John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against this budget resolution. This budget provides $105.7 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, above the $1.9 trillion already bestowed upon them since 2001. This additional fiscal irresponsibility in the face of huge deficits is ample reason to oppose the resolution. But this resolution goes further--it takes from the poor to give to the rich by shredding our healthcare safety net. This resolution will result in $10 billion in cuts to Medicaid, and possibly more because the instruction to the Committee on Energy and Commerce is for $14.7 billion, and the Committee might cut even more. I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to consider every dollar we spend in these times of high deficits. This is exactly why our scarce resources should go to the most vulnerable among us. Medicaid provides healthcare to more than 52 million of the sickest and poorest Americans, including 25 million children, 14 million low-income adults (the majority of whom work), five million low-income seniors, and eight million individuals with disabilities. A bipartisan majority of both the House and Senate have called for no cuts to Medicaid. The National Governors Association opposes the cuts. And nearly 1,000 state organizations and more than 800 national organizations have voiced opposition to these cuts. Medicaid is not the problem. It has done a better job at holding down costs than private insurance by almost half. And Medicaid is absorbing the costs of care not covered by Medicare. These reconciliation instructions will increase the number of uninsured, create job losses in the healthcare sector, and result in payment reductions to doctors and other healthcare providers who care for Medicaid patients. Such cuts will also undermine community health centers that depend so much on Medicaid to survive. We must get our priorities straight. This budget resolution fails to do that. Two days ago, 348 Members said ``no'' to Medicaid cuts in a non-binding motion to instruct. I urge my colleagues to stick to their guns, and vote ``no'' on this budget resolution.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is a tangled web of legal intricacies, which I found to be a muddled attempt to impose specific laws of individual States. After a careful reading of the bill, I am forced to rise in opposition to the legislation. H.R. 748 is a two-part bill. The first part makes it a crime for anybody other than a parent to accompany a minor across State lines for an abortion if the minor's State of residence has parental notification laws. We have seen this language, known as the Child Custody Protection Act, in past Congresses and I have hesitantly voted in favor of it. I say hesitantly because I have always been concerned that: the bill violates the constitutional principles of federalism; there are no exceptions for another responsible adult family member to accompany the minor; and the language is so broad that it would allow a cab or bus driver to be prosecuted. You are probably wondering, Mr. Chairman, why I voted for the bill even with these concerns. Well, as a parent, I feel strongly that parents should be involved in major decisions concerning the health and well-being of their children. The most knowledgeable resource regarding the minor's medical history is often their parent. Moreover, as is the case with any medical procedure, it is important that someone in the household be aware of the situation should there be side effects. Thus, I voted to move the process forward with the hope that my concerns would be addressed before the final legislation was sent to the President for signature. This did not happen because the Senate has never acted on the legislation. The second part of the bill is new and would hold a doctor criminally liable for performing an abortion on a minor from another State. This, Mr. Speaker, is where the web gets really tangled. You see, in some cases, the minor would have to comply with the laws of two States, and in all cases, the doctor would have to get consent from the parent in person and a mandatory 24-hour waiting period would be instituted. Probably the most striking scenario would be a minor who traveled between States with no parental consent law. In this case, the doctor would have to obtain consent in person from the parent, the mandatory 24-hour waiting period would be instituted, and in this specific case there would be no judicial bypass option. This creates quite a burden on doctors, who would be required to have a near-encyclopedic knowledge of the parental involvement laws in each of the 50 States, their specific requirements and their judicial procedures. Some States have strict parental consent laws, some have parental consent laws with reasonable bypass mechanisms, and some States have no consent laws at all. If this bill passes, we are saying to some States, ``your law is good.'' To others we are saying, ``your law is OK, but it is not quite good enough.'' And to still other States we are saying, ``your law, or lack thereof, is wholly inadequate.'' This is no way to legislate in our federalist system. While reading over the bill, Mr. Chairman, I tried to think of what precedent there is for this kind of law. It took awhile, but the only law I could come up with was the Fugitive Slave Act. Going back to laws like this, Mr. Chairman, is not something this Congress should even consider. Mr. Chairman, I often wonder why we do not focus more of our effort on preventing unwanted pregnancies. Reducing the number of abortions performed in this country is certainly a goal we can all agree on and strive for. As such, I would ask that all of my colleagues to come to the table to discuss the ways we can further this mutual goal. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Scott and Jackson-Lee amendments and no on the underlying bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct, and I observe that this motion instructs the conferees to recede to the Senate position. Instead of Medicaid cuts, a nonpartisan, independently appointed commission would be instructed to come up with improvements in the program. That is exactly what the gentleman from Iowa suggests. Now, let us look. There is money here to make a better use of public funds. The MEDPAC, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, observed that we overpay the HMOs by $20 billion. That happens to be just about exactly the amount of the cut that we are talking about here. Every Governor in the United States is in favor of this motion. Medicaid is critically important to more than 50 million Americans. It provides health care for 1 in 4 children. It is a lifeline for the elderly and for individuals with disabilities. It pays for long-term care, and it helps those who have had the misfortune of becoming ill and needing help in their basic activities of daily living. The proposed cuts in the program would cause undue harm to millions of our most vulnerable Americans. If a $10 billion cut were enacted, my home State alone stands to lose more than a quarter of a billion dollars over the next 5 years. I would tell the gentleman from Iowa, he better look to see what happens to his State. A bipartisan majority of both the House and Senate oppose cuts in this program. Nearly 1,000 State organizations and more than 800 national organizations have voiced strong opposition to this. The problem is not Medicaid. It has done a better job in holding down costs than has private insurance. Medicaid is absorbing the costs of care not covered under Medicare. An independent look at Medicaid may show that there is a better solution, but the better solution does not involve blindly cutting monies now so desperately important to people of this kind and so urgent for the States.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, my good Republican colleagues and friends are seeing something that they made possible today. Years ago, in 1995, they passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. They should recognize this. They said how this was going to stop the imposition of unfunded mandates upon communities and States. That is exactly what the amendment does. If they had been fair and given this a decent rule, then we would have been able to debate these in a proper fashion and they would not be complaining about surprise. But having said this, there are some 80 lawsuits that are going to be able to go forward. The judge had this to say about these kinds of lawsuits, and, by the way, they are in New York and New Hampshire: ``Innocent water providers and, ultimately, innocent water users should not be denied relief from the contamination of their water supply if the defendants breached a duty to avoid an unreasonable risk from their products.'' This bill is an immunity bath for MBTE manufacturers and for the refineries. That is wrong. It should be possible for there to be responsibility where the polluters pay, and that is exactly what this amendment allows. It leaves ethyl alcohol and other renewables okay, but it removes MBTE from the liability waiver. April 5, 2005. Oppose the MTBE Liability Waiver Dear Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee: the undersigned organizations--representing thousands of mayors, city council members, county officials, towns and townships, drinking water systems and public works departments--reiterate our strong opposition to providing product liability immunity to the producers of MTBE. The liability waiver amounts to a massive unfunded mandate on local governments and citizens. MTBE producers, according to documents in recent litigation, put this contaminant into commerce knowing it could contaminate drinking water supplies. Under the MTBE product liability waiver, these producers would be rendered unaccountable. Thousands of water sources have been contaminated, and as MTBE spreads, more and more communities will be forced to shut down wells or undertake a costly cleanup program. Here are some important facts to remember. 1. MTBE was never mandated, and Congress is not obligated to provide the producers ``safe harbor.'' And, regardless, the producers put MTBE into gasoline well before the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and with knowledge of its environmental dangers. 2. One estimate by experts puts the cleanup cost in excess of $29 billion. 3. The liability waiver would retroactively block hundreds of communities' legitimate suits that have been filed already and could preempt hundreds more, leaving communities with a multi-billion dollar unfunded mandate from Congress. 4. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank fund was not intended to address the overwhelming amount of contamination communities are experiencing. Moreover, taxpayers should not pay for MTBE cleanup. Please oppose the MTBE liability waiver. Sincerely, Tom Cochran, Executive Director, The U.S. Conference of Mayors; Donald J. Borut, Executive Director, National League of Cities; Larry Naake, Executive Director, National Association of Counties; Allen R. Frischkorn Jr., Executive Director, National Association of Towns and Townships; Diane VanDe Hei, Executive Director, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; Jack Hoffbuhr, Executive Director, American Water Works Association; Steve Hall, Executive Director, Association of California Water Agencies; Peter B. King, Executive Director, American Public Works Association; Larry Libeu, President, Western Coalition of Arid States; Thomas F. Donnelly, Executive VP, National Water Resources Association.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lisa Zagaroli, a correspondent with the Detroit News Washington bureau, for winning the Sigma Delta Chi Award from the Society of Professional Journalists for excellence in journalism. Ms. Zagaroli is being recognized for her work on ``Military Menace: Deadly Vehicles,'' a series of stories on the hazards of military vehicles. Ms. Zagaroli's work exposing insufficient training and safety for Army drivers is another fine example of her investigative journalism talents. Her stories in this series uncovered shortcomings in the Army that might have otherwise gone unnoticed in the public, and her efforts deserve recognition. Ms. Zagaroli has been recognized for her excellent work before; this is Lisa's second award from the Society of Professional Journalists. Last year, she was recognized for a series of stories, ``Unsafe Saviors,'' co-written with April Taylor, revealing poor ambulance design and regulation. Ms. Zagaroli, originally from Michigan and known to be a dedicated Spartan fan, has been with the Detroit News for ten years and has covered the Michigan Congressional Delegation extensively. The daughter of first generation Italian immigrants, Lisa frequently travels to Rome and is currently on assignment covering the election of the new pope. She is a talented journalist and deserves this honor. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in commending Lisa Zagaroli for her superb series ``Military Menace: Deadly Vehicles'' and recognizing her for the award she is to receive.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Murphy resolution. I would like to thank my colleagues, Representatives Murphy and Doyle, for offering this resolution today, commemorating the development and the field trials of the Salk polio vaccine 50 years ago. Fifty years ago, Dr. Thomas Francis, Jr. announced from the University of Michigan's Rackham Auditorium words that people around the globe were waiting to hear: the Salk polio vaccine works. With those simple words, eradication efforts began in earnest to rid the world of this terrible disease. Mr. Speaker, in the early 1950s, Dr. Jonas Salk, a postdoctoral student of Dr. Francis' at the University of Michigan, developed a promising vaccine against poliomyelitis in his laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh. In what has been called the largest cooperative effort undertaken in peacetime, the Salk vaccine was tested in the most comprehensive field trials ever conducted. Overseeing those trials was Dr. Francis, Director of the Poliomyelitis Vaccine Evaluation Center and founding chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. Mr. Speaker, the polio field trials were unprecedented in scope and magnitude. Dr. Francis and his team of more than 100 statisticians and epidemiologists tabulated data received from hundreds of public health officials and doctors who participated in the study. The trials involved. 1,830,000 children in 217 areas of the United States, Canada and Finland. No field trial of this scale has been conducted since. This historic event is a source of pride for the University of Michigan and the state of Michigan as a whole. Since that day 50 years ago, polio has been nearly eradicated. In August 2002, there were no confirmed cases reported in the United States, and only 483 confirmed cases of acute poliomyelitis reported to authorities worldwide. I would like to thank Representatives Murphy and Doyle for their work on this resolution and congratulate the University of Michigan and the University of Pittsburgh on the 50th anniversary of the Salk polio vaccine.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, if my colleagues want a replication of Enron and the abuses, the stealing, the dishonesty that hurt pensioners, retirees, shareholders, others in the industry, hundreds and hundreds of ratepayers and hurt the structure of the States in the western United States, then vote against this amendment. This amendment stops self-dealing. This amendment requires that there be repayment of money wrongfully taken. It allows FERC and the SEC to provide the necessary steps that will stop Enrons and others like Enron from doing what Enron did, which caused such desperate hurt to millions of Americans in the western United States. My amendment does go further than anything else being considered. Enron's abuses went further than anyone expected, far beyond, and they shook the entire electric industry. But it also hurt consumers, States, and also retirees and pensioners and shareholders. This amendment will stop that abuse. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I know the amendment is offered with the best of good will. It is nonetheless a bad amendment which is going to cost this country jobs. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. The amendment appears to say that it would only require CAFE to be fixed at 33. In point of fact, it would be required, because of the language in the amendment, to properly go to 36 miles per gallon. If you like driving around in small cars, this will assure that that will be all that you will have. I will point out who opposes it: AFL-CIO, Farm Bureau, United Auto Workers, National Automobile Dealers, and hundreds of consumers who buy comfortable cars which are big enough so that they can take their family around. The amendment would purport to have the agency which would fix fuel economy standards to in fact consider both jobs, safety and other questions like that. In point of fact, there is no requirement. So those requirements, in fact, are not requirements but, rather, an illusion. I would urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. It is opposed by people who want jobs, who are concerned about the economic welfare and well being of the country, and the auto workers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle). (Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I believe that I am entitled to close the debate?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Under the unanimous consent request, I assume, then, that I have offered it; and I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time and continuing my comments, I rejoice that the gentleman has accepted it. I commend him for having done so. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, we have a bad bill. It is represented as being something which is going to save money and increase energy supplies. The Energy Information agency says neither of these cases is true. It is not going to reduce energy prices, but rather will increase the cost of gasoline. Let us look at what our country needs. It needs Congress to pass a real energy bill, not a flawed bill that will hurt the environment, hurt consumers, and cost taxpayers a bundle of money. Democrats have been trying to work with our Republican colleagues to get balanced, sensible legislation, starting with a clean slate in a bipartisan fashion. We have been denied that opportunity. The Republican leadership chose, instead, to push an outdated energy bill which had its origins in the secret Cheney Energy Task Force and was negotiated in secret conference meetings which excluded the Democrats. The administration's own Energy Information Administration analyzed the old bill saying changes to production, consumption, imports, and prices are negligible. It even found, as I noted, that gasoline prices under the bill would increase more than if the bill were not enacted. While the bill will little help our energy independence, it is far from benign. Despite our efforts to overturn the antienvironmental provisions of the bill, it weakens laws such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program that protect the environment and public health. The bill also changes hydroelectric power policies by undercutting safeguards for dam relicensing. It gives power producers more and better rights than States, tribes, and other public entities. It jeopardizes not only fish, but the overall health of our river systems and the recreational activities that they sustain; and it confers, unfairly, rights on people, while not taking the same care of the concern of the citizenry generally. The bill eliminates requirements for public participation and deference to the States in decisions about the siting of electric transmission lines and natural gas facilities. As far as consumers are concerned, it is hard to imagine a better case for increasing consumer protections than the debacle which took place in the West Coast electricity markets in 2000 and 2001. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has determined widespread fraud existed, and there are tapes to prove it; yet this bill gives only cosmetic reforms in law and, in point of fact, repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, which protects consumers and investors. And it does nothing to assure refunds of unjust and unreasonable overcharges. While blackouts cost the consumers $80 billion, this bill holds a sensible reliability provision hostage to its more controversial provision and caps the necessary expenditure to set the job right. Taxpayers will also be hit hard by this bill. We do not know the total cost, but last time it cost over $30 billion, four times the amount requested by the administration. This is a bad bill. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me this time. This is a bad bill. It is a bad rule, unfair; and the procedure is unfair and bad. The rule does not allow an amendment that I submitted with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), which related to the outrageous hydroelectric relicensing provisions in the bill; nor does it allow an amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) to strike the unjustified and unjustifiable gifts to the producers of MTBE. And last of all, it denies the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) the right to offer an amendment to stop natural gas and oil companies from drilling in the Great Lakes. I tried to fix the hydroelectric section of this bill, which creates new rights and procedures for the licensing of dams that generate electricity from our rivers. It gives these rights only to one group of people, the electrical utilities. Others who have legitimate concerns, the cities, the sportsmen, the States, the Indian tribes, the conservationists, the irrigators, farmers or ranchers are not afforded that same right, a grotesquely unfair procedure. The bill also allows utilities alone to propose alternatives to the resource provisions recommended by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture Or Commerce, that must, must be accepted if they meet certain criteria. Again, none of the legitimate other parties to the procedures are given this right. This is grotesquely unfair. The rivers produce power. They are public resources, not the playthings of private utilities. The amendment we submitted would have corrected a number of the most egregious abuses unless in this section we apply the new rights to all parties in equal fashion. But by not allowing this amendment, that is foreclosed. The bill also forecloses a vote on the billions of dollars bestowed in this bill to producers of MTBE. Again, a grotesquely and unfair and unwise proposal. Finally, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) sought to offer a simple, straightforward amendment prohibiting any State or Federal permit to lease for new oil and gas drilling in or under the Great Lakes, one of the great treasures, 20 percent of the water in the world, the free fresh water which is so important to us. Are we being allowed to debate and vote on this amendment which would inconvenience powerful oil and gas producers? The answer to that is no. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. I urge my colleagues to see to it that we teach the Rules Committee that their function is to facilitate debate, not to deny Members the opportunity to discuss matters of importance on this floor. This is the people's House, not the residents of a group of special interests, but it gives every appearance of that. It rather smells that way.