John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a rule which sanctifies bad behavior. There was no real conference held on this legislation. Members of the conference who were entitled to be present to participate were not invited and were informed when they showed up that there was no conference to be held, the matter had been disposed of, and that we could simply go our way. Now let us look at what the rule does. The rule waives points of order on two things: One, germaneness and the other, scope of the conference. In each instance the conferees, without holding a meeting, contrived to concede the House rules on both points, so now they need a waiver. Why do they need a waiver? They need a waiver because they wrote something which is not germane, which was never considered in either body and which exceeds the scope of the conference. Now I want to express respect for my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who is a very decent and honorable Member of this body, but I want to say that what has been done here is, first of all, an outrage, and it is a gross abuse of the powers of the committee and a gross disregard to the rights both of other committees and of this body to know what is going on and to have an input into a matter of important concern. Now let us talk about the substance. This proposal in its title 32 recreates essentially the Atomic Energy Commission, one of the most secretive, one of the most sneaky, and one of the most dishonest agencies in government. They lied to everybody, including themselves, and the Congress of the United States, the Executive Branch. They suppressed tracks, and they have created in every area over which they had jurisdiction a cesspool, environmentally and otherwise. The areas which they had jurisdiction over drip hazardous waste and are contaminated beyond belief. Mixed wastes, high-level and low-level nuclear wastes contaminate these areas because of the fact that they diligently suppressed all facts with regard to what they were doing and how they were doing it, and I will be glad to discuss in greater detail because I do not have time now the behavior of that agency. We are now setting up an entity which will be totally exempt from the supervision of the Secretary and which will be totally exempt from the supervision of this body. What they are going to do is to create a situation where now they can lie in the dark, as they did before in the days of the Atomic Energy Commission, and efforts to control this agency will be brought to naught by the absolute power that is being invested in them to suppress the facts to everyone. Now who is opposed to this? First of all, every environmental agency and every environmental organization; second of all, the administration; third of all, the National Governors' Association; and fourth of all, the Organization of Attorneys General, 46 of whom sent us a letter denouncing what is being done here with regard to State, Federal environmental laws and the splendid opportunity for severe and serious misbehavior by this new entity. If my colleagues want to vote for the good things in the bill; and there are many good things, I supported this bill: pay raises and other things which would benefit us in terms not only of our concern for our military personnel, but also our concern for seeing to it that our defense needs are met; vote for the motion to recommit because the only thing it does is to strike title 32. The rest that it keeps are the good things that are in this legislation. So I offer my colleagues a chance to undo what was done in a high- handed arrogance by the committee and in a rather curious and remarkable and unjustifiable rule, one which is going to deny everybody in this country an opportunity to know what is going on inside that agency. Now if we are talking about security, let me just tell my colleagues that the security of the AEC stunk. I was over in a place called Arzamas-16, the place where the Russians made their nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. I saw there a bomb that looked exactly like the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima. I told the guy: That looks familiar. They said it is an exact copy of the bomb that was dropped in Hiroshima. So when they tell us that the recreation of the secrecy and the inbrededness of the AEC and the secretiveness that this legislation will authorize is going to assure the national security, do not believe them. History is against it, and I would just ask my colleagues to understand the secrecy that they are talking about is not against the Russians or against anybody else. It is secrecy which they intend to use to prevent my colleagues, and I, and the Members of Congress, the Members of the Senate from knowing what is going on down there. If my colleagues want to see to it that we continue our efforts to protect the security of the United States, to see to it that things are done which need be done in terms of protecting the security interests of the United States, they can vote for my amendment and should, but if they want to protect the environment, then they you must vote for my amendment.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, it has been represented that Senator Rudman supports this. Let me read what he said about this with regard to the semi- autonomous weapons agency: ``We do not believe that the environmental health issues should be stripped from where they are and put within the agency for nuclear support. I would not support that kind of change because I know what we went through back in the 1980s.'' I would commend this to the reading of the chairman of the committee. Having said that, let us look who else is opposed to this outrage, the National Association of Attorneys General. The chairman sent them a letter, but they still oppose the bill: ``We urge you to oppose the provisions of title 32 that would weaken the existing internal and external oversight structure for DOE's safety and health operations. Title 32 of the defense authorization bill would impair State regulatory authority, eliminate DOE's internal oversight of environmental safety and health, and transfer responsibility for waste management and environmental restoration to the entity responsible for weapons production and development.'' Forty six attorneys general. What did the former Secretaries of Energy have to say about this? ``This restructuring represents a return to the institutional conditions that resulted in almost 50 years of environmental safety health mismanagement at DOE facilities at an estimated cost of $250 billion, the largest environmental cleanup in the world. This restructuring is a step backward to the problems of the past.'' Listen then to our governors, Mr. Speaker, and hear what they have to say. They say, specifically, ``We are concerned that section 3261 would be interpreted as limiting existing waivers of sovereign immunity, leaving NNSA exempt from State environmental regulations, permits, orders, penalties, and agreements. We urge your thoughtful reconsideration of these provisions of title 32 that would weaken the existing oversight structure for DOE's environmental safety and health operations.'' The Conference of State Legislatures has communicated their outrage and their opposition to this proposal. Heed these people. Now, let me just quote, George Santiana said ``He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it,'' and we are looking at a fine mess in just a few years, because we are doing away with all of the steps that have been taken by Secretary Richardson both to have control over the cleanup and to bring about a cleanup, but also to address the questions of secrecy. My friend, the chairman of the committee and the committee, in a rather remarkable conference which may or may not have occurred, because no notices were given to any of the conferees, and when I appeared as a witness, I was advised by the chairman of the committee that the conference is over, there is nothing to talk about. Now, this is an extraordinary high-handed treatment of Members who were appointed as conferees. I think that what we should do is to do what the House in its wisdom did, and that is to pass the bill with all of the good provisions and strike title 32, which is mischievous. Now, let us look at the problems title XXXII creates. It returns us to the dark, secretive days of the AEC, when people did not know what was going on, and when the AEC diligently lied to everybody, including the administration, the Congress, and even the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. They created a hideous mess in terms of health, safety, and environmental degradation. Every facility owned by that agency is today a cesspool of high-level and low-level nuclear waste and of hazardous wastes and of mixed wastes. Why? Because they were answerable to no one and they hid all of their mistakes. We spent years trying to open this process to see to it that the Congress and the Members of this body know what is going on so that we could protect our constituents against the rampages of that kind of agency in the future. This proposal simply recreates that outrage, and my colleagues and I will have cause to regret that day's work if we do not reject that provision and adopt the motion to recommit. If we do not learn from history, we are going to repeat it. In just a few years the secrecy they are going to engage in, which will be practiced against this body and Members of the Senate and Members of the government and ordinary citizens, attorneys general and Governors, is going to lead to further abuses. If Members think this is going to address the questions of protecting the national security, Members are very much in error. I watched the AEC for years, and the agency leaked like a sieve. I was over in a place called Chelyabinsk. It is the site of the Arzamas-16, the Russian nuclear thermonuclear generation facility. They showed me there a bomb. I said, it looks like the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima. They said no, it is an exact copy. That agency leaked all kinds of information like that, technology and ability to the Russians and the Chinese and others to enable them to do what they have done. Do not just think this is DOE, security is an ongoing problem. But at least with the Secretary in control of this matter, the Congress will have the ability to understand where rascality goes on, where there is threat to public property, where the responsibilities of the contractors to the taxpayers are dishonored, as they have been, where secrecy runs riot, and where environmental degradation reigns because of the secrecy and the refusal of the agency to properly police itself. I urge my colleagues, let us drop title XXXII. It was never considered on the floor of the House. It was never considered in the Senate. As a matter of fact, my colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services had to go to the Committee on Rules to get themselves a funny rule. That funny rule protects them against points of order. It says that the fact that they went beyond the scope of the conference cannot be raised on this floor. It says that the fact that they disregarded the rule of germaneness cannot be raised on the floor, and the fact that they have written bad legislation is, to the best of the ability of the Committee of Armed Services and the Committee on Rules, protected against any serious challenge of wrongdoing and of hurt to the public interest. The way this House should address this is to understand that here we have a question where legislation was written in secrecy by staff without consultation with the Members of the House or other committees which have jurisdiction, and that that legislation is seriously flawed. It is opposed by everybody, the President, the Secretary of the Department of Energy, the Governors, the attorneys general, the State legislatures, and 11 environmental organizations. They have said, do not pass this legislation with this kind of secrecy provision in it. If Members want to continue an effective cleanup of the hideous mess that this kind of secrecy has made under the AEC, they must continue allowing this work to be done by the DOE in the open eye of daylight. If Members want to see to it that the Nation is able to know when there are failures and when our security system is not working, allow DOE to do it. They are trying to clean it up. AEC participated actively in suppressing all acts and all information on this. This proposal reconstitutes the AEC and the practices which caused hideous abuses, both of the environment and of the national interest. I will be offering a motion to recommit at the proper time. I urge my colleagues to listen to their Governors, listen to their attorneys general, listen to their legislators, listen to their president, their Secretary of DOE, and to the environmentalists, who tell us that this is the wrong way to go. This is a dangerous way to go. This is insulating an agency from any proper supervision, and it is an attack not only upon the rest of government, but it is an attack on this body and the ability of Members of this body to know what is going on in the midst of a situation which may sacrifice the right of the public to know what is going on, and which will sanctify the kind of secrecy that sneaky bureaucrats have practiced on atomic energy, on safety, and upon other things which are important, including the protection of the national security of the United States. This should either be corrected by the motion to recommit, or the conference report should be rejected. My friends and colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services attribute enormous risk to this situation. They conducted a meeting of the conferees in complete secrecy, permitted no one to participate, did not even allow us to ask questions about what it was they did. Members are not going to tell me that they honestly fear on that committee that in some way some of the good provisions, and there are good provisions, and I supported them when this matter was in the House before, are in any jeopardy from that. Members of this body support those provisions, without exception. Members of this body should know that they can reject the outrageous provisions and preserve the good. I will offer them an opportunity to do so. I urge them to do so. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman, and I thank her for yielding me this time. I want to express affection and respect for the authors of the amendment and just simply say some years ago I was in favor of this, but I have gotten wiser, and this amendment is wrong. If my colleagues are concerned about Americans or rather permanent residents who have come here to live and to join us, and they do not want them to have free speech, and they do not want to let them have the other rights, then say so. I have heard a lot on the other side of the aisle about how this is about free speech and how gifts of money for campaign purposes are the exercise of free speech. Correct. These people do almost everything that every American citizen does. They serve in the Armed Forces. As the gentlewoman mentioned, 20 percent of the Congressional Medal of Honor recipients have been legal immigrants or naturalized citizens. They serve in our Army. They are permitted to participate in our elective process, and they should be permitted to give money if they are legally resident. Mr. Chairman, they should not be permitted to do things which are improper, but I say give them the right to participate in the system in the degree that is full and proper.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues are listening to the people out there because if there is one thing to be heard, people think that the system is corrupt, that it is being further corrupted by money, that it is being corrupted to the point where Congress will do nothing except profit from this money. I think it is time we do something. Let us restore the confidence of the American people to government, to this establishment, and to each of us. We are the system, and all of us are being hurt by this system. I spent, the first election I ran, $19,000. I have spent since then in certain elections over a million dollars. That is far too much. It is unjustifiable. It is unnecessary. It denies deserving, good candidates an opportunity to participate in the system; and, on top of that, it brings a bad smell to the election process of this country. Just a little while back, we spent something like $85 million in the 1997-1998 election cycle. More recently, we have spent as much as $193 million. This time, we are going to spend $500 million in that. That is a grotesque excess, and it is something which does neither credit nor does it build confidence in us or in the system. I would urge my colleagues to support Shays-Meehan. It is the way to clean up the system and restore the confidence of the people. I would also like to thank all of the Members on both sides of the aisle who have put partisanship aside and are truly interested in cleaning up the campaign financing process which has been corrupted, most notably by soft money. This is not a partisan issue. Our national political party committees raised $193.2 million in soft money during the 1997-1998 election cycle, more than double the $85.3 million they raised during the last non-presidential cycle in 1993-1994. This increase is astounding and there are no signs that this trend will subside unless we act together today to stop this corruption of our election process. I believe that those of us who benefit from the campaign system can not possibly agree on all the needed reforms. An independent commission must be created to thoroughly review the system and make recommendations to Congress regarding necessary changes. I am pleased to report that Shays-Meehan includes a provisions establishing such a commission. Shays-Meehan is a good bill; it is a thorough bill; it is a bipartisan bill; and it is a bill that we passed last year and should pass again this year. As such, I urge my colleagues to once again vote in favor of Shays-Meehan.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to make a modest improvement to a conservation law, which has successfully saved wetlands throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act 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 also recognizes that that protection of migratory birds and their habitats required long-term planning and coordination to meet our treaty obligations to conserve these precious species. The purpose of NAWCA is to encourage partnerships among public and nonpublic 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. Last year, while Congress worked to reauthorize NAWCA, a debate emerged concerning the role of the North American Wetlands Conservation Council and its membership. In discussions and correspondence with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and stakeholder groups, I came away with a clear message: everyone involves fully supports a growing NAWCA program. What was less clear was finding an appropriate means to foster continued non-governmental participation in, and contributions to, the quantitative and qualitative successes of the program. The Fish and Wildlife Service informed me that it sought to ensure more diversity on the Council. For this reason, it indicated that the Secretary would not reappoint two organizations that have contributed mightily to NAWCA's success. Ultimately, one group chose to leave the Council and another chose to continue to seek reappointment, which I understand has been recently completed. I am hoping to receive written confirmation of this reappointment very shortly. Mr. 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 many which actively participate in the development of NAWCA projects. Quite simply, this simple bill would allow a highly successful law to expand its reach, and I hope for its swift passage this year.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, what are our priorities if we cannot repay those to whom we owe so greatly? Earlier this summer, against the wishes of the American people, the majority party in this House passed a trillion-dollar tax bill. It helped the rich, big business, and an array of special interests. It promised economic prosperity and a balanced budget. It promised to return budget surpluses that exist only on paper. I voted against the tax plan for a number of reasons. It was and is my belief that before Congress passes massive tax cuts that benefit the vast majority of Americans in a very minor way, that we first save Social Security, Medicare, and other invaluable programs. We also pay down our national debt. Those should be our priorities and primary duties. There is one additional duty we should have performed before we passed a massive tax cut. It is a duty to which we are honor bound. That duty, Mr. Chairman, is to provide quality health care to the 26 million living Americans who, at times of great peril to the Nation, risked their lives selflessly for out country. We must provide our veterans with the benefits they were promised and deserve. Mr. Chairman, we must decide what kind of medical care delivery system best suits our nation's veterans. We must either provided the necessary funds--all of them--to provide quality health care services under our current system, or we must make a radical change to a new system that guarantees that our veterans have access to quality health care. I am willing to support either option so long as our veterans find it acceptable and receive deserved high-quality health care. What I cannot support maintaining the unsatisfactory status quo or something worse. As a veteran and a Member proud to serve our veterans, I will not support perpetuating a mediocre veterans' health care system. That, Mr. Chairman, is precisely what this bill does. Once again, the President requested a funding level incapable of providing quality service. Once again, the Republican Congress has produced a budget and an appropriations bill that fails to meet the VA's and our veterans' needs. Mr. Chairman, I listen again and again to veterans in Michigan's 16th District complain about the poor service at VA clinics, excessive waiting lines at hospitals, crumbling facilities, insufficient numbers of qualified medical personnel, and an inability to provide prosthetics, wheelchairs, oxygen tanks, hearing aids, eyeglasses, and other needs. The VA' ability to provide long-term care is still not solved. Funding requests filed a decade or more ago, like in Allen Park, Michigan, go unfulfilled. The VA will again be asked to further streamline bureaucracy, improve efficiency, and get a bigger bang for the buck. But inadequate funds will be made available. Mr. Chairman, you know who loses if we pass this bill today and maintain the status quo. It is the veterans and the country they served. Veterans, veterans' service organizations, and Members of Congress from both parties have continually insisted that if the VA is to maintain its current level of medical services, an additional $3.2 billion would be needed in FY 2000. The bill before us provides less than half that needed amount. It puts a shin plaster on a cancer. At a time when our veterans' long-term care needs are greatest, it slashes funding to state extended care facilities, the one type of long-term care venture that has been of moderate success. It also fails to provide any funding for tobacco-related illnesses. I also would like to note my displeasure at the party-line decision made by the Rules Committee. The action of the Rules Committee and the rule itself are a great disservice to our veterans. They prevent the House from having an honest debate on the Edwards-Evans-Stabenow amendment, which would have provided an additional $730 million veterans' medical care. To offset the cost of this meaningful piece of legislation, the Edwards amendment would have delayed the implementation of the proposed Republican cut in the capital tax by one year. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill, and I am ashamed that again this year Congress will fail in its task of providing quality medical care to our veterans. We all owe our veterans a debt of gratitude. It is time to pay our debt.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate a friend and colleague who has given much to the state of Michigan, to the labor movement and to Michigan politics. Frank D. Garrison is a former autoworker who became a lobbyist for the United Auto Workers (UAW) before being chosen to lead the AFL-CIO in Michigan. And by the way, his middle name is Delano, named after one of our greatest Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He is a working man who has devoted himself to the working man and woman. Frank Garrison believes strongly in fighting for the little guy, addressing the concerns of the people who have the least. A consummate public servant, he devoted his career to making working conditions in Michigan and the United States better for working families. He is a strong believer in public education and universal health care, and has worked tirelessly so that the world is a better place for everyone. Frank's first experience with the unions came as a young man working at the Saginaw Steering Gear plant in Saginaw, Michigan. He became a member of UAW Local 699. Drafted into the Army in 1953, he served his country for two years. Upon returning to his job in Saginaw, he actively pursued leadership posts within the UAW. During those first few years he served as alternate committeeman, committeeman, shop committeeman, local union vice-president and financial secretary. He was appointed as a UAW international representative in 1972 for region 1D and assigned to the UAW Education Department and the Michigan UAW Community Action program (CAP). He was serving as CAP coordinator for Region 1D when he joined the Michigan UAW-CAP legislative office in Lansing, Michigan as a lobbyist in January 1976. That July, he became legislative director for the UAW. In 1982, Frank was appointed executive director of Michigan UAW-CAP, a position he held for four years until he was elected president of the Michigan State AFL-CIO on December 12, 1986. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues salute Frank and his leadership, hard work and caring heart. He has devoted much of his life to others and in some way I know he will continue to be involved. He is a dear friend who has always worked to make the world a better place for everyone. I wish him the best in his retirement: many peaceful days fishing, golfing and spending time with his lovely wife Dora, his daughters and grandchildren. He has worked hard and deserves the best in his retirement. Frank, best of luck to you.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is simple. It will ensure that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS, will catch more criminals and it will ensure that the system works properly as the Congress intended. The Instant Check System took 5 years to build and cost roughly a quarter of a billion dollars of the taxpayers' money. However, despite the time and money expended, the system is not working. The FBI has stated that 1,700 prohibited purchasers have received firearms because the Federal system does not have all the records it needs. The New York Times reports that Colorado has stopped using the Federal system because it is incomplete. States are not carrying out their responsibilities under this. The amendment would fix these problems. Quite simply, it would require States to certify quarterly that 95 percent of all available records are in the national criminal database. By demanding accountability from the States, the Congress will ensure that FBI background checks will be complete, accurate and thorough. If that can be accomplished, fewer criminals will slip through the cracks and the national system of instant checks will work. I would like to think of my amendment as putting ``instant'' back into instant check. There will be more records, better records and citizens will not face unnecessary delays. This is how the Congress intended it to work. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and hope that we can do something to make this system work, to make the States participate, and to see to it that the Federal Government does what it is supposed to do to make the system work to catch criminals and to abate the pressure on honest, law-abiding citizens.

Mr. DINGELL. I do intend to withdraw the amendment, but I would like to hear the thoughts of the gentleman first.

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend from Kentucky, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, for any comments he wants to make. I think desperately we need to make this system work and I would ask his comments.

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to my distinguished friend from New York.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant and friend of many years, George Brown. We met and began working together in this great body when he joined me here in 1963. Almost from the start, George began following his own path in Congress, but in doing so he served his constituents, country, and friends as well as any Member has served those that they represent. George was truly an advocate for all people. Even when it was unpopular, he pursued his belief that all people were created equal and he championed the civil rights legislation that transformed America. As a patron of the working men and women of this country, he worked to bring workers protection from hazardous working conditions. And he believed that all citizens should be able visit federal parks. Due in part to this vision, the citizens of this great nation have access to more federal parks than ever before. With George's passing, this institution and the American people have lost part of their history. George was a repository of institutional knowledge and a person that has contributed greatly to our country as a whole. I know I speak for all of the Members of Congress when I say that this body will miss George Brown. I would also like thank his family and the citizens of the 42nd District of California for sharing him with us for so long.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague and friend from Grand Rapids. Earlier this year, the National Ocean Service proposed eliminating 13 of 49 water level gauging stations in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River system due to a budget insufficient to address Y-2-K compliance problems. This proposal was advanced without consulting many of the constituencies who rely on the data of this Water Level Observation Network, including shoreline residents, local governments, recreational and commercial fishermen, and shippers of commerce from Great Lakes ports to points worldwide. In my own district, two water-gauging stations were proposed for closing: one on the Detroit River and one in Lake Erie near the City of Monroe. WIthout these stations, other federal agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service cannot provide needed services that support recreational uses, commercial uses, and the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Michigan is offering a commonsense amendment to address a critical need for Great Lakes protections, and I urge the House to accept it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has demonstrated extraordinary outrage, but it does not have anything to do with the facts before us. Today, the local government requires local telephone service companies to keep two sets of books. The requirement no longer serves to protect consumers because the companies have been subject to price caps since 1991. This amendment will leave the telephone companies responsible for general accounting principles and they will be required to function under that way. The law as it now is is simply obsolete, burdensome, and discriminatory, and costs consumers $270 million a year. None of the competitors to local phone companies, including industry giants such as AT&T, TCI and MCI WorldCom is required to keep two sets of books, nor should they have to. What we are talking about here is a fair and even situation, one in which universal service and the benefits thereof could be made available more easily to American consumers by the $270 million that this will make available to them. By this amendment, we will do away with so-called Uniform System of Accounts for companies that are not subject to traditional rate of return regulation. This system of accounting no longer serve to protect consumers. It is antiquated, obsolete, yet it costs over $300 million per year to maintain. Unfortunately, these unnecessary costs are borne by the public and they must be eliminated. The Uniform System of Accounts date back to 1935. They certainly made sense when Ma Bell was subject to a different regulatory scheme--that is, traditional rate of return regulation. But rate of return regulation was done away with in 1991 for the Nation's largest telephone companies who serve over 90% of the public. This amendment simply repeals these highly burdensome accounting rules for companies that are no longer subject to this regulatory regime. The amendment makes consummate sense. It will save Government, industry, and, most importantly, the American public, a tremendous amount of money. It will enable companies to use just one set of books--those which follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP. After all, GAAP accounting systems are what Certified Public Accountants are trained to audit, and are required of all companies by the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities and Exchanges Commission. If it's good enough for the IRS, the SEC, Wall Street and the public at large, it certainly should be good enough for the FCC. In fact, it is good enough for the FCC The FCC moved toward adopting GAAP in 1988. At that time, the FCC conformed about 90% of the Uniform System of Accounts to GAAP standards. The reason the FCC didn't go all the way in 1988 is because local telephone companies were still subject to rate of return regulation. But that is no longer the case. In 1991, the FCC permitted these companies to migrate from traditional rate of return to price cap regulation. Unfortunately, the FCC never finished the job of completely adopting GAAP accounting, even though they've had 8 years to do it. There is no mystery about this amendment and its effect on consumers. Since these companies are now subject to price cap regulation, consumers are protected by a ceiling on what telephone companies can charge. Costs are no longer relevant, and so the minute cost detail that is maintained in a second set of books is no longer necessary. It's that simple. This amendment simply finishes the job the FCC set out to do in the first place. Who opposes this amendment? Companies that for competitive reasons want to keep incumbent local telephone companies tied up in red tape. The companies who oppose are not required to keep two sets of books. But they certainly want the competition to suffer that burden. They resort to rhetoric about the need to keep these obsolete rules in place, such as ``local telephone rates will go up,'' or ``universal service will be jeopardized. None of this is true. Local rates are set by the States and will not be affected by this amendment at all. The FCC can continue to collect all the data it needs for universal service calculations. However, the truth is the FCC doesn't even use actual costs, GAAP or otherwise, for calculating universal service requirements. It uses a theoretical costing model that has been the subject of much dispute for four years now, and should be the subject of another debate on another day. Who benefits from the amendment? The Government, industry, and consumers alike. All will share in costs savings that result. The goal of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was to create more competition and consumer choice. We must unburden the players in the market and create a level playing field if that is to occur. I cannot think of a more irrelevant, burdensome, and discriminatory regulation than the Uniform System of Accounts. When we passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the vast majority of us, on both sides of the aisle, praised it as being ``deregulatory.'' As many of you know, I don't believe it has worked out quite that way, largely due to misplaced priorities at the FCC. But this amendment is in keeping with the spirit of the act, and it is a small, but important, step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on the Tauzin-Dingell amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to my dear friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).