John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would observe to you, there is no other way I could get the floor to discuss something which is going to happen on Monday next, on which there has been no notice, on which there has been no opportunity for hearings, which is significantly going to change one of the rules of the House.

Mr. DINGELL. Then if the gentleman will be permitted to yield to me, I will withdraw my reservation, because my desire is to be cooperative.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like the attention both of the distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules, for whom I have the greatest affection, I wish to inform the distinguished majority leader. I note that on Monday the scheduling is House Resolution 47 clarifying what committee hearings are to be scheduled, is up under open rule; is that correct?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as the House continues to debate H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, I think it is important that we consider some of the insights discussed in an article which appeared in the Washington Post on January 22. I commend this article to my colleagues and hope that reflection on the facts will yield a more common sense mandates relief bill. [From the Washington Post, January 22, 1995] Governors Bite Helping Hand in Mandates Fight--Federal Payments, Breaks On Taxes Subsidize States (By Dan Morgan) California Gov. Pete Wilson (R) has scored political points with voters and fellow governors by blasting the federal government for making his state pay the medical, educational and correctional costs of illegal immigrants--who he says are in California only because of the failure of federal immigration policy. Wilson contends, Washington should pick up the bill. But when it comes to paying California's 10 percent share of the costs of rebuilding public facilities after the 1994 Los Angeles earthquake, Wilson is the deadbeat. California voters in June defeated a ballot initiative to raise the money. Wilson, who promised to cut state taxes despite a budget deficit, owes Washington $90 million and has yet to say how he will come up with the money. The federal government, by contrast, has shelled out or obligated nearly $1.2 billion of $2.8 billion promised for repairs of facilities from buildings to sewer lines, and Wilson is seeking another $500 million in federal relief as a result of the recent mudslides and floods in the state. Such broad-based federal assistance to every state represents the other side of the debate about the financial burdens the federal government places on states, counties and cities. While governors and the Republican majority in Congress press for legislation that will make it more difficult for Congress to impose rules and regulations that cost local jurisdictions money, local governments continue to take for granted enormous federal subsidies and benefits. Federal grants to state and local government this year will total $230 billion, and will account for nearly a fifth of state budgets. The payments include the $5 million allocated to the ``distance learning and medical link program'' benefiting rural communities and the $89 billion it pays out under Medicaid for the medical care, rehabilitation and nursing home bills of poor or, elderly state residents. The tax exemption of state and municipal bonds, and the deductibility of most state and local taxes under federal income tax law will be worth another $68.9 billion in 1995, according to the Office of Management and Budget. By issuing bonds on which interest payments are exempt from federal taxes, local jurisdictions can pay less interest to borrowers than if the income were taxed. Allowing taxpayers to deduct local income and property taxes make it easier for cities, states and counties to raise revenues. In addition, the federal government subsidizes local governments in dozens of hidden ways, such as allowing states to shift parts of existing health programs into Medicaid, qualifying them for federal matching funds. This is the part of the story that Democrats and some Republicans in Congress say is not getting through in the debate over unfunded mandates, which are federal requirements that states take certain actions but for which the federal government provides no money. ``The issue of unfunded mandates is very legitimate,'' said Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), ranking member of the House appropriations Committee. ``But you have to distinguish between what's legitimate and what isn't.'' Obey said it was proper for states such as California, Florida, Texas and New York to demand the federal government do more to defray the financial impact of refugees and illegal immigrants. In fact, the Justice Department has begun expediting payments of $33.4 million to California, and smaller amounts to six other states, to help cover costs of imprisoning illegal immigrants, the Los Angeles Times reported in October. But Obey said Wilson ``ought to be ashamed of himself coming here with his hand out for federal aid because [flood victims in his state are suffering the consequences of decisions by local zoning and building authorities.'' Obey, who said he was fighting mad about California's slowness in coming up with its share of earthquake money, said this week he will introduce legislation that would replace the current practice of direct federal aid for disasters with a private insurance plan into which states would contribute their own money, with premiums based on a risk assessment. Some legislators say the implications for local jurisdictions of the GOP-backed constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget by 2002 are far more dire than whatever relief a reduction in unfunded mandates might provide. ``To think, as many Republicans do, that the federal government can just get out of all of this--nothing in health care, nothing in welfare, nothing in highways and let the states and locals go off on their own--that's crazy. You pass a balanced budget amendment, let me tell you, there won't be any flood aid anymore and there won't be any earthquake aid. Maybe that's what we want to do,'' House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said recently. If Congress does pass a balanced budget amendment and begins implementing it with deep spending cuts, states would be hard pressed to maintain the same level of services without increasing taxes substantially, according to data published in the current issue of Newsweek. Louisiana, home state of Rep. Bob Livingston (R), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, would have to raise its taxes by 27.8 percent to keep up. Other poor states such as Mississippi and Tennessee would not be far behind. Richer states, including Maryland and Virginia, would feel relatively little effect. ``We as a nation collectively decide to achieve a certain objective, which can be paid for at the national level or in some combination of the state and local level,'' said Robert D. Reischauer, director of the Congressional Budget Office. The real issue, he added, is whether the federal government is imposing obligations on local jurisdictions which they would choose not to provide on their own. In the case of laws requiring local jurisdictions to meet certain environmental, safety or health standards, the federal government has often backed up its mandates with large sums of money covering most, if not all, of the costs. Since passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972, the federal government has spent more than $60 billion on local water and sewer projects. More recently, the federal crime bill passed last year calls for the federal government to spend billions over six years to pay for hiring 100,000 new police officers and building more prisons. Although governors have been complaining about rising costs of the Medicaid health program for the poor, the federal government pays nearly 60 percent of the overall costs and, in the cases of poor states, as much as 79 percent. Beginning in the late 1980s, states were confronted by slackening tax revenues and recession-driven demands on social services. Many responded not by tightening belts but by using a loophole in Medicaid rules to extract billions of additional federal Medicaid dollars from Washington. Federal Medicaid payments to states under an obscure program that subsidizes hospitals treating large numbers of low-income patients went from $300 million in 1989 to $10.8 billion in 1992, while there was little increase in state money going into health care. New Hampshire, for example, used the no-strings-attached federal money to prop up the state budget and avoid imposing new taxes. An August General Accounting Office report concluded some states ``used illusory approaches to shift the costs of the Medicaid program to the federal government.'' Many other benefits the states receive from the federal government are not readily apparent, but are well known to governors and county executives. For example, the federal government returns half of the revenues it receives from the sale of minerals, timber and other commodities on public lands--a total of $1.3 billion a year--to states, counties and local road and school districts. Portions of what is left is allocated to fighting fires, killing predators and eradicating troublesome weeds such as the creosote bush. People should not be ``slapping [Washington] with one hand while they have the other hand out,'' a House Democratic congressional aide said.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this resolution has no more meaning and no more use than side pockets on a cow. This is a fraud. This is a sham. My Republican colleagues are suddenly concerned that the senior citizens have discovered that nowhere in this amendment to the Constitution which they are pushing is there any protection for senior citizens on Social Security. So all of a sudden they come forward with this wonderful document, but this document means nothing. It has no more significance than the soup made from the shadow of a pigeon which stood in place yesterday. It affords no protection to the senior citizens of this country whatsoever. It can be ignored at any time the Congress chooses. It has no enacting clause. It has no force and effect on the rules of the House or Senate. It has no constitutional meaning, it is absolutely nothing, it is a sham, it is a fraud, it is nothing. I will tell my Republican colleagues: You can run but you cannot hide. And, you assuredly cannot hide behind this nonsensical piece of hooey.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this debate for several days. One of the things that has become increasingly clear to me as I rise in support of the amendment is the failure to follow the orderly rules and procedures of this House, the failure to have hearings on this legislation, the excessive haste in which this matter is brought to the floor, the unwillingness of my colleagues on this side of the aisle to consider amendments, or indeed, to have a fair analysis made on the House floor of what this legislation in fact does to a wide spectrum of laws enacted by this Congress by overwhelming votes. This makes a prophet and a correct prophet of my colleague on this side of the aisle who made the observation if we were to adopt the amendments on the environment, on health, on crime, on the problems of the aged, on the problems of the young, on clean water, on air, on health, that there would be no point in passing this bill. I think that Member has pointed very sagely the course that should be taken here. Here we are finding that because of inattention in the processing of this legislation in committee, failure to have hearings, failure to get testimony of witnesses and experts, failure to properly analyze, we now are jeopardizing one of the provisions of the crime bill in the last Congress which was enthusiastically supported by all. That is, a register of serious criminals who have engaged in sexual activities prohibited by law against innocent and defenseless women and children. That leaves us in position to add another reason for voting against this bill. What are the other defects that this debate has shown? The defects that this debate has shown are that the unfunded mandates in the area of clean air which were adopted at the request of all the governors and all the States and local units of government who came forward and demanded that we follow the traditional pattern and practice that we have had in this country, whereby the Federal Government lays down standards and the States enforce those standards on clean air, to protect people in other States, to protect the health and the well- being of all the people, and to follow the practice that was set up back in the 1950's before the governors came in and they said we want the Federal Government to lay down standards, so that we can then enforce them by delegation of that responsibility. The governors were concerned because the Federal Government had all of a sudden realized that if you flush a toilet in Minneapolis, or Kansas City, or Denver or in other places, that that is going to impact somebody in New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi River. And here is where we begin to understand that we had to do things like this so that we could keep intact the Federal system. I never heard a word of complaint from governors when we were passing the Clean Air Act or any of the drinking water legislation or any of the clean water legislation, that we were imposing unfair and improper burdens upon them. They all came in and they said, ``You are doing something which is necessary for the protection of the environment and to protect the citizens in one State against wrongdoings in another place.'' All of a sudden we have come to this great sensitivity on unfunded mandates on the States. We are not paying heed to the fact that the Federal Government gives the States about $750 billion a year and that in many of the programs about which we are hearing complaints, that there are major grants to States and local units of government. States are going to get large sums of money for construction of prisons under the crime bill. Local units of government are going to get large sums of money to hire police. We never hear a word about that. But we hear great complaints about the unfunded mandates that are going to be imposed. What and why? To do something that every citizen in this country except the criminals want to be done, and, that is, to address the problems of not knowing who these people are that travel about committing crimes in a repetitive fashion. These are repeaters. These are serial killers, serial rapists. All we want to do is know who they are. The mandate killing that we are doing here would not only prevent the administration from promulgating the regulations but would afford those criminal wrongdoers the opportunity to persist and to defend themselves with a new procedural defense. I say the amendment is a good one, the bill is a bad one. Vote against the bill. Vote for the amendment.

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, since late in 1993, State and local government officials have trumpeted a call for Congress to enact legislation to curb the imposition of so-called unfunded mandates on State and local governments, and to ensure that Federal taxpayer funds pay the costs of complying with such mandates, both large and small. It is worth reviewing some history and some examples. In the 1970's, there was a considerable public outcry by buyers of used motor vehicles that odometer readings, which consumers use not reflect the true mileage. Unscrupulous sellers often turned the odometer back by thousands of miles and States did not uniformly police this fraud. Under the commerce clause of the Constitution, the Congress enacted odometer fraud legislation that imposed duties on the States in the transfer of vehicle titles. Most States complied immediately, though California only recently complied. But all recognized that there was a national need the States were not filing. Similarly, in the late sixties and early seventies, the public was outraged by oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and Santa Barbara, CA, and by the pollution of our great and small waterways, such as the Great Lakes, the Hudson, the Potomac, the Mississippi, and many more. One waterway in Ohio caught fire from pollution. Again, it was recognized that this was an interstate problem. National standards were needed so as not to create pollution havens in some States, to the detriment of others. Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which included mandates on State and local governments, some of which were unfunded. The result has been positive, and clearly the public is now enjoying cleaner waterways. Last year, as part of the crime bill, Congress heard the concerns of women who were being stalked because of easy access to motor vehicle records that reveal the addresses of threatened women. To address this problem, Congress enacted the Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994, patterned after the odometer law with duties imposed on the States. It too is an unfunded mandate. It was needed because all the States were not adequately addressing this serious threat to women. Another law cited as an unfunded Federal mandate is the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Congress passed that law in October 1990, by a vote of 401-25 with the support of such prominent Republicans as the Speaker, the Rules Committee chairman, the Appropriations Committee chairman, and many others. The 1990 amendments culminated a struggle started in 1981 by the Reagan administration. Many of the provisions were recommended by the State and local air administrators with the support of the National Governors Association, mayors, and other local officials. In fact, on December 15, 1989, the Governor of Wisconsin, Tommy G. Thompson, wrote to me saying: I strongly support Congress' efforts to pass Amendments to the Clean Air Act which will improve air quality throughout the Nation. Governor Thompson made several recommendations for change, but he never mentioned a concern about the bill's mandate. In fact, he said: Congress should make EPA promulgation of Federal Implementation Plans mandatory when a State fails in its State plan development and delete the provisions from H.R. 3030 which would render all previous Federal Implementation Plan agreements moot. The Governor noted that Wisconsin had turned to the courts to force a cleanup in Illinois and Indiana and feared that without this authority, these States would shirk their duty. Congressman Kim has introduced H.R. 304, along with Congressman Dreier, to prohibit EPA from promulgating a Federal implementation plan in California. In 1989, it was good Republican policy, according to President Bush and Governor Thompson, to impose Federal mandates on State and local governments and on the business sector. Today, the Republican policy is to reverse the Bush-Thompson policy of 1989 for State and local governments, but not the private sector. Today, they want to curb Federal mandates for State and local officials, so, as reported a few days ago, by the Washington Post, the Governors, like Governor Wilson of California, can give tax breaks to their citizens. However, in the case of private business, which generates jobs for taxpayers, they merely want to provide information on the cost of Federal mandates on the private sector. In 1989, the Republican Governors did not want to offend environmentalists. They supported all kinds of mandates, whether funded or not. They wanted to be green and closed their eyes to the costs. Today, they think the public is no longer on the green side. They champion reduced costs and tax reductions, not environmental quality. However, their concern does not extend equally to the private sector. Nor do they explain how environmental quality will be improved--or even just maintained--if mandates only extend to the business community. H.R. 5 is hastily conceived and unfair. It is a political document, not sound public policy. Sure, we must cut costs. Sure, there are mandates that may not be wise, but they affect the private sector as well as State and local governments. We should take more time, hold hearings, fashion a more equitable and sounder bill. Remember, in the case of clean air, State and local governments operate--directly or indirectly--landfills, tunnels, powerplants, airports, vehicles, incinerators, and many other activities that pollute. If they are freed of mandates, who will pick up their slack? Competing private businesses, of course. Now, H.R. 5 ignores these important considerations. Mr. Speaker, its only focus is on costs to State and local governments. It sets up a legislative hurdle to navigate around if future Congresses are to address the national problems I described, without even considering the reasons for a mandate or its need to be implemented. It is, in essence, designed to give States and local governments veto power over congressional action in either House. The only criterion is costs to these governments. The needs of the consumer or general taxpayer, and the benefits to society, are subsumed. Those who favor H.R. 5 are apparently oblivious to the very negative consequences of trying this important legislation to a partisan document. Congress owes every government, every business, and every taxpayer a better piece of legislation than a political plank which cannot easily, or quickly, be translated into the public interest.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a part of a pattern which is rapidly becoming clear to all. We are hearing now on the floor legislation which has not been properly considered in the committees, because of an extraordinary level of haste on the part of all who are together in bringing these matters to the floor. The amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns] deserves support. The bill as it is drawn, again upon which no hearings have been held, would simply require that the Federal Government would pay States and municipal units of government for cleaning up their pollution which flowed across the boundary lines of States or municipalities into other States. For example, California. California would be paid under this for cleaning up its pollution which affects people in Arizona, New Mexico, in Oregon, and other adjacent States. In New York, New York has been complaining for a long time about the fact that they are affected by acid rain and sulfur emissions from States in the Midwest. Pennsylvania, from which enormous amounts of pollutants flow into the State of New Jersey, would be paid under this because of Federal requirements compelling it to clean up. The amendment which we have here simply recognizes a number of important facts. The first is that the Governors of the several States over the years have suggested and insisted to the Congress that this be the practice under which we handled our environmental laws, that we set up Federal standards, and then allow and require the States to apply those standards. Nothing is wrong with that. And indeed all we are compelling is the States and the local units of government to do that which the ordinary duties of citizenship require. We have prevented the bidding of one State against another for industry and jobs and opportunity by cutting corners on environment, by establishing Federal standards. This amendment says that you do not have to have the Federal Government pay a State for doing that which it should. I have a letter which I will insert later into my remarks from the Governor of Wisconsin pointing out this same problem. I would remind my colleagues that the problem continues to exist today, that the western part of Michigan, a clean air area, is afflicted by the pollution which is coming from Gary and Chicago and from Wisconsin, from States just across the lake. This amendment says that the Federal Government may protect the afflicted, may address the problems of the transfer across State borders of pollutants to water, groundwater, to air, or to the environment from one State to another. I believe that is good policy. Failure to adopt this amendment assures that we will have to readdress this amendment again under the same kinds of irresponsible pressure that we confront today; that we will have to try to undo something which has totally rent the fabric of cooperation which we have built since the 1950's on clean air and clean water; and the protections we have had for the environmental protections of the people of this country. It is not too much to expect that States will clean up their mess without being paid by the Federal Government. We do not require that the Federal Government compensate industry for that kind of action. Why is it that we would then say a State may set up a municipal waste dump, a hazardous waste dump, an electrical utility generating system, or a nuclear facility, without requiring the Federal Government to pay for them to take the steps that they should take simply as good citizens, and as we would impose on any ordinary person, or as we would impose upon any corporation? I see over there on that side of the aisle many who were supporters of the Clean Air Act in times past. They would come to me and say ``Dingel, why don't you support a stronger piece of legislation in the Committee on Energy and Commerce?'' I said because I want to be careful about how we proceed. I want to be sure as we go through this legislation, that we are not going to impose excessive or unwise burdens that are going to impair the competitiveness or the well-being of this country or its industries. But to take the opposite step and say now we are going to compel the Federal Government to pay for this kind of irresponsible conduct on cleanup, is unwise, unnecessary, and establishes a dangerous precedent. Governor Tommy G. Thompson, State of Wisconsin, December 15, 1989. Hon. John Dingell, Chair, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Dingell: I strongly support Congress' efforts to pass Amendments to the Clean Air Act which will improve air quality throughout the nation. However, I have some concerns about the impact of some of the proposed Clean Air Act provisions currently before Congress on Wisconsin. Achieving equity and fair treatment for Wisconsin is my primary concern. This underlies many of the concerns I have with H.R. 3030. For example: 1. Proposals regarding measures to attain ambient air standards do not take into account ozone and volatile organic compound transported into Wisconsin from out of state; 2. Toxic substances provisions would, in effect, ``penalize'' our state for moving ahead with state-mandated control strategies; and 3. Acid rain reduction proposals do not consider Wisconsin's early, independent and substantial acid rain controls. prepared by the Wisconsin Inter-Agency Clean Air Act Working Group which more fully describes my concerns, the potential impacts of these provisions on Wisconsin, and recommendations for changes. They are as follows: i. attainment of ambient air standards 1. Congress should formally establish a Lake Michigan Airshed Interstate Transport Commission and require EPA to abide by strategies unanimously agreed by Interstate Transport Commissions. 2. Congress should make EPA promulgation of Federal Implementation Plans mandatory when a state fails in its state plan development and delete the provisions from HR 3030 which would render all previous Federal Implementation Plan agreements moot. 3. Congress should make allowances in mandated ozone reduction requirements for downwind nonattainment areas, such as Southeastern Wisconsin, which are being impacted by transport from more severe upwind areas, such as Illinois. 4. Congress should adopt the Senate version of the volatile organic compound reduction requirements through the year 2001. Congress should also discontinue the annual percent reduction requirements after the year 2001. Instead, based on specific area needs, they should establish emission reduction requirements through the state implementation process. 5. Congress should adopt the Waxman/Dingell compromise language which sets up a two phase tailpipe standard and provides for a 2003 revision based on technical and economic reasonableness. Congress should also adopt provisions for full useful-life emissions control equipment warranties and strengthened new vehicle certification test procedures for evaporative emissions. ii. toxics provisions 1. HR 3030 should be amended to expand the access to alternate emission limits to sources previously required to reduce hazardous emissions under state or local mandate as well as those who voluntarily reduce emissions. 2. HR 3030 should be consistent with the Council of Great Lakes governors Substances Control Agreement. In particular, the listing criteria should be expanded to include the impacts of pollutants on plant and animal life, in addition to human health impacts. iii. acid rain provisions 1. Congress should not adopt provisions which would require cost-sharing or emission taxes by all states to finance clean up in some states. 2. HR 3030 needs to recognize and make allowances for those utilities which had reduced SO2 emissions far below 1.2 pounds SO2 per MMBTU (British Thermal Unit) by 1985. The White House has indicated they are considering changes to address this issue, while maintaining a permanent emissions cap. 3. Provisions on repowering should be broadened to include non-pulverized coal boilers (e.g., cyclone boilers). The White House has indicated they will seek to correct this error before enactment. 4. Language should be added to HR 3030 to provide incentives, including emission allowances, or use of alternate fuels (such as wood), energy conservation, and renewable energy sources as methods to reduce sulfur dioxide and other air emissions, as long as they do not result in a permanent increase in allowable emissions. 5. HR 3030 should clearly delineate the extent to which industrial sources, independent power producers and co- generators are included. Emission restrictions for non- utility sources (if any) should only be considered if cost- effective as compared to other reduction alternatives. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact any of the state agency personnel listed in the enclosed report or fee free to contact Mary Sheehy in my Washington office at 202/624-5870. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Tommy G. Thompson, Governor.

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. I appreciate the Chair recognizing me. I would like to continue with my parliamentary inquiry. I hope the Chair will have the goodness to let me complete my inquiry before I am ruled out of order and required again to take my seat. [[Page H332]] My question is: What is now the status of the original ruling by the previous occupant of the chair in connection with the matter of the 1- minutes yesterday and the remarks of the gentlewoman from Florida?

Mr. DINGELL. I would like to persist in my parliamentary inquiry. Or that the rulings of the Chair of yesterday are going to be reexamined?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman, the question has not been responded to. I want to thank the Chair for his comments. I would like to restate my parliamentary inquiry. The question to which I would appreciate the Chair addressing his attention is: Yesterday the words of the Speaker were definitively put. The House acted upon the words of the Speaker. The Members on this side of the aisle voted unanimously to take down the words and to take other actions against the gentlewoman who at that time held the well. The Chair has noted, I believe correctly, as has the gentleman from Massachusetts, that the Record was changed overnight to change the words of the then-presiding officer of this body. The words----

Mr. DINGELL. May I complete my parliamentary inquiry, please, Mr. Speaker? The Chair made certain rulings; precedents were quoted; new precedents were created. Those new precedents which were created have defined again the rights of all Members of this body. I am asking whether now the Chair is changing the precedents of the House, whether the change of the words indicates a change of the precedents of the House. What are the rights of the Members of this body with regard to rulings of the Chair? The Chair made a ruling yesterday. That ruling and matters relative to it including the words of the Speaker in connection with those words have now been changed.

Mr. DINGELL. I have not completed my parliamentary inquiry. I ask to complete my parliamentary inquiry. Am I going to be permitted to complete this or not?

Mr. DINGELL. I am asking that I be permitted to complete my parliamentary inquiry and get a ruling from the Chair, unless the Chair chooses not to respond.

Mr. DINGELL. No, the Chair has not. Because you have not ruled on my parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, well then I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DINGELL. I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DINGELL. Am I going to be permitted to ask a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. DINGELL. Can you inform this Member and the House of what the meaning of the reexamination is? You are informing the House that the issue is going to be reexamined. Yesterday the Speaker then presiding made a ruling which now appears in the precedents of the House. It interpreted the precedents of the House. It related to the rights, the behaviors, the dignities of the Members, and it dictated the future course of conduct of Members of this body. Is the Chair informing us that the rulings of the Chair yesterday stand, that the rulings of the Chair yesterday have been changed without approval by the House?

Mr. DINGELL. Have they been changed?

Mr. DINGELL. May I complete my parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. DINGELL. May I complete my parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, as example of bad procedure, we are asked to consider a bill that nobody in this Chamber knows, those consequences cannot be prophesied, because no hearings have been held. What is this bill going to affect? It is going to affect the clean air laws, going to affect the clean water laws, going to affect the drinking water laws, going to affect every environmental statute, going to affect all the health and welfare statutes of this country. Now, everybody would think that these poor unfortunate State and local governments have not gotten any money from the Federal Government. Look at the amount of money that the Federal Government gives to State and local units of government, something like $750 billion a year. We give them that. Now, what is this going to do? It is going to make it harder to have real meaningful standards on clean air, on drinking water. I sent to my good friend, the gentleman from California, as he knows, a copy of his remarks on the Clean Air Act in which he urged that we pass that legislation. I warned him it went too far. It is the law now. It protects people in one State from the behavior of people in another, and the Drinking Water Act, if you live in New Orleans and somebody flushes the toilet in Minneapolis or Kansas City or in Sioux City or any other place upstream, they are going to enjoy what you had for dinner last night within a matter of a few weeks. That is the reason we have a Federal law to deal with these problems that cannot be dealt with by the States. Now, beyond that, there are a few other little concerns we ought to have here. States cannot protect their constituents and their citizens from the [[Page H361]] misbehavior in other States. That is again why we pass these laws. The Governors demanded it years ago when we first considered the Clean Air Act and we first considered the Clean Water Act, that we passed Federal standards and allow the States to enforce them, and the money to enforce those programs was canceled by the administration of Mr. Reagan, the patrol saint of this side of the aisle.