John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we are being called upon today to legislate on the basis of anecdote and to pass a bill of rather doubtful benefit to the society on the basis of anecdote. My good friend, the chairman of Committee on Science, got up and talked about a pineapple pesticide which was used. This is required to be tested by the EPA. Why? Because it has been widely used in some 40 States in crops until 1979. It is highly persistent. It is a carcinogen, and it has been found in the drinking water of 19 States, one of which would be Hawaii. I think we ought to look at what it is we are doing. If we are talking about cost-benefit analysis, let us have some cost-benefit analysis. Let us try and understand what this bill is really about. The bill is really about cost. I have been as critical of the EPA and other agencies for the inadequacy and the impropriety of their science. I am the only fellow around here who held hearings to denounce the misbehavior of EPA in terms of bad science, but let us talk about what we are concerned with here. This is a draconian bill. They have talked about science and peer review, but mostly, again, what has been discussed here has been cost. The question is that are we going to supersede all health, safety, and environment and other regulations if they cost too much? Well, let us look, and let us look at what really counts, and that is the benefits: Public health, public safety, safe and a wholesome environment. How can we tell that the benefit and the costs can be properly equated? What is the cost-benefit analysis that is going to determine the price of a healthy child? What is going to determine what is a safe workplace, and what is this worth to the American society? We have talked about infestation of microorganisms in water in a major U.S. city. What is the price of a clear glass of water? What is the price and the cost of the benefit of 400,000 people who do not get sick or 100 people who do not die? What is the price of a safe airplane ride to the American citizen? What is the price of a safe workplace? What is the price of a clean Lake Erie in which you can fish and swim? That lake was about to be a dead lake. What is the price of seeing an eagle flying overhead, and how are we to fix the cost-benefit ratio for removal of DDT from the society and that eagle flying above us which was about to be wiped out because of that? We are talking about the overturn of standards that have been regarded by the American people for years, indeed, for scores of years, and as the basis of their safety, as the basis of a healthy environment. People rely on these standards every time they get a drink of water, every time they take an airplane ride, every time they get in a car, every time they walk out of their house to breathe. Go to California now and look at the situation in Los Angeles. The air is safe, the air is clean. Why? because we passed legislation which did it. Was it as good as it should have been? No. I was roundly castigated for years because I sat on that legislation until we could work out a situation where it was going to make good sense. This House passed that legislation. That legislation says you will not consider costs in determining the safety of standards and regulations. This legislation is going to put that at risk and raise questions about it. The bill is purported to be about assessment of risk, but what this bill, again, is really about is just simply pulling the plug. I know my colleagues who support this legislation would say they do not support the idea we pull the plug on life, but today, without this amendment that is exactly what we are going to be doing. We are going to be pulling the plug on health standards. We are going to be pulling the plug on standards which protect the environment and which enable us to live with safety and with comfort with the environment of which we are a part. Now, I think it is better for our citizens to have the current law. If we have to address the problem of legislation to deal with the problem of inadequacy of cost assessment, and I think we have to do it, then let us do it by addressing the problem under amendment of each of the specific statutes that are involved here. Why? Because regulatory practices on top of another set of regulatory practices which we complain. As I have pointed out to my colleagues in earlier comments, what we are doing is not just stopping legislation and regulations which are going to protect the health and safety and the welfare of the American people, but also which are going to adversely impact upon regulations and changes in regulations which will be of benefit to business. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment and to reject the bill.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying, ``Be careful of what you ask for, because you might get it.'' And I would urge my colleagues to keep that saying in mind, because if you ask for this, you very well just might get it. What is this amendment going to require of the Government? And what rights is it going to permit? Is this going to permit somebody to petition who is aggrieved in business, who feels he has been wronged with regard to a regulation which is imposing unnecessary costs on him? Yes, it is. But it is also going to permit Ralph Nader, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and ordinary individuals to do the same, because the language of the amendment says, ``Any person,'' any person without limitation as to who. And they can submit this petition each 6 months for 8 years, 15 times, and if they do not get what they want the first time, they can resubmit it, and in resubmitting it, they can again ask for the same relief. And when the agency has decided whether they are or are not entitled to the relief they have sought with regard to having the matter reopened, it is a final action. Now, for the benefit of my colleagues who do not understand these things, ``a final action'' is a word of art in the Federal law which says that that final action then is reviewable in court. So let us look. Any chemical company is subject to having a reopening on any of their additives or any of their agricultural pesticides every 6 months for 8 years. They can be in court constantly and can be harassed under the provisions of this particular amendment. The auto industry, on fuel efficiency or auto safety or clean air, can be in court constantly, and the subject of whether or not they are entitled to have a particular regulation that is in place remain in place or be subject to having it reopened by some outsider is settled by this amendment. What it says is anybody who wants to can go in and force this process and can then, on the conclusion of the action of the regulatory body in approving or disapproving, have the matter opened to litigation by any person who has an interest. Now, let us look at an electrical utility. Let's suppose an electrical utility has gotten a particular ruling from the EPA with regard to emissions of sulfur. That particular judgment is open to review every 6 months for 8 years, and again it is subject not only to regulatory action of the agency but to judicial review. Imagine the harassment that can take place of the American electrical utility industry or any other industry in this situation. Let us go to others. A food additive, or fluoridation of water in a community, comes open at every turn, because that regulation is subject to this particular provision. The individuals affected can demand that this be done every 6 months for 8 years, and every American water company, every American municipality that delivers water is going to be subject to being sued under this and to have the whole matter carried through not only the entire administrative process but then subject to judicial review as often as a complainant may want. Every 6 months it can be done. I do not think this body wants anything of this character to be put in place. There are regulations in place which make sense, and there are regulations in place which do not, but if you are going to address the ones that do not make sense, I would beg you to understand that this is not just limited to one particular regulation, or one particular kind of regulation which might be hostile to industry, or which might cost too much, nor is this legislation going to be used only by responsible citizens or American businessmen concerned about competitiveness, but malefactors and irresponsible parties as well. It is going to open the door of the regulatory process to every crackpot, nut, special interest group that you might care to name, and they are going to run all the way from the environmental extremists to the right wing reactionaries, and all the way from crackpot left-wing advocates to reactionaries who think that industry is being excessively hurt by sensible regulations. The result of the adoption of this amendment, very frankly, is not only going to be to bring the administrative process in this Government to a halt by compelling tremendous relitigation, reexamination of every existing rule but it is going to go further. It is going to harass and drive American industry to its knees.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that my Republican colleagues do not understand the language of the bill, and I cannot believe that they do not understand the language of the amendment. The language of the amendment corrects an obvious error in the bill. The bill provides that peer reviewers may not be excluded simply because they represent entities that have a potential interest in the outcome. That is really what is at question here. Is peer review going to be Then it goes on to say, ``provided the interest is fully disclosed and, in the case of a regulatory decision affecting a single entity, no peer reviewer representing such entity may be included in the panel.'' What is the practical result of this language on the question of whether or not PCB's should be regulated in a special way, or whether clean air emissions, or water pollutants, or a particular kind of contaminant should be permitted in the food or drugs that are sold in this country, or whether a question involving safety in the workplace should be dealt with because of the presence of a particular pollutant or a particularly hazardous practice? In those instances, if it affected the entire industry, the entire panel, the entire panel of peer reviewers could be composed of people who had a financial interest, if only they had disclosed what that particular interest was. Now, I ask my colleagues, do you want to have peer review conducted by people who have an interest in the outcome? I think not. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] says that peer reviewers shall be excluded if they are associated with entities that have a financial or other interest in the outcome, unless such interest is disclosed to the agency and the agency has made a determination that such interests will not reasonably be expected to create a bias in favor of obtaining an outcome that is consistent with the special interest that is held by that peer reviewer. That is something which permits us to obtain the necessary expertise of people who know something on the subject, if they have an interest. But it also provides a very careful screen through which rascals may not proceed, and in which we can have a reasonable assurance that the protections which are here for the people in peer review of important scientific and technical questions will be done in such a way as to assure that the result will not be tainted with the determination or an inclination on the part of the reviewer to secure on behalf of himself and the special interests which he serves a result favorable to that particular interest. Without this amendment, the entirety of the panel may be composed of people who have a financial interest in the matter. I will repeat that, because I saw somebody nodding a no. Without this amendment, the entire panel may be composed of people who have a particular interest in the result. I think for this Congress to pass legislation which would sanctify such a consequence is a great shame. Shame on us, shame on the country. And the consequences of peer reviews which is tainted in this evil way will not only jeopardize the faith of the people in this body, but will justifiably jeopardize the faith of the American people in the peer review system we are authorizing under this legislation which we consider today. I urge my colleagues to consider not only the consequences of this legislation as it is written here, but the consequences of a tainted peer review conducted under the provisions of the bill without the protection of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. I would urge my colleagues to think about what can happen to the American people. And while they are thinking on that particular matter, I would urge them to reflect on what this means to them in the future when some opponent gets up at election time and says, ``Why was it that you supported a proposal in the Congress which permitted special interest peer reviews to override the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency or OSHA or any other agency charged with protection of the public interest? And why was it, why was it, that you permitted a peer review panel to be set up which could be composed entirely of special interest representatives?'' Think on it, my colleagues, and vote wisely.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. That is also correct. The $100 million is exactly the same as was in the Executive orders brought forward by Presidents Bush and Reagan.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would just note for the benefit of the last speaker that this bill was gotten to the House more quickly than any of the various and sundry substitutes which the gentleman was presenting to us after moonlight discussions with other Members on that side of the aisle. So if you are concerned about the time that we have had in terms of having this available to us, we have done better than has the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Now, the gentleman complains about the language he read. That is language out of legislation that passed the House last year relative to exactly the kind of thing we are trying to do, and that is to set in place risk assessment. It also is language which is very close to the language that is in the bill that the gentleman has submitted to us, and I can understand, with the haste that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has crafted these different sundry substitutes that we have been confronting over time without opportunity to read them, that he may not have had full enough time to read his own bill so he really does not understand what is there. Having said that, the effects of the basic legislation will be seen in many ways. One is with regard to a final rule which is anticipated by December 1995 with regard to safety on commuter airlines. As we all know, commuter airline safety is open to question, and that a fatal commuter accident in North Carolina caused the Secretary of Transportation to announce a commuter safety program would be fast- tracked. The fast-tracking of that commuter safety airline legislation or, rather, regulation which will address very specifically pilot training and crew rest requirements would be sidetracked by the language of the bill but not by the amendment which is put forward. FAA has plenary authority to take actions necessary for airline safety. But that plenary authority will be effectively delayed by this matter. Having said those things, the airline safety rule will exceed the $100 million cost threshold established in title III. FAA will have to peer review any risk or cost analysis which forms the basis for action under this. Never before have we had risk assessment or cost-benefit in rules of these kinds, and the reason was very important. FAA exists to assure that there be safety of the American airline traveling public. That safety will be substantially denigrated and severely jeopardized by the bill unless the amendment is adopted. Similar situations with regard to PCB control regulations, those which are actively sought by legislation, will be sidetracked and will cost industry and the American economy billions of dollars in additional disposable costs and will rob industry of flexibility and opportunity to become more competitive through relaxation of current situations which they find unacceptable. H.R. 1022 is a very simple thing. It is a political campaign statement which is now being turned into bad law, and it is being done so in the most extraordinary of haste, the idea being to meet some curious 100-day deadline which relates not to the well-being of the American people but to simply the keeping of some kind of political statement. The amendment should be adopted, or the bill should be rejected, and the safety and the well-being of the American people, the protection of their environment will, indeed, be better served by that course. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

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

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman is correct in that statement.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]. (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln]. (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains amongst the several of us allocating time?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings]. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, everyone in this Chamber wants protective health, safety, and environmental standards issued by the United States Government agencies to be done on the basis of good science and good regulatory practice. That is not the issue. Indeed the question of how these matters are dealt with in the regulatory agencies has long been a special concern of mine because of lack of fairness, because of bad science, and because of other defects in the process. However, it must be noted that the behavior of the regulatory agencies--EPA and the other agencies which are engaged now in seeking to protect the health and the welfare of the American people, and agencies that are seeking to protect the economy of this country, to see to it that our securities markets and our other financial activities are conducted well and safely and in conformance with Federal law--are indeed not only important but are responses, in almost every instance to requirements imposed on those agencies by the Congress. Washington is not full of crazy, run-amok bureaucrats running around seeking to penalize honest Americans and to create economic hardships or other hardships for the American people. That is quite an unfair and untrue image. It must be observed that what is going on here is that the agencies downtown are responding to a set of highly complex laws written by the Congress of the United States. In the case of environmental laws, they are responding to legislation which is not only enormously complex but enormously controversial, regulations which were written in response to clear mandates from this Congress which require particular actions to be taken. One of the remarkable things about this is that several of the Governors who were denouncing the clean air bill that we passed a few Congresses ago for its not being strong enough, such as the Governor of California and the Governor of Wisconsin, who still hold those offices--although the Governor now of California was at that time a distinguished senior Senator from his State--were demanding that we pass not the laws that we passed but legislation which was indeed much stronger and much more punitive in character, something which I resisted with considerable vigor. It is fair to say the use of risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis and peer review will be helpful. These are important analytical tools, and they will help the agencies to do their job better, limit burdens on private industry, reduce Government regulatory activity and Government waste, and see to it that our legislation is properly handled. The Government does not need and should not tolerate excessive industry regulation, nor should it excuse sloppy or biased regulatory programs, whether they are biased toward the environmental groups or toward business groups. I feel, however, very firm and very strong in the belief that environmental health and safety laws which the Congress has adopted after careful consideration are on the books for good reasons. Admittedly these are complex pieces of legislation. They are because they have to be, because the subject matter is complex. And to unwisely impose now a whole new spectrum of additional requirements and mandates, equally complex, upon an already complex system of laws and regulations is simply to compound the difficulties that this Nation confronts. Business will find it harder, environmental groups will find it more difficult, and the laws and the regulations will be more complex. They will take more time, and the lawyers will have a better time and make more money simply because we have compounded a situation which is now overly complex and made it still more so. How was it that this got to be so complex? It got to be so complex because this Congress wrote that legislation, and because the agencies are now seeking to carry out the laws which were written by this body. The health and safety and environmental laws written by the Congress are almost always done on a bipartisan basis as the votes on the House floor indicate. The clean air bill was passed by something like 403 to 5. In the frenzy to complete the Contract on America within 100 days, we have taken out a contract on the history of good legislation and upon the body of good statutory law, and indeed upon the processes of this institution. As if the Congress now is not going to be satisfied with a flawed process for passing this legislation, H.R. 1022 is literally a contract on the health and the safety of the American people, and on the environment that we will be leaving to our grandchildren. According to every responsible prediction and estimate, H.R. 1022 will create more paperwork, not less, and increase the number of Federal employees who must be involved in the decision-making and the litigation questions. It will also take more time, and it will add to the miseries and the costs of business as business seeks to live with Government regulation. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cost the Federal Treasury at least a quarter of a billion dollars more every year, and CBO has not yet completed accounting for the costs. Preliminary estimates from the executive branch indicate that more than 1,500 new bureaucrats would have to be hired to carry out the extensive and prescriptive requirements of H.R. 1022 in administering now a much more complex regulatory process. My Republican colleagues are increasing the size of Government with this bill, at the same time that President Clinton is making a real effort government. My comment to the American people would be: If you like increased bureaucracy, bigger Government, more work for lawyers, more delay, and more costs to American taxpayers, then H.R. 1022 is the bill for you. Republican and Democratic Presidents have alike proposed and Congress has enacted specific laws establishing protective standards for identifiable threats to human health, human safety and the environment. These statutes cover a wide range of concerns: protecting women from breast cancer, protecting children from unsafe toys, regulating emissions of toxic air pollutants, ensuring airline safety, providing for the safety of workers in the workplace, and providing for clean water, clean rivers, and safe food. Each was passed for a real and important group of reasons based on particular circumstances posed by clearly identifiable threats. H.R. 1022 cosponsors now want to override these carefully crafted protective standards of existing law with a uniform set of decision- making criteria, one-size-fits-all criteria, which by the way are different in many respects than the criteria in the bills reported by either of the two committees. It is interesting to note that no hearings were held on the matter that we are now considering on the floor. The bills that were considered in the committees are different than that which is now before us. Proposals which were in the bills of both committees have vanished in some strange process that can only be explained by my colleagues on the majority side. And proposals which were in neither have all of a sudden appeared to raise new questions about the legislative history and what it is that the Congress is doing here today. Do we know what laws are going to be impacted by the legislation before us? No. No one can tell us that. We do know some. I had asked the cosponsors of the bill to provide a comprehensive list when the Committee on Commerce marked up this bill. They said, ``Of course. We will be delighted to do so.'' But that list is not yet before us. In addition to changing the protective standards of existing law, H.R. 1022 will cause significant delays in issuing regulations important to industry, either to provide regulatory relief or relief from existing burdens. This bill is going to slow down the giving of relief to industry on matters which are important to industry, which will make the United States more competitive, and which will reduce costs to American industry. Ironically, most of the regulations my Republican friends complain of were issued by Republican administrations, like the asbestos regulations raised earlier by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]. Important health and safety protections for the public like these will also be delayed. I would like to now address some of these regulations, since my colleagues on the Republican side were never able to tell us what would be the consequences of being caught in this Rube Goldberg construction which they are now inflicting upon the American people, leading to multiplied gridlock and diminishing the agencies of government and the rights of the American people and American business. In 1992 the Congress established the Nation's first nuclear waste disposal facility in New Mexico called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant or WIPP, which will receive nuclear waste material currently being stored at more risky storage facilities around the country. WIPP cannot open until EPA promulgates regulations setting forth operating standards to protect the public health. The Department of Energy indicates that these will be significantly delayed under H.R. 1022. New Federal Aviation Administration rules to enhance safety standards for commuter airlines in the wake of recent tragic air crashes were to be issued on a fast-track basis by December 1995. According to FAA, these new safety enhancements will be delayed for some indefinite period by the requirements of H.R. 1022. EPA is now contemplating and working on deregulatory action under the Toxic Substances Control Act pursuant to a rule adopted in December 1994 which would save the economy better than $2 to $4 billion in control costs for PCBs. The proposed changes will reduce disposal costs and provide additional flexibility to industry. They will add to our competitiveness and reduce the burdens on American industry. They will be delayed by this legislation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year proposed a rule to update seismic standards for any new nuclear reactors built in the United States. In its proposal, the NRC noted that reviewing seismic safety rules for nuclear power plants is particularly timely because of the possible renewed interest in nuclear reactor siting for a new generation of nuclear reactors. The certification and other prescriptive requirements of H.R. 1022 would delay those safety regulations and create a situation where industry will not be able to move forward on important safety regulations which will benefit not only consumers and environmental groups, but also American industry. The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimated lead-based paint regulations being promulgated to address risks from childhood lead poisoning in Government-owned and Government-assisted housing would be delayed by 2 to 3 years. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed regulations pursuant to a requirement of law enacted by this Congress to provide improved protection against head impacts in the interior of cars and light duty trucks. The estimates of the agency is that, for each year of delay, 1,000 lives will be lost and 600 injuries will occur. Mr. Chairman, there are literally thousands of other examples of delay of important health and safety standards that will come to light as this legislation moves forward. And the delay of deregulatory actions which could result from the passage of H.R. 1022 will be substantial and costly to the American economy. The unknown and unintended consequences caused by the hurried consideration of this legislation will emerge for Members in embarrassing and unwanted ways in weeks and months ahead. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. I urge them to support the substitute which will be offered, and I urge them to adopt the narrower amendments which will be offered to eliminate wrongful, mischievous and evil consequences of different parts of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, the claims of bipartisanship are extraordinary here. And they are completely unfounded. Mr. Speaker, there is a wonderful story I told my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], at the Committee on Rules about a stew which was abominable in taste and appearance. The customer said, ``This is horrible. I want to talk to the cook.'' The cook came out and he said, ``What kind of stew is it?'' The cook said, ``It is one-horse, one-rabbit stew.'' The guy said, ``that is remarkable. What is the recipe?'' He said, ``Very simple. Equal parts, one horse, one rabbit.'' That is the kind of bipartisanship you are seeing today. Frankly, I would be ashamed to present this bill to the House of Representatives. The rule does little to rectify the abuses and the failures that have taken place procedurally with regard to the presentation of this legislation. First of all, the inadequate hearings; second of all, inadequate notice; third of all, total inability for the people to understand what is in it. Next, total misunderstanding on the part of my colleagues over here on the other side of the aisle as to what this legislation does or how it is going to work or what its impact is going to be. This legislation drips unintended and unforeseen consequences. No one here knows or understands what are going to be the consequences of this legislation. The process that we are embarked upon is bottomed on a careless, sloppy, slovenly, partisan and irresponsible legislative process. It is done in a way which has precluded intelligent participation on the part of all the Members. I think the greatest complaint that the people of the United States are going to have with this particular piece of legislation when they have had a chance to observe what has happened is the fact that they have never been brought into the process. The legislation we have before us was never the subject of hearings, there has been no open discussion amongst the Members. What has happened is that the chairmen of the two committees, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], have had a series of meetings somewhere, where they have quietly, without attention or notice to any individual, come up with changes to the bill. Now, ostensibly these changes would correct abuses which my colleagues found. But they never consulted with anybody about what the abuses were. And they never consulted with the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle as to what were the failures or the defects in this legislation. Now, the art of Federal regulation is really a constitutional exercise. It is something which is required to meet both the requirements of statutes as set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act, which is actually a codification of the constitutional requirements of due process, and the provisions of the Constitution, which sets forth the right of every American to be heard in connection with the regulatory processes of this Government. It is interesting to note that no consideration has been given as to whether the affected regulations are good or bad, whether they need to be adopted or whether they do not, whether there is, in fact, an emergency; whether, in fact, there is some urgent need for the legislation from the standpoint of consumers or environmentalists; or from the standpoint of the American business community. The moratorium passed last week is going to preclude the adoption of many regulations which are desperately needed by American business. One of the interesting things it would probably do is preclude the sale of about $6.9 billion in licenses to the American telecommunications industry, something which is of great urgency to in the field of the telecommunications but elsewhere, is heavily dependent. My colleagues over there have never paid appreciable heed to that and were probably vastly surprised on this point the other day when considering the same question. Similarly, this legislation today has the potential for preventing the duck season from going forward in the fall. And to deal with other important matters of public business where American industry desperately needs relief from regulations now in place or where it needs regulations which would permit it to better compete around the world. I would think that if we are to adopt a rule today, we ought at least not kid ourselves. We ought not tell ourselves, nor should we tell the American people, that this legislation has been heard, that its authors know what it does or that the Committee on Rules, in putting it on the floor, is honoring the practices and tradition which make for responsible and careful legislation that does not carry dangerous future surprises for the American people.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt-Payne amendment. It is a necessary and important piece of amendatory legislation. This bill is going to have some surprising effects, many harmful, and many which will surprise those who support it. I refer specifically to the situation with regard to FCC regulations which govern the behavior of the entirety of the telecommunications industry. I would point out to my colleagues that the amendment would prevent the suspension of a series of important regulations relating to the issuance of new licenses for operations of portions of the radio spectrum to assist the growth of our telecommunications industry. I would tell my colleagues if these regulations are suspended, serious consequences occur. First of all, American industry is delayed in getting into the new telecommunications services. American business and consumers are hurt by that action. Revenues are lost both to providers of service and to users of telecommunication services. Beyond that, it will preclude the taxpayers from benefiting from the competitive bidding procedures established by the Congress in the 1993 reconciliation bill. The Spratt-Payne amendment ameliorates to a large degree these deficiencies. It exempts from the sweeping scope of this legislation 3 important FCC regulations that create business opportunities and that protect the public interest. bring important revenue into the Federal Treasury. The amendment also provides an exception for regulations issued last November that created the Personal Communications Services, the PCS's. These regulations establish geographic areas that would be covered by PCS licenses. They establish the bandwidth and other circumstances associated with the behavior of licensees. The regulations establish the basis for companies to bid for licenses at auction. In December, on the 5th day, the FCC commenced to auction the PCS licenses. This auction is still going on today. As of the close of business last night, bids totaling $6.3 billion had been logged into the FCC computers. When the three pioneer preference licenses are factored in, the total amount in FCC computers is $6.9 billion that would come to the taxpayers if the FCC is not precluded from including those revenues in those regulations because of the enactment of this, quite frankly, silly piece of legislation. What will happen to these bids if the regulations that govern the licenses are suspended? Will the bidders such as AT&T or Pacific Telesis or any other bidders keep bidding? Will they continue to make payments to the Treasury hoping that the regulations will ultimately be permitted to take place? Another regulation that the Spratt-Payne amendment would exempt from the allocation or, rather, from the provisions of this legislation, are allocations of 50 megahertz of radio spectrum the Federal Government has transferred to the FCC for new uses, something that the American manufacturing and telecommunications industry desperately needs. Potential users of these frequencies are police, fire, public safety users of the spectrum in our largest cities. There is a critical shortage of this spectrum. I urge my colleagues to reject the language of the bill and to adopt the Spratt-Payne amendment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today in recognition of the 75th anniversary of one of this Nation's most unique and venerable political institutions--the League of Women Voters. Founded in 1920, 6 months prior to passage of the 19th amendment, the League of Women Voters is dedicated to furthering the active and informed participation by citizens in the democratic process. Today, the League of Women Voters boasts more than 1,100 chapters and 150,000 members, men and women. The hallmark of this nonpartisan organization, which does not support political parties or their candidates, is its grassroots approach to action. Official policy positions advocated by the league are based upon the collective ideas and opinions of its members. In addition, individual chapters consistently put forward innovative community-based strategies to encourage citizen participation at the local level. As we look back on many of the most important legislative accomplishments of the past 75 years, it is clear that the involvement of the League of Women Voters has had a lasting impact. Individuals such as Eleanor Roosevelt, who was a very active member of the New York League, have fought on countless occasions for the enactment of measures to improve working conditions for the American worker; ensure that our children are well fed and properly educated; guarantee equal rights for all; strengthen our health care system; and protect our environment for this and future generations. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in honoring this exceptional organization committed to responsible citizenship. By encouraging the enlightened debate of vital national, State, and local issues, the League of Women Voters has contributed greatly to the representative system of government envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I express great affection and respect for my friend.