John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 15, the ``Project Bioshield Act of 2004.'' This legislation reflects bipartisan bicameral negotiations that have made minor modifications to the language of H.R. 2122 which was passed by the House on July 16, 2003. I commend the hard work and dedication of all who participated in this endeavor. In this era of heightened threats to our national security and the increased risk of harm to Americans, Project Bioshield is an unfortunate but necessary measure. There are no effective therapies for many of the ``select agents'' that have been identified as potential instrumentalities of terrorism. The basic purpose of Project Bioshield is to support research that will lead to the development and availability in the Strategic National Stockpile of ``countermeasures'' to combat public health emergencies that threaten our national security. The bill has three basic features: enhanced countermeasure research; procurement of countermeasures; and emergency regulatory authority for approval and use of drugs, biologics, and devices that are qualified countermeasures. The Committees' work clarified, modified, and otherwise improved on the Administration's proposal in each of these areas. The bill before us reflects further refinements and does not contain major policy changes from last year's bill. Among the significant measures in this bill are provisions aimed at enhancing accountability for actions taken pursuant to Project Bioshield. Congress will receive comprehensive information, not less than annually, on the major activities authorized by this Act. In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will provide reports on key economic and scientific elements of this program after it has been in effect for several years. Finally, I am pleased to note that this bill maintains the approach of H.R. 2122 that funding be authorized, rather than a permanent, unlimited appropriation sought by the Administration. Bioshield should not automatically be given a higher priority over other national security or public health matters. This is a good bill, and is a worthy continuation of our important and bipartisan work on bioterrorism preparedness. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague for yielding me time. I commend him for handling this legislation, as I do the gentlewoman from Michigan, who has done such a fine job of presenting the case for this legislation. Today, we honor and congratulate a former President of the United States on his 91st birthday, and we extend to him and to his wife the best wishes of this body on this 91st birthday which he is celebrating Wednesday. We are proud of his service, not only in this body, but elsewhere. He will be 91, as I mentioned, on July 14, which is Wednesday. He is married to a distinguished lady, Elizabeth ``Betty'' Ford, who is much loved in this body and much loved elsewhere. He attended the University of Michigan, Yale University Law School, served with distinction in the United States Navy in the Philippines during World War II. He served in the House of Representatives for 25 years and was appointed to and served with distinction on the Warren Commission by President Johnson. He was minority leader of this body from 1965 to 1973 and Vice President from 1973 through 1974. He was sworn in as President on August 9, 1974, and served in this great capacity for 2 years. The thing which I think we can best remember about Gerry Ford is not all of the distinguished actions which he took or the high offices which he held but, rather, the fact that in a very difficult time he brought this country together out of a period of ill will and misfortune, which I think is almost unique in the history of this country. With that healing leadership, he will be long remembered for what he has done for us. The University of Michigan School of Public Policy is named after him, and he is much loved also in our State. I want to commend and thank my colleagues who have joined in the cosponsorship of this legislation: the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), who is at this time his Congresswoman; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra); the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin); the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers); and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). We from the Michigan delegation have unanimously suggested that this is a good resolution for this body to adopt. We celebrate the accomplishments, the great humanity and decency of a wonderful citizen of our State and of the United States who served with distinction in the Presidency and in many other offices, and we do at this time wish him, through this resolution and in other ways, the best wishes of this body, of the House of Representatives and of all of us individually, and those many other American citizens who have had fine reason to love a great American who still serves his country with distinction.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with regret and oppose the resolution on the floor. My opposition to this resolution does not stem from favoring one side over another, but rather because I favor peace above all else; and like previous resolutions passed by this institution will not help to bring about peace, security, and prosperity to the suffering on both sides of this conflict. This resolution, like past resolutions, allows this Congress to emote, nothing more. It allows members--who take little real notice of the dreadful situation facing Israelis and Palestinians--to feel good about ``doing something.'' But in reality, what we are voting on makes no commitment about peace. It makes no effort to find common ground. It doesn't really hold terrorists accountable for the maelstrom of destruction and tragedy they have caused. It doesn't remove any illegal settlements. It doesn't invigorate legitimate Palestinian democracy. And most of all, it doesn't force our aggravatingly lethargic and timid peace initiatives to the importance it deserves. The withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlements from the Gaza is a good step. No one can possibly deny it. But imposing a solution on the Palestinians will land their problems not just on the doorstep of Israel, but on the doorstep of the United States as well. This withdrawal demands that it be followed by strong American action. I am afraid that this Congress and the current administration are unprepared to deal with a post-withdrawal Palestinian entity. I am pleased that the resolution makes clear that this body supports a two state solution. I am also pleased that it encourages a continuation of dialogue between the parties. The commitments of finding peace do not begin and end with one side. All sides, from the parties on the ground, to those orchestrating the negotiations have responsibilities that go far beyond what is on the floor today. I am voting against this resolution not because of what it contains-- although I do find some of the word choices problematic--I am voting against it because what it does not contain. That is, simply, a way to find peace in the bleakness following the collapse of Oslo.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Detroit Pistons on winning the 2004 National Basketball Association Championship. After only five games, the Detroit Pistons won their third NBA title June 15, with a 100-87 victory over the heavily favored Los Angeles Lakers. The Pistons showed great strength under pressure and proved that desire, perseverance and teamwork could triumph over talent, experience and individual play. I applaud their hard work and their championship. I would like to offer my personal congratulations to Chauncey Billups, Ben Wallace, Mike James, Darvin Ham, Lindsey Hunter, Mehmet Okur, Taysharun Prince, Rasheed Wallace, Darko Milicic, Richard Hamilton, Corliss Williamson and Elden Campbell. Furthermore, I also want to congratulate Pistons owner William Davidson, team executives Tom Wilson and Joe Dumars and Coach Larry Brown. Their vision has once again returned the Larry O' Brien Trophy home to Detroit where it rightfully belongs. The Detroit Pistons has made Metro Detroit and the State of Michigan proud. Their teamwork has taught Michiganders that you do not need stars to win a championship, you need unity. Once again, I congratulate the Detroit Pistons and their leaders on winning the 2004 NBA Championship.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for the fine way in which she is handling this legislation and for her gracious recognition of me. I want to say a word of kindness about my friend, the chairman of the committee, and the chairman of the subcommittee. They are fine people, and I am very fond of them and respect them. I do not respect the output, however, of the committee on this matter. Where are the hearings? Where is the record? Where are the facts to support this? Where is there anything other than supposition? Where are the statistics? Where is the testimony of the Department of Energy? Where are the comments of the Environmental Protection Administration? Where are the requests of the industry that this matter be considered or that this legislation should be brought up or that it is good legislation in the public interest? None of this is available. This is not the way in which the House should legislate on an important matter. This is the way that perhaps a high school class in emulating the way the Congress should function would be conducted. Even at that time, I think it would be a significant embarrassment. Now, there are some facts here available. First of all, domestic refining capacity has been increasing; although the number of refining establishments has declined. This is a very interesting thing, but there is no information in the hearing record. Indeed, there is no hearing record on this matter. The bill which we have before us today has not been subject to even the most basic congressional review. There have been, as I have said, no hearings on the matter either in the committee or the subcommittee, and we certainly have no idea of what this bill will do, whether it will do anything or whether it will do nothing. In point of fact, there are substantive changes in the legislation of the Clean Air Act. There are substantive changes of other statutes which are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is fair to note something else should be observed about this legislation. The bill will change the form. Instead of having the matter considered by EPA, where traditionally it has been done and where the procedures have been fair and have been based on the expertise of the agency, all of the sudden it is going to be moved to the Department of Energy. This leaves, in my mind, an inference that those who are so anxious to have this movement take place are deliberately seeking to stack the form, to change the form from one which has been honest and fair and which has served the public interest to perhaps a more slippery and dishonest form in which the matter can be considered in a way which best suits a preconceived intention. So we have, first of all, no record; but we have a very curious change in procedure and form which raises questions as to the integrity, not just of the process here, but the process which will be taking place as the matter goes forward. Now, one of the interesting things is H.R. 4517 turns the Secretary of Energy into an environmental czar. It does this. It usurps the authority of State officials who are charged with protecting public health. The Secretary of Energy controls the procedures for obtaining State and Federal environmental permits, controls the timelines for reviewing and granting permit applications, controls the creation of environmental review documents that are the basis of the decisions which will be made. The Department of Energy is given the authority to override a State Governor's decision to deny permits for public health reasons. My good friends, the State writers over here, are diligently stomping on the rights of the States to protect their citizens and to make judgments which might be best in conformity with the wishes and attitude of the people in the area and the elected officials of the State. It deliberately tramples upon a longstanding and successful way whereby the Federal Government has delegated responsibilities to these matters to the States and that the States were to carry forward these activities of permitting under the rules and traditions which we have long understood and which the people of the States not only understand but which they know is closest to the people. The proposal then would move the principal responsibility to a new form on the basis of no record, and it should be noted that the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Environmental Council of States, and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, among others, oppose this legislation. One nice and comforting thing about it is that the red faces on the other side of the aisle about a bad piece of legislation will probably be of short duration because the Senate will never consider a piece of legislation as outrageous as this. Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record at this point some letters I have on this subject. The Environmental Council of the States, Washington, DC, June 14, 2004. Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. John D. Dingell, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Barton and Representative Dingell: The Environmental Council of the States* (ECOS) is concerned about H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004. This legislation could seriously impede state environmental permitting authority. ECOS also urges that a proposed change of this magnitude be considered in committee prior to being taken up on the House floor. Specifically the legislation appears to weaken state authority by transferring much of the environmental permitting responsibilities to the Department of Energy, an agency with expertise on energy production, not environmental regulations. The states are also concerned about the impact this legislation will have on State Implementation Plans (SIPs), ECOS' analysis of the legislation indicates that H.R. 4517 could acutely impact the ability of states to complete their SIPs. If refineries in revitalization zones are not held to the same standards as other industries in the same area, which is conceivable under this proposal, states will be forced to have others make up the difference in terms of pollution impact. This will result in making it more difficult for states to complete their SIPs. It is important to note that States are co-regulators and partners with the federal government in protecting the environment, providing for more than two thirds of the funding. States implement most of the nation's major environmental laws and operate their own innovative programs. The biggest load is carried by the States, which are responsible for 90% of the enforcement. States also collect 94% of environmental data, manage 75% of the delegated programs including all of the air permitting programs, and issue most of the permits overall. It is critical that states ability to issue permits and provide vital environmental protection services are not hindered. ECOS urges the U.S. House of Representatives to not adopt H.R. 4517, which would dramatically alter environmental protection in this country. Please contact me at 202-624-3667 should you have any questions. Thank you for considering our position. Sincerely, R. Steven Brown, Executive Director.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who is cosponsor of the motion to recommit.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend for yielding to me. Is that rejection or not?

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

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the House is again considering a bill that has already passed the body, but it has not been enacted into law. This might be called the ``summer reruns.'' It might also be called low comedy, or ancient history, because this is an unfortunate waste, not only of this body's time but, quite frankly, the taxpayers' money. We are about to set about passing a bill that was unacceptable to the Senate before, surrounded itself with enormous controversy, and will serve no purpose in terms of addressing energy concerns of this country. Meanwhile, I note we have neither passed any budget nor any single appropriations measure. If there is ever a bill that does not deserve to pass twice, this is it. It should not even have been passed the first time. Rarely has a bill been so criticized in all quarters. This so-called Energy Policy Act is a conglomeration of costly special interest subsidies and antienvironmental provisions that newspapers from coast to coast have denounced. It includes the denunciation of such conservative newspapers as the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. One prominent Republican Senator refers to this bill as one which helps ``hooters and polluters,'' because it provides subsidies for a Louisiana mall that will feature a Hooter's Restaurant, and because it has dozens of other provisions that threaten clean air, safe drinking water, like easing the regulations on such good-hearted American corporations as Halliburton, which uses hydraulic fracturing. Indeed, the only support for this bill comes from the special interests and industries that met in secret with the Cheney task force to hatch this outrageous piece of legislation. The conference on this bill was also, as I noted, held in secret and kept from the light of day. As I said when the Congress considered this legislation last year, ``when you lift the lid, it's like lifting the lid on a garbage can, because you get a strong smell of special interest provisions.'' While I support the recycling of trash, this piece of legislation looks worse the second time around. It is more than three times more costly than even the President requested. The Energy Information Administration says it will have no short-term impact on gasoline prices and, in the long run, will actually raise gasoline prices. If my colleagues on the Republican side were paying attention to all Americans and not just special interests, they would recognize that there have been three important matters to deal with which have occurred on this President's watch: 1, gasoline prices and natural gas prices have reached all-time highs; 2, an electricity blackout that affected better than 50 million Americans; 3, the gouging of electricity consumers on the west coast has been a noteworthy outrage. Democrats have proposed commonsense steps that we should take to address these problems, and we will discuss these matters and measures during the debate on the motion to recommit. I usually applaud the recycling of trash, but this trash is well passed recycling. It is too tart. It should be put in the legislative trash heap where it belongs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry before I yield time. I note that the majority members on the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Resources have time available which has not yet been used. I am happy to yield time to our Members, but I would simply note that that time is pending over there. I would like to see what policies the Chair might have with regard to the yielding of those times.

Mr. DINGELL. And I would note for the benefit of the Chair that the Committee on Energy and Commerce is the major committee of jurisdiction here. Mr. Speaker, I will therefore yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to enable the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Ways and Means on the majority side to yield such time as they may consume.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I can understand the frustrations of my good friends on the Republican side. They brought forward a piece of legislation that is redolent of special interests. Quite frankly, it smells bad. It is tired in that it has been before this body before. It has been rejected by the Senate because it was such a clear mishmash of special interest legislation, and I can understand the frustration because my good friends over there could not shoehorn something through in a closed conference after they had denied the right of the House to really fully amend and address these matters and after they had denied us the right to participate in the debates and the discussions which went on in the conference between the House and Senate. We will shortly be offering legislation in a form of a motion to recommit which will do the three things that really need to be done to protect our consumers and our economy. First, we are going to address the problem which rose with regards to electricity prices in California and other west coast States spiraling out of control as Enron and other thieves and scoundrels exploited an inadequate and poorly implemented regulatory system. We will be inserting into the Record some of the wonderful comments of Enron executives describing how they had treated the consuming public of the United States. Second, my own State of Michigan and six others suffered severe practical and economic consequences from a massive blackout caused partly by malfeasance and partly by inadequate emergency planning and communications. That will be addressed here. Third, this spring and summer consumers throughout the Nation have been hit by high gasoline prices that show no sign of returning to normal levels at any time soon. We will try to deal with this question. The bill, H.R. 4503, does not address the answers to these questions. While there are some good provisions in the bill, it has a plethora of other problems, not the least of which is a price tag to the consuming public and the taxpaying public of better than $31 billion. It is a shame that our Republican colleagues have chosen to continue beating a dead horse. They sent a bad bill to the Senate. The Senate in a bipartisan fashion, and I am sure this is immensely frustrating to my Republican colleagues, has rejected that legislation. It has not been brought up. This is quite obviously an attempt, and has been so described by my Republican colleagues, as an effort to embarrass the Senate into moving that legislation. But I think we need to address something here which we could do. The Senate in its wisdom has chosen to reject this historically bad piece of legislation, and I would urge us to address now the things which we can do: fraud and criminal misbehavior in the electricity markets, blackouts, and high gasoline prices. This would be a responsible step, and it should be for this body to stop playing games and having summer reruns which have as little merit, for example, as ``The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari'' or perhaps ``Night of the Living Dead.'' In any event, I will be offering a motion to recommit with the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), and I will describe that at a time later. It will address these questions. [From the Energy Daily, May 25, 2004] Enron Traders Brag of Stealing Money From California (By Tina Davis) Newly unearthed transcripts of Enron Corp. traders reveal employees unapologetically talking about California and its consumers by driving up power prices and exporting power from the state during the 2000-2001 energy crisis. The transcripts were sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last week by the Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1, a public power entity that is seeking refunds for price manipulation that affected the West. ``This latest evidence provide the impetus for FERC to finally bring meaningful rate relief to the West Coast electric consumers who were the primary victims of Enron's fraudulent schemes,'' said Mike Gianunzio, general counsel of Snohomish PUD. Two Democratic Congressmen from Washington, Reps. Jay Inslee and Rick Larsen, last week called on FERC to strip Enron of its market-based rate authority retroactively. The congressmen argued that by revoking the company's market- based rates on June 25, 2003, FERC failed to establish the punishment from the moment Enron began gaming the market. The transcripts largely provide yet more evidence that Enron was engaged in several sophisticated trading strategies aimed at driving up prices and congestion, in order to reap millions from the California and western power markets. In perhaps the most damning portion of the transcripts, a person identifying himself as ``David up at Enron'' calls an employee of El Paso Electric and asks if that company can shut down a unit. ``. . . There's no much, ah, demand for power at all and we're running kind of fat. Um, if you took down the steamer, how long would it take to get it back up?'' David asks. ``Oh, it's not something you want to just be turning on and off every hour, let's put it that way,'' the El Paso employee responds. After ascertaining that the unit could be brought up within three to four hours, David says, ``Well, why don't you just go ahead and shut her down, then, if that's OK.'' Later in the conversation, David says that ISO hasn't ``told us anything. We're just kind of assuming that some of this stuff's going to get cut again and--we're running fat enough to where he shut down the, ah, steamer when we take-- there'll be a net, ah, decrease of about 80 it will be all right to, ah, still meet the load.'' That day, Dec. 4, 2000, the ISO declares a Stage 2 emergency, indicating that reserve levels have fallen below 5 percent for the day. A spokesperson for El Paso confirmed the conversation took place, but said it occurred at 1 a.m., when the state had an ``overabundance of power in the market.'' Tereza Sousa said she did not know if the power was restored to the state in the afternoon, when peak demands hit, but she said El Paso had an agreement that called for Enron to market its generation for off-peak hours in the West. El Paso Electric later reached a settlement agreement with staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as well as California officials over its role in the state's power crisis. That deal, opposed by Snohomish, included a $15.5 million payment from El Paso and the surrender of its ability to charge market-based rates for two years. At one point, the transcripts capture Bob Badeer, head of Enron's California trading desk in Portland, saying the ``best thing'' for California would be an earthquake. ``. . . Let that thing float out to the Pacific and [give] `em candles. . . . They should just bring back horses and carriages, lamps, kerosene lamps. . . . Kevin McGowan, at one time the director of coal trading for Enron, asks Badeer: ``So the rumor's true? They're takin' all the money back from you guys? All those money [sic] you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?'' Badeer responds: ``Yeah, grandma Millie, man. But she's the one who couldn't figure out how to vote on the butterfly ballot.'' ``Yeah,'' says McGowan, ``now she wants her money back for all the power you've charged right up--jammed right up her for $250 a megawatt-hour.'' Another phone conversation includes talk of exporting power from the state. Hearing of a Stage 2 emergency called by the California Independent System Operator, a speaker identified only as ``Matt'' says, ``They're on the ropes today. I exported like a 400 [megawatts]. ``Wow,'' the other voice, identified as Tom, says. ``I bought it all. I'll see you guys--I'm takin' mine to the desert,'' Matt states. ``em, right?'' adds Tom. ``I think those gamblers in Las Vegas need the power more than you,'' says Matt. Later on Tom tells Matt, ``It's going good for you. Just keep exporting the'' ``Yeah,'' says Matt. ``That's what we do. Every day, we just export, export, export.'' In another conversation, Enron's Tim Belden, the former head West Coast energy trader, is questioned by what seems to be another Enron employee trying to figure out how to book the revenues from western trades. Explaining the sales, Belden tells the other person, that Richter (believed to be Jeffrey Richter, head of Enron's Western Power Division) ``makes between one and two [million dollars] a day, um, which never shows up on any curve shift, where he just buys it from the day-ahead. He just . . . California. . . . He steals money from California to the tune of about a million--'' The other person interrupts, ``Will you re-phrase that?'' Belden: ``OK, he um--he arbitrages that California market to the tune of a million bucks or two a day.''

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. DINGELL. I am, Mr. Speaker.