high drug prices. This is not price controls; it is competition and bargaining. We saw that the Government was effective in negotiating a competitive price for the prescription drug Cipro during the anthrax outbreak. Why shouldn't we do the same for other life saving drugs for seniors? In contrast to our simple and effective prescription drug benefit, the Republican bill is a complex scheme that would make Rube Goldberg blush. In fact, it is not a drug benefit at all. It is a host of subsidies to private insurers in the hope that they will offer a drug- only benefit to seniors. Will they? Time and again they have told us no. Why would the Republicans put forward such a model? Well, quite simply they have a larger agenda--they want to privatize all of Medicare, and this is just another step. That is the only reason why seniors are not even given a choice of getting the benefit through their traditional Medicare provider. And why don't they endorse our plan? Our plan is simple; it is comprehensive; it is what seniors want. The Republicans have raised just one issue: they say it costs too much. Well, I can tell you that we can afford it. It is just a matter of priorities. To put the costs in perspective, we are told that our bill may cost $500 billion dollars more than the Republican proposal over 10 years. Well, just a couple of weeks ago our Republican colleagues voted for a bill to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax on the wealthiest people in this country. In the second decade when that permanent repeal kicks in, it will cost the Treasury $750 billion. So, yes, this bill may be expensive. Seniors will spend $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs over the next decade. That is expensive. But we can do something about it. It is a matter of choices. Our prescription drug benefit has the strong support of organizations representing millions of seniors, such as the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Council on Aging, and AARP. They recognize our benefit is a good value for seniors. The bill we are introducing today also includes provisions to shore up the Medicare fee-for-service system such as increased payments to hospitals, doctors, and nursing homes. Senior citizens and individuals with disabilities depend on Medicare fee-for-service and ensuring its continued viability has always been a priority for Democrats. The Medicare Rx Benefit and Discount Act is a solid bill that provides a comprehensive, affordable, and much needed prescription drug benefit in Medicare. It also moves towards ensuring that seniors and those with disabilities can continue to count on the same high quality care from their providers as they receive today. It is a good bill, and I hope my colleagues in the House will join us in supporting it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for yielding me the time. We have got a remarkable thing here before us, a closed rule. We have got a bill on which there were never any hearings, a bill that just drips defects, a bill that is opposed by almost everybody that knows anything about pharmaceuticals and about the needs of the senior citizens and a bill that is opposed by every single responsible major organization of senior citizens. We cannot offer amendments to it. They cannot be cut-and-bite amendments. There is no possibility of us offering a substitute to it. This is what my colleagues call democracy on that side of the aisle? This is the way we treat the concerns and the rights and the interests of our senior citizens? I wonder how many of them like what they are seeing tonight on television as they watch this body engage in debate which is at best fraudulent and which is at worst just plain outrageous. The hard fact of the matter is we cannot offer amendments on this side at all, but we can bring to attention the fact that this is going to significantly damage, if not in fact destroy, most of the plans that on behalf of industry and labor offer to retirees the right to have prescription pharmaceuticals as a part of the medical care program of the company which offers that particular benefit. That is an outrage. There is no way that we can address here what the amount is that is going to be charged for the program. In other words, in this legislation, there is nothing anywhere which tells how much the senior citizen is going to pay to whom for what. That is all left up to some kind of nebulous understanding between the Secretary and an insurance company. There is no correction for that particular problem. Is that bad? Of course. But there is worse. There is not a nickel's worth of subsidy for the health care of a senior citizen in this legislation. Do my colleagues know where the money goes in the legislation that is before us? To an insurance company. The insurance company can offer whatever benefits it wants or no benefits, but it is going to get a big fat subsidy. With companies like Arthur Andersen I am sure that we will have an accounting system which will make that look good, but the simple fact of the matter is the benefits that are going to come under this legislation are not going to come to citizens. They are going to go to a bunch of cold-hearted, steely-eyed insurance companies that are going to be interested in maximizing benefits. In fact, there is not one plan which will be offered by insurance companies that is not going to be heavily subsidized. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this abominable closed rule. On the most important issue to face this Congress, the Republican leadership has decided to prevent a single amendment to be offered, and in particular, a Democratic substitute. There is no secret why we Democrats are not being allowed to offer a substitute, even a substitute that requires no waivers of the rules. It is not because our substitute has no merit. It is because it has so much merit, it would pass. Let me explain why the rule needs to be defeated so that we can offer the Democratic substitute. Unlike the bill introduced by our Republican colleagues, our substitute can be simply explained, because it is built on a simple, known, and effective model--Medicare itself. Just like seniors pay a voluntary premium for Part B medical costs such as doctor visits, our bill provides for a voluntary Part D drug premium of $25 per month. For that, the Government will pay 80% of drug costs after a $100 deductible. And no senior will have to pay more than $2,000 in costs per year. These are real numbers, not estimates. The benefits and the $25 monthly premium are specified on the first page of the substitute. Unfortunately, there are no such guarantees in the Republican bill. On top of that, we will be arming seniors with the most potent protection from soaring drug costs. Forty million seniors banded together under the buying power of Medicare, we can begin to use the necessary bargaining power to rein in high drug prices. This is not price controls; it is competition and bargaining. We saw that the Government was effective in negotiating a competitive price for the prescription drug Cipro during the anthrax outbreak. Why shouldn't we do the same for other life saving drugs for seniors? In contrast to our simple and effective prescription drug benefit, the Republican bill is a complex scheme that would make Rube Goldberg blush. In fact, it is not a drug benefit at all. It is a host of subsidies to private insurers in the hope that they will offer a drug- only benefit to seniors. Will they? Time and again they have told us ``no.'' Why would the Republicans put forward such a model? Well, quite simply they have a larger agenda--they want to privatize all of Medicare, and this is just another step. That is the only reason why seniors are not even given a choice of getting the benefit through their traditional Medicare provider. Any why don't they endorse our plan? Our plan is simple; it is comprehensive; it is what seniors want. The Republicans have raised just one issue: they say it costs too much. Well, I can tell you that we can afford it. It is just a matter of priorities. Should that priority be making the estate tax repeal on the wealthiest people permanent, which will cost $750 billion in the decade that the permanent repeal is effective, or should it be enacting a critical health program that will help all of our seniors? Our prescription drug benefit has the strong support of organizations representing millions of seniors, such as the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the alliance for Retired Americans, the National Council on Aging, and AARP. They recognize our benefit is a good value for seniors. The substitute also includes provisions to shore up the Medicare fee- for-service system such as increased payments to hospitals, doctors, and nursing homes. Senior citizens and individuals with disabilities depend on Medicare fee-for-service an ensuring its continued viability has always been a priority for Democrats. It is a good substitute, and I hope my colleagues will vote against the rule, so that it can be offered.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am Mr. John Dingell. My dad was the original author of Medicare. He wrote it for and under Harry Truman's guidance and tutelage. It was a great piece of legislation. It took us 10 years to get it enacted into law. I sat in the Chair when we passed it. The Republicans, after years of fighting it, finally came along and supported it because they saw the handwriting on the wall. I know Medicare, and this fraudulent proposal that is before the House is not Medicare. What it is is a subsidy for the insurance companies. We give a pile of money to the insurance companies that they can spend any way they want. The counsel of the committee was inquired of by me for about 20 minutes. He could not tell us of any constraints on the insurance companies or any rights of the insured that would be protected under this Republican legislation. That is why this is bad legislation. The insurance companies can take this money and spend it any doggone way they want, dividends, or they can give it in corporate executive salaries and bonuses. That is why it is a bad bill. The Democratic bill is a very simple bill. What it does is it says, you pay $25 a month, you get 80 percent of your prescription pharmaceuticals paid for by the government, and you pay 20 percent of the cost yourself. Very simple, very understandable, very plain. No great big donut hole, no disqualifications for having your expenditures counted, and you get your benefits all year round. Not like this sorry mess that my Republican colleagues would foist upon our senior citizens. This is a bad proposal. This is a bad process. This is a situation where we do not get an honest chance to either offer an amendment or see to it it is properly explained. But I would note one thing. Every honest senior citizen organization in the United States says this Republican bill is a bad bill, and AARP says it needs significant improvement before they can support it. We want to give the American senior citizens Social Security in good form, Medicare in proper form, and a Medicare benefit which will take care of their needs for prescription pharmaceuticals when they come. No longer should we have a situation where American senior citizens have to decide whether they are going to pay their rent or whether they are going to eat or whether they are going to get their prescription pharmaceuticals. That is wrong. Our bill corrects that. The Republican bill does not. Vote against their bill. Vote for the motion to recommit and my colleagues will serve their constituents well, especially their seniors. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter written to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) from AARP, which was referred to earlier.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have spoken about the importance of Amtrak to the Northeast Corridor, or to the small towns throughout the country that do not have access to air travel. However, Amtrak is equally important to Michigan and the Midwest, where it provides competition to the airlines and links major cities, alleviating congestion on roads and in airports. Americans have chosen to ride Amtrak at increasing rates. Between 1996 and 2001, systemwide ridership grew from 19.7 million to 25.3 million. Last year, Amtrak served over 500,000 people in Michigan, many of whom are my constituents. It is important that Congress let President Bush know that Amtrak must be kept running. Passenger rail service should not be stopped in its tracks, especially as riders begin to receive the benefits of Amtrak's roll out of high-speed service. Amtrak owns 96 miles of track in Michigan in the Detroit-Chicago high-speed corridor. Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration, the State of Michigan and private industry have invested in upgrading this corridor. The ultimate goal of this high- speed project is to reduce the total time between Detroit and Chicago from the current 6 hours to 3 and one-half hours. In January 2002, 90 mile-per-hour service began on a segment of the Amtrak owned right-of- way. Additional speed increases over the entire length of the Amtrak- owned line are planned for later this year. This is the first significant increase in passenger rail speed above 80 miles per hour outside the Northeast in 20 years. Amtrak has been woefully underfunded since it was created in 1971. The Bush Administration has continued this unfortunate legacy, proposing $500 million for Amtrak for FY 2003 when it needs $1.2 billion. This is unacceptable and would only continue to allow Amtrak to wither on the vine. President Bush's recent proposal that Amtrak make a quick profit and be spun off to private corporations is a nonstarter. First, no passenger rail service in the world--including every subway system-- operates without subsidies. Second, Amtrak was created because the private railroads asked that they no longer be required to operate passenger rail service because it was unprofitable. If passenger rail service was not profitable for railroads to run three decades ago, I do not see how it could be profitable now. The American people deserve an alternative to driving and flying. If the President refuses to lead. Congress must step in and keep the trains running on time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, back in 1997, and again in 2000, over the Committee on Energy and Commerce's objections, the budget committees of the Congress commandeered the management of the Nation's airwaves. They set auction deadlines that were asinine, constituting a gross mismanagement of spectrum. Today we take back the reins and restore rationality to the process. Without question, moving forward with these auctions now would impose a heavy price on the American public. The Nation's airwaves are a scarce natural resource, and we are entrusted to manage these assets on the public's behalf. The bill before us is the first step to reclaiming that duty. In addition, I would note that the anti-interference provision contained in this bill is of particular importance to the American viewing public. It preserves the integrity of broadcast channels, making sure that consumers will be able to continue viewing both traditional and digital broadcasts without risk of harmful interference to their television sets. I congratulate Chairman Tauzin and others for their perseverance in getting this bill through both Houses, and look forward to the Federal Communications Commission establishing a sound spectrum management policy now that we have freed the agency to do so.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran of World War II and a proud member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, it is my honor to speak to you today in honor of the 70th anniversary of VFW Post 2408 in Ypsilanti, Michigan. On June 15, Post 2408 will commemorate this event by rededicating its post in honor of the late Carl Robert Arvin, a veteran who served his nation with distinction and gave his life in battle during the Vietnam War. Throughout our history, 11 major wars and many smaller conflicts have required the services of over 40 million Americans to stand and defend the sovereignty and principles we, as a Nation, cherish most. There is no more noble cause for an American than to actively participate in that defense. The valor displayed by American troops in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and today in Afghanistan must not be forgotten. For over a century, the VFW has served our nation well. It has not only lobbied effectively for the rights of veterans, but has worked to better communities across our nation. Members of the VFW did not stop serving their nation when they left the armed forces. Rather, they rededicated themselves to helping others, veteran and non-veteran alike. For 70 years, the members of Post 2408 have served their city, state, and nation with distinction. I would ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing their service. It Is only proper and appropriate that Post 2408 is being rededicated in honor of an American who fought for our country and gave his life so that we may all enjoy the fruits of freedom. Carl Robert Arvin was a man of great worth and an inspiration to all in his presence. His life was taken while serving his country in Vietnam on October 8, 1967. Though Bob was only 24 years old when he died his life achievement outranked men twice his age. His legacy must not be forgotten, and his life must forever serve the men and women of Michigan, both now and in the future, as a lasting testimony to the sacrifice others have made for our nation. Bob's natural born leadership was exhibited early in his high school career. At Ypsilanti High School, Bob demonstrated the intellect, athletic ability, and leadership qualities, which were the foundation of his subsequent achievements. He participated in numerous high school activities ranging from debating to quarterbacking the football team. An outstanding wrestler, he was team captain and captured the 154 pound state title. Bob capped his brilliant high school career as valedictorian of his graduating class. His high school achievements led to several college scholarship offers, including an appointment to West Point, which was the fulfillment of a boyhood ambition and his ultimate choice. Bob quickly established himself as a class leader when he entered West Point in July 1961 as a member of the Class of 1965. He continued his extracurricular activities and represented West Point at numerous conferences and functions across the country. Bob was a Rhodes Scholarship finalist and was among a group of college students selected to discuss public affairs with President Lyndon Johnson at the White House. In August 1965, after graduating from West Point, Bob reported to Fort Benning, Georgia, for Airborne and Ranger training. In the brief span of 23 months in the 82nd Airborne Division, Bob demonstrated outstanding professional competence and leadership. After a brief stint as a platoon leader and executive officer, he became the youngest company commander in the Division. During this tour Bob was able to return home to Ypsilanti and marry Merry Lynn Montoyne in 1966. Bob received orders for Vietnam in early 1967; he was assigned as an advisor in the Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV). He reported to his advisory detachment, the 7th Vietnamese Airborne Battalion, in May 1967. Bob was quickly thrust into combat with the pace and intensity of the war quickening. For combat action on September 5, 1967, he was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. Following a brief hospital stay Bob returned to his battalion, which was preparing for combat operations to clear enemy forces from an area threatening a vital air base at Hue-Phu Bai. Bob was mortally wounded in battle on October 8, 1967; he was posthumously awarded a second Silver Star. Bob was buried at West Point on October 17, 1967, with full military honors. Mr. Speaker, I would ask all my colleagues to rise and join me in honoring the service of a true American hero, Bob Arvin, and to honor the 70th anniversary of Ypsilanti Post 2408.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, here we are: another day, another tax cut, another political maneuver by my Republican colleagues. I would be remiss if I failed to mention that we have already done this. Recall, if you will, April 18, when this body voted to make the last year's tax cut permanent. Though I voted against it, it passed by a vote of 229-198. Why are we taking a piecemeal approach and voting on it again? Do we not have anything better to do with our time? Yes, we have plenty to do, like providing a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, increasing the minimum wage so people can earn more than a measly $5.15 an hour and making sure patients are protected from insurance company bureaucrats. Let's discuss the substance of this bill, something my Republican colleagues obviously have not done. Last year, the President promised we would be able to maintain a balanced budget, shore-up Social Security and Medicare, provide a prescription drug benefit to seniors, and give a huge tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. Well, as some of us in this body predicted, that has not materialized. That irresponsible tax cut was based on ten-year projections. The numbers used by the Republicans were grossly unrealistic. So, here we are, experiencing deficits instead of surpluses and the Republicans are telling us there are not sufficient resources for a decent prescription drug benefit. Don't get me wrong, I support, and Democrats support, responsible tax relief, including marriage penalty relief--as long as it is not funded out of the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds. So, I would ask my colleagues to do the responsible thing. Let us support the Rangel- Matsui substitute. This substitute will permanently extend the marriage penalty relief, as long as there is a determination by the Office of Management and Budget that the Social Security Trust Fund will not be raided to do so.