John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on the bill (H.R. 2990) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals greater access to health insurance through a health care tax deduction, a long-term care deduction, and other health- related tax incentives; to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide access to and choice in health care through association health plans; to amend the Public Health Service Act to create new pooling opportunities for small employers to obtain greater access to health coverage through HealthMarts; to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage; and for other purposes.

Mr. DINGELL

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I hope both the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who just spoke will listen. This is a remarkable exercise. We have been discussing with our good friends on the majority side to find out what was in the legislation on Friday. We thought we were very close to an understanding. We find today that the bill has been changed. We find that it is quite different than it was the other day. We find that consumer protections have been removed, reduced without any consultation with the minority. This is most curious. I am not sure whether it can be called good faith or not. Normally I would not. I can understand the gentleman being enthused because perhaps he has constituents who likes this. But I happen to like the truth, and I happen to like fair dealing and I like to know what I am doing. If the gentleman knows what he is doing, then he should by all means support this. He does not, and I do not. And I am not convinced that the majority knows. I am convinced of one thing, that it is bad practice and it does not comport with the traditions of the House of Representatives to negotiate, come to general understandings, and then to repudiate those understandings by changing without discussion with the other side. That is what has happened here. There is not such enormous haste that we have to vote for something on a suspension of the rules when we had seen the arrangements made changed; when we have seen consumer protections eroded, eradicated, and reduced; and when we have seen a situation where we are told, take it or leave it, fellows, they have got a two-thirds vote, and they cannot have any opportunity to make any changes in the content of the legislation. That is the issue before us. The issue is should we support the majority in this high-handed fashion or should we proceed to say, fellows, we will go for this and we will work together on a piece of legislation which, in fact, reflects honest negotiation on a matter in which the two sides are generally in agreement. My consult to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, Democratic Members, and indeed to my friends on the other side is let us take enough time to, first of all, know what we are doing. Second of all, let us take enough time to deal fairly with each other. Third of all, if we are going to go ahead and do something which involves significant legislative action, let us deal fairly with the consuming public. None of those things have been done here. Now, I do not know whether this is haste or whether it is bad faith. I do know that this does not reflect the kind of behavior that I always thought the House of Representatives should practice. And I do not think that this represents the kind of conduct that reflects well on this body or on the majority side. I am certainly happy to conclude this matter in an honorable and a proper fashion. I have to say that the way in which this is handled does not give evidence of that kind of behavior. We do not know what is in this legislation. The majority of the Members who are on that side do not know what is in the legislation. It is not because we have not worked diligently with the majority, but it is simply because the majority has chosen in midstride to change the way the legislation is done.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am not talking about that. Now if the gentleman could tell me he knows what he is doing, I will be quite comforted in his assertions to the body. The simple fact of the matter is this is not the kind of practice that reflects credit on the House of Representatives. I am urging my colleagues on this side to reject this legislation. We will be happy to negotiate with our friends on the Republican side and come to some conclusion. But negotiation does not mean bringing this thing up in this kind of haste, not without anyone having proper notice, without anybody having proper understanding, and with proceedings, which have gone on somewhere, where the matter has been changed so that it does not reflect the negotiations which were going on earlier. Now, it may be the Republicans are in desperate haste to get out of here. That is just possible. Frankly, if I were doing the kind of job they are doing, I would be in desperate haste to get out of here, too, because I know there are people back home just wanting me to explain to them just what in the name of common sense I had been doing in Washington while I was supposedly representing their interests. In a nutshell, this matter should be rejected. We have time enough to come back and consider it under more favorable circumstances and under a process that reflects more credit on the House.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my profound sorrow at the tragedy that has unfolded today in Armenia. Mr. Speaker, the transition to democracy has not been easy for the nations of the former Soviet Union. It is all too easy for a nation going through so difficult a transition to lose sight of its goal of building a peaceful, prosperous, democratic nation. Because in times that try men's souls and challenge their convictions, the forces of darkness, hate, violence, and demagoguery offer easy, false answers to the most difficult and complex problems. Today, Mr. Speaker, the forces of evil have struck a blow to the people of Armenia and their democratic government. I am saddened to hear of the deaths of Prime Minister Sarkisian, Speaker Demirchian, Finance Minister Barkudaryan, and the other officials. I pray for their families, and for the country they loved and served with distinction. The Armenian people have faced great trials and tests throughout their history. They have proved their resilience in the face of tragedy before, and I have no doubt that they will endure today's tragic occurrence, recognize that a madman's bullet can never put an end to a people's dreams, and keep moving forward on the path of peace and freedom. Armenia faces serious challenges at home and abroad. When I met Prime Minister Sarkisian last month, he expressed his hopes for the future of his nation, and his desire to tackle the problems of today. Yesterday, he witnessed his country hold free and fair local elections. He had also participated in conversations attempting to initiate the peace process with Azerbaijan. It is now time for others to use his life, beliefs, and death to motivate them to continue to build on the principles he embodied and the work he leaves unfinished. Mr. Speaker, let us all pray for the families of the victims and the people of Armenia. We must remember that making the transition to democracy is no easy task. Let us in America recommit ourselves to assisting Armenia and other countries making this most difficult transition.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and congratulate a very close friend as he marks the close of a very significant chapter of his life: practice law. Michael Berry has served as a model of community leadership throughout his career as an attorney and public servant, and he is fully deserving of the tribute to be given this Friday in Dearborn, Michigan. Earlier this year, Michael ended the 45-year existence of his law firm, Berry, Francis, Seifman, Salamey and Harris. During these years, Michael represented a wide variety of clients, while becoming involved in a myriad of business, civic, legal and political organizations. His participation in literally scores of activities demonstrates Michael's long-standing commitment to making his community a better place to live, work and raise a family. Michael served as a Wayne County Public Administrator from 1956-78, and for 15 years as a Member and Chairman of the Board of the Wayne County Road Commission. Having helped build the infrastructure for one of the nation's largest counties, the county rightfully designated Detroit Metropolitan Airport's international terminal in Michael's name, a designation which was particularly fitting given Michael's family heritage as a Lebanese-American. Throughout my service in Congress, Michael has been a leader among leaders in southeast Michigan's Arab-American community. As such he has devoted countless hours toward improving the lives of Arab-Americans across the nation, and building bridges of understanding between Americans of Arab descent and those of us with other ethnic roots. A Life Member of the NAACP, Michael serves today as an Executive Board Member of the American Task Force for Lebanon. He also has served as a Director of the Greater Round Table of the National Conference of Christians, Muslims and Jews. If one wonders whether Michael's participation and advocacy have had an impact, I need only point to the growing influence today of Arab- Americans in nearly every sphere of our lives, in government, education, business and trade, literature and the arts, and politics. Mr. Speaker, as Michael's many friends prepare to gather to celebrate this many accomplishments on behalf of his community and country, I wanted to share with my colleagues just how much Michael's service and friendship have meant to me. As a past Chairman of the 16th District Democratic Party for four terms, Michael has been active in Michigan politics for more than 40 years. Throughout this period, Michael has been a true and loyal friend and someone I could trust to give me good advice about everything from transportation policy to the current politics of Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East. His knowlege and insight have been invaluable to me in representing Michigan's 16th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. I wish him and his fiancee, Cindy Hanes, every happiness as Michael prepares to turn yet another new page on a successful life.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Work Incentives Improvement Act has finally made it to the floor. This bill had its origins in the 105th Congress and has been accumulating an impressive array of support ever since. H.R. 1180, the Work Incentives Act as introduced by my colleagues Mr. Lazio and Mr. Waxman, has 247 cosponsors. The Senate passed a similar bill by a vote of 99 to 0. Finally, the people whom his bill would benefit--the disability groups--have shown us how important this legislation is by campaigning tirelessly for its passage. During the past months, the House has seen many controversial pieces of legislation. However, no one disputes the value of the Work Incentives Improvement Act. This bill helps people with disabilities who want to get off cash assistance and start working. The bill allows people to keep their Medicaid or Medicare health benefits when they return to work, so that they can stay healthy enough to keep working. It provides grants to states to help set up the kinds of personal services that working people with disabilities require. The bill creates a demonstration project that would give Medicaid coverage to working people with serious medical conditions--such as multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease--before their diseases become so disabling that they have to apply for cash assistance. This bill makes sense. The only argument against the Work Incentives Act as it was originally introduced was its cost. The Commerce Committee has acted in a fiscally prudent manner by providing offsets for the provisions in its jurisdiction. However, these offsets are about 100 million dollars shy of fully funding the Work Incentives Improvement Act as reported by the Commerce Committee. Consequently, the bill before us today omits the Committee's improved Medicaid buy-in option and leaves the demonstration program partially funded. But I do note that, just a few weeks ago, the House passed a measure to provide tax deductions for individuals to purchase health coverage. This bill would cost about $43 billion, provided benefits mainly to the healthy and wealthy, and none of it was funded. This double standard for the disabled prevented us from passing the entire bill here today. I hope we can do better in conference.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I first thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for his friendship and for what he has done to move this legislation forward. I also want to compliment and commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources; the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member; the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans; and of course the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). I want to say what a pleasure it is for me to work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who serves on the Migratory Bird Commission. This is a relatively small piece of legislation. Its purpose is very simple, and that is to see to it that we have enough participation by private conservation organizations which work so hard to see to it that this particular program works. NAWCA is an extremely valuable program which has set aside, with the full consent of the landowners, millions of acres of land in the United States, in Canada, and in Mexico. And it has done so with the good will of all involved; conservationists, government agencies, Federal, State and local, private individuals, and landowners are for what this has done. It has been a tremendous assist to the conservation movement in this country and is saving lands for very important purposes. I want to say again what a pleasure it has been to work with my good friend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who has consistently been a great voice for conservation and who has worked wonderfully well with me and with the other members of the Migratory Bird Commission, which is one of the most successful land procurement agencies in the whole history of American government. The fact that so few know about it tends to prove that we work so well that there is really no cause for complaint in the acquisition of the millions of acres of land. The function of the legislation before us is not to cost the Federal Government money. It will not. Rather, it will allow the Secretary of the Interior to use two additional slots to appoint organizations that will help make sound wetland conservation decisions and will draw in new organizations and organizational strength and achieve additional commitments towards further cooperative investments in reclaiming wetlands and wildlife habitat. This is, in that very small but very important particular, a very important but valuable piece of legislation, and I would commend the committee for its labors in bringing it forth. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who has given me all too much credit in this matter and who is my full partner in the business of the Migratory Bird Commission representing the House and also to observe that the commission is served very well by two of our good friends and colleagues in the Senate who have participated actively in the efforts to achieve this particular end. So this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I think we will be pleased with what we have done when we look back on the successes that this has brought us. Madam Speaker, today we have before us a relatively small bill to make a significant conservation program even more successful. H.R. 2821, the North American Wetlands Conservation Council Expansion Act, would make a modest improvement to a conservation law that has successfully saved wetlands throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico during the past decade. I want to thank Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member George Miller of the House Resources Committee for allowing this legislation to come before the House so swiftly. Together with the assistance of Fisheries Subcommittee Chairman Jim Saxton and Ranking Member Eni Faleomavaega, their support for this legislation means a lot, and I hope it sends a strong message to the other body for favorable consideration. NAWCA [naw-ka] was signed into law in 1989 in response to the finding that more than half of the original wetlands in the United States have been lost during the past two centuries. Congress recognized that protection of migratory birds and their habitats required long-term planning and coordination so that our treaty obligations to conserve these precious species would be met. The purpose of NAWCA is to encourage partnerships among public and non-public interests to protect, enhance, restore and manage wetlands for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife in North America. NAWCA has been a tremendous success, funding 629 projects between 1991 and 1999, helping to restore, enhance or help approximately 34 million acres across our continent. Most impressive has been the ratio of partner-to-government contributions, which has been about $2.50 for every public dollar invested. Madam Speaker, I believe that the most effective means to diversify and expand the effectiveness of the Council is to provide the Secretary with new authority to appoint two additional Council members under Sec. 4(a)(1)(D) of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. These appointments would give the Service the ability to include additional charitable and non-profit organizations from among the many which actively participate in the development of NAWCA projects. A little more than one year ago I first learned of the Fish and Wildlife Service's desire to promote change in the NAWCA program when the agency announced its intent not to reappoint two non-governmental organizations that played key roles in making NAWCA a cornerstone of American conservation success. I was greatly concerned that any replacement of Council members under NAWCA should not serve as a disincentive to continued active participation in meeting the Act's goals. CBO has indicated that increasing the size of the NAWCA Council will not cost the federal government any money. Rather, it is my intention to allow the Secretary of Interior to use these two additional slots to appoint organizations that will make sound wetland conservation decisions and promote additional commitments toward cooperative investment in reclaiming these habitats. I want to conclude by praising the hard work of the North American Wetlands Conservation Council, the staffs of its member organizations, and those staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who have devoted themselves to the fulfillment of NAWCA's goals. Congress reauthorized NAWCA last year because its success during the first decade was clearly evident, and because the need for wetlands conservation is even clearer today than it was a decade ago. I hope that H.R. 2821 will provide a non-controversial, easy-to-approve mechanism to accelerate the growth of this magnificent program.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. (MR. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. DINGELL. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with my good friend. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds for a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage my colleague to clarify the scope of the bill. I would say to my colleague that it is my understanding that our objective today here is to improve the delivery of health services, including medical, dental, and vision benefits for millions of Americans. I also understand there is no intention for the provisions of this bill, including the claims provision of section 301, to govern other lines of insurance, such as disability income insurance or long-term insurance. Is that correct?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) who has worked long and hard on this matter and shown extraordinary skill, ability, dedication, and energy. And those are characteristics I have seen in the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

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

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)