John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) in support of the legislation. She is joined in support of this legislation by the American Association of University Women.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) for purposes of debate in support of this legislation, along with the American Association of People with Disabilities, who join in support of the legislation.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), to join the American Federation of Teachers in opposition to the Republican bill and in support of our bill.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who was denied, along with the rest of the Committee on Commerce, the opportunity to discuss this matter in committee through this irregular process.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, this ``bipartisan bill'' our Republican colleagues have put on the floor reminds me of a great story. A fellow went into a restaurant and asked for stew. He was delivered stew, and he said, ``Oh, that's the worst I ever had. Where did you get it? What's the recipe?'' They said, ``It's easy. It's horse and rabbit stew.'' He said, ``What is the recipe for it? It's the worst I've ever had.'' They said, ``It's equal: one parts horse, and one rabbit.'' Well, that is kind of what we have here: it is bipartisan. Three Democrats support this outrage, the rest of the Democrats oppose it. This is a Republican bill that our Republican colleagues have finally decided they would put on the floor after the pollsters told them that they are in serious trouble on their opposition to something that the people want and the people need and that is good for the country. That is what is at stake. There is a very simple difference between the two bills. One is that the Democratic bill helps seniors to get insurance coverage. The Republican bill only offers to subsidize insurance companies, if they can find an insurance company that happens to want some more money. Now, having said that, the Democratic bill also sees to it that senior citizens and Medicare recipients get their pharmaceuticals at affordable prices. The Republican bill gives money to insurance companies to maybe pay to pharmaceutical houses so that both can make more money, if they decide they want it. That is what is at stake here. Now, man and boy, I have been in this place for a long time. I have never seen a worse process than we are confronted with today. The Speaker says how he would like this to be bipartisan. Well, so would we. But it is not. Apparently, however, our Republican colleagues want this to be a partisan process. But I am not surprised, because this has been going on this whole session, and it is not something that we have not seen before. I would just make another little observation for the benefit of my Republican colleagues. I have watched my Republican colleagues, going back to 1935, when the Social Security bill was enacted. The Republicans opposed enactment of the Social Security Act, and they fought it for everything they were worth. My Republican colleagues also opposed Medicare. And by and large, with the exception of 68 courageous decent men, they opposed the Patient's Bill of Rights. They have also opposed universal coverage of people under health insurance, again something that is desperately needed. So this is not new. What we are observing is the Republicans are again looking after their rich buddies and seeing to it that the people who need help are going to get nothing. And I will simply point out there are few who will draw any significant benefits under this piece of legislation. It is a sham, a fraud and an outrage; and it is almost as bad as the process under which we function today. It is a sham, a fraud and an outrage; and it is almost as bad as the grossly unfair process under which we function today, a process which denies the people of the United States a vote on a meaningful bill which really meets the needs of our retirees, and which does not simply benefit insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers. Medicare is one of our most successful social programs in history. It insures more than 39 million disabled and senior Americans, and has drastically reduced poverty and improved the health of our elderly. Over the years, Congress has enacted a number of additions to the program, including coverage for physicians' services and coverage of certain preventive benefits. Now the House is being denied an opportunity to debate seriously the most significant program change in recent time--the addition of a prescription drug benefit to the program. The private insurance market was not willing to provide meaningful, dependable coverage for seniors and the disabled in 1965. That is why we created Medicare. Today, the private market is failing to provide seniors with adequate coverage for prescription drugs. We all know the important role prescription drugs play in our lives, and they are particularly important for seniors or the disabled. Yet, three out of five Medicare beneficiaries lack dependable coverage. Those without coverage are forced to pay for medically necessary drugs quit of their own fixed incomes, and too many forgo medications that will keep them healthy, out of the hospital, and living longer, more productive lives. What this Congress does with regard to a Medicare prescription drug benefit will have a profound impact on America's seniors and disabled. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership's prescription drug proposal would break the promise that Congress made to America's seniors and the disabled over three decades ago. Instead of providing an entitlement to a guaranteed, affordable, defined benefit, the Republican drug bill is a sham and a scam. The Republican leadership's prescription drug proposal relies on private sector insurance companies to deliver a benefit. These are the same companies that failed to provide adequate health insurance to seniors thirty-five years ago, and the same companies that are saying now the Republican proposal just won't work. For the first time in Medicare's history, seniors and the disabled would not be guaranteed access to a standard benefit. Instead, they would be limited to whatever private insurance plans decided to sell precription drug policies in their area. Private plans could vary their benefits, vary their cost-sharing, and vary their networks of pharmacies. There would be no guarantee that the particular drug plan a senior needed would be available to them, and there would be no guarantee that a drug plan that a senior picked one year would be available the next year. Unfortunately, we will not be allowed to vote for a real benefit. The Democratic substitute would have provided a guaranteed, affordable prescription drug coverage for every single senior and disabled person in Medicare. Whether they live in Miami, Ohio or Miami, Florida, seniors would be guaranteed the same benefit at the same premium. The Democratic substitute would guarantee seniors and the disabled access to the medically necessary drugs their doctor prescribes, and it would guarantee that they could continue to get their medication from their local pharmacist. Finally, the Democratic substitute should provide sufficient subsidies so that the benefit would remain affordable to all. That is why the Republican leadership will not even allow the House to vote on our substitute. Members of Congress don't have a choice before them today. We must reject a bill that would undermine all the principles that has made Medicare the most successful social program in history. And we will need to wait for another day, or another Congress, to vote for a package that provides a real Drug benefit in the Medicare program.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), in opposition to the bill, in which he is joined by the Service Employees International Union.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) 1 minute.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), who is joined in his opposition to this outrageous bill by the United Steelworkers of America. Point of Order

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), who is joined in her opposition to this outrageous bill by the National Medical Association.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today one of my hometown newspapers, the Detroit Free Press, published the following editorial urging the other body to pass H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). As my colleagues know, the House approved CARA last month by an overwhelming bipartisan margin. The House bill may not be perfect, but clearly it is a strong foundation for a landmark conservation bill. The other body should proceed expeditiously so as not to let this once-in-a-generation opportunity pass us by. [From the Detroit Free Press, June 27, 2000] Land Plan worthwhile conservation act stuck in committee The country's best chance in a century to commit to conservation is staring it in the face, and yet the means to make it happen may not survive the U.S. Senate. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which provides hundreds of millions of dollars for land acquisition and recreation projects nationwide, sits in committee, where it landed after the House passed it by a 3-1 margin. The full Senate seems likely to approve CARA, if it gets sprung from the committee. The act does not require any new money to fund it. Rather it is the revival of a decades-old promise that royalties from oil and gas drilling on federal property would go toward land preservation. In the meantime, the money has been used to help mask the country's deficit-spending habit, a maneuver that's no longer needed and ripe for Congress to fix. Some Western-state senators in key positions see CARA as a federal land grab, although only a sixth of the money would go toward federal purchases, and acquisitions would require the consent of both the owner and Congress. Far more would get funneled to the states, to set their own balance between buying land and improving existing public spaces. One of CARA's most exciting aspects, in fact, is the ability to focus on smaller projects than the federal government normally would, including urban green spaces, walkways and small slices of important habitat. For those with visions of a walkable riverfront in Detroit, or selective preservation of natural spots in the path of development, CARA is a dream come true--if the senators controlling its fate will set it free.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for making this time available to me. I would love to support this bill. I think it is a wonderful thing. I am looking at the picture down there which tells how outrageously high drug prices are in this country. I commend the author of the legislation, and I hope that in some way this is helpful. Mr. Speaker, I wish that we had considered these matters with a greater degree of care at a little earlier time when we were considering the legislation which related to what we are going to do to American citizens who are senior citizens who are desperately in need of fairer and more appropriate prices for prescription pharmaceuticals. I think it is a great shame that this body did want to have a rule which permitted the proper consideration of a perfectly germane amendment which would have been offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) on the other side of the aisle. I think that we would then have come up with an end package which would have afforded us a great deal more hope that, in fact, we were doing good for the American people in seeing to it that they got prescription pharmaceuticals at more fair and more competitive prices. But, unfortunately, this curious rule has precluded us from considering a perfectly germane amendment which would have done that. We now find ourselves in the regrettable position of confronting the possibility that the easing of the law with regard to food and drug and cosmetics, which is going to be done here under this legislation, will in fact reduce the safety of the American consuming public. I would like my colleagues to know that this Congress has worked very carefully to see to it that the American people got the greatest protection with regard to prescription pharmaceuticals. We did it by putting the burden upon the importers, putting the burden upon the manufacturers, so that at every stage the burden was on him who would release into the marketplace substances which have enormous capacity for doing good, but which also have intolerable and enormous capacity to do great hurt to the consuming public: to kill, to maim, to hurt, to blind, to poison, and, indeed, to sicken. The practical result of this legislation the way it is done is going to be to facilitate the entry into this country of pharmaceutical products over which the Food and Drug Administration is going to lose much of its power to protect the American consuming public. And, in fact, the practical result of this legislation is going to be to increase the risk to the American public in order to afford competition for what we all know are, in fact, excessively highly priced prescription pharmaceuticals. What we are doing here, and what history is going to tell us we have done, is that we have increased the risk but afforded a very small increase in benefits in terms of competition and that the risk that we are increasing is going to be very, very large and that we are going to find that there will be some splendid scandal on the hands of those of us who vote for this legislation tonight. Mr. Speaker, the result of that is going to be that we are going to be compelled at some time in the not-distant future, after we have seen what is going to occur under this legislation, to come back and address something which could have been handled better if the rule had permitted the consideration of the amendment which the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) would have offered to the people of this country and upon which we might have done a better job of legislating in the overall public interest. Mr. Speaker, I regret what we are doing. We will be sorry. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3240, because, although it seems benign, it would hurt the enforcement of laws ensuring the safety and efficacy of imported drugs. The Prescription Drug Marketing Act came into being after an investigation that revealed serious irregularities with respect to adulterated and counterfeit drugs from abroad. Recent investigations of Internet Web sites indicate there is still cause for concern. Significant quantities of prescription drugs from every source around the globe are entering this country on a daily basis through the U.S. mail. In fact, just last year the U.S. Customs agency had a more than 400 percent increase in the amount of pharmaceutical drugs they found being sent into this country from abroad. In many cases, these drugs arrive in unmarked plastic bags, with no indications of what they are, where they came from, or even how they should be taken. Are they real? Who knows? Are they adulterated? Who knows? Can they cause harm? Who knows? What we do know is that there was a problem with certain drug sources when we first looked into this matter more than decade ago, and there continues to be a problem today. I do want to acknowledge the beneficial aspects of the bill before us. Lack of access to medically necessary prescription drugs is a real problem faced by millions of Americans. I command my colleague, Mr. Gutknecht, and all who will support him today, for recognizing that the price Americans pay for drugs is too high. But, first and foremost, the PDMA is a public health and safety law. We should therefore tread carefully before changing it. I am greatly concerned that the bill before us has not been the subject of hearings, or a thorough examination about why the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sends warning letters to consumers that may be engaged in potentially risky behavior. This bill may make it very difficult for the FDA, as a practical matter, to provide thousands of consumers with a warning regarding what may be potentially risky behavior. I speak not only about the person that drives across to border to Mexico, but also to the numerous individuals now purchasing their drugs from one of hundreds of Internet sites that now exist. I am open to a careful review and revision of PDMA for the purpose of creating a paradigm for drug importation that is safe for our consumers while facilitating access to the international market prices at which many commonly prescribed prescription drugs are available. But this bill, and this process, do not have my support.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize and pay tribute to The Monroe Evening News. The longest continuously published newspaper in Michigan. The Monroe Evening News traces its roots back to 1825 when it was first published by Edward D. Ellis as The Michigan Sentinel. The 175 year history of this distinguished paper is one in which the people of Monroe County take great pride. The Monroe Evening News has survived and flourished because it has changed with the times while remaining true to the journalistic values first put forth by Mr. Ellis. Perhaps the most significant change in The Monroe Evening News occurred in 1994 when the employees acquired a majority stake in the paper. In 1999, the employees bought all of the remaining shares, making it one of only two newspapers in the country to be owned, in its entirety, by its employees. Employee ownership will preserve for future generations the controlling local interest that characterized its first 175 years. With such a long history, The Monroe Evening News has seen many changes. In 1987, the publication delivered its first Saturday morning edition. The success of the Saturday morning edition led the paper to publish a Sunday morning edition only two years later. Today, The Monroe Evening News is published seven days a week. In 1998 another major change occurred, The Monroe Evening News built a state-of-the-art printing facility. This new printing plant enabled the paper to adopt a computerized, full color layout. Before the plant was constructed, the paper was published on two printing presses that were built in 1924 and 1932, believed to be the oldest in the country. Through 175 years of change and progress, the one constant at The Monroe Evening News has been its journalistic commitment to objectivity and fairness. These values reflect those of the community the paper serves and account for the growth and success it has enjoyed. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to rise with me in tribute to a fine institution, The Monroe Evening News.

Mr. DINGELL

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. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. I commend the two authors. We owe them a great debt. We have been waiting a long time to have this kind of legislation on the floor so that we could address a very basic wrong which is being done in violation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Let me quote from one of the Founding Fathers. His picture is on the wall outside this Chamber. His name was Ben Franklin. He had this to say: ``They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor justice.'' I ask my colleagues to hear that and to listen. His picture is out there. It is a great picture, done by Howard Chandler Christy in 1936 to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the United States Constitution. He is surrounded by men who knew and understood for what this Nation stood and for what they fought. I ask you to note that those were men who had undergone the rule of King George where you had ex post facto laws, bills of attainder. Men were detained by the King's men without any excuse or reason, and they were simply locked up and perhaps at some later time they were released. Perhaps not. You can say this is just a matter which relates to immigrants and that the constitutional protections of due process under the fifth amendment and the 14th amendment do not apply to them. And you can say, well, it is just a little bit. Or that this is to protect ourselves. I want my colleagues who feel differently than I do to continue to hold that. It is their right. But I will tell you one thing, that a government which has the power to detain, without showing a reason therefor, any of its citizens or noncitizens, whether they are good or bad, is a greater danger to me, to us, and to our liberties than is the presence of a few who might be terrorists or who might constitute some risk to those of us who are proud to be Americans. This is a deplorable practice. It certainly evades and defiles the purposes and meaning of the due process clause. Secret evidence is an embarrassment to us all. At least 20 individuals are now being held hostages in prisons and deprived of liberty, some for as long as 2\1/2\ years. Interestingly enough, I am not describing here the justice system in China, the justice system in Cuba, or the justice system in the old Russian Communist system. This is the American justice system which I am describing at this time, and it is one which flouts the basic principle for which Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson and George Washington and all the other great Americans stood. It is something which serves as a threat not just to immigrants but indeed as threats to each and every one of us. Due process is being denied here, and it has been used in a discriminatory manner. One interesting thought. In every case stemming from the 1996 secret evidence rule which I opposed, only immigrants of Arab descent have been detained. Does that tell you that this rule of law, if such it can be called, is being fairly applied? I think, Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to stand up for our fundamental American values. We should stand up for liberty, for freedom, because the threat to the freedom of one is indeed the threat to all, to each and every one of us. We have not been able to get this matter to the floor as a part of a regular freestanding piece of legislation, and certainly we should have been able to do so. We have finally been forced to consider this important matter under this kind of situation. And while I would prefer much more to have a debate which addressed these questions under the regular order, I have to say that this is an important enough matter affecting the freedom and the liberty of too many people to be denied that kind of opportunity to bring it up as we do tonight. I hope that if we are successful, since this is in good part symbolic, that we will see something happen in the Committee on the Judiciary so that we can address this. Perhaps there is something that we should do to protect the United States and our security. But I do not believe that what we are doing or what we are attacking here tonight is something that protects the liberties of the American people or by dealing with the question of terrorists in any intelligent fashion. I am much more afraid of having a situation where Americans can be charged without any knowledge of why they are charged or with what they are charged than I am of having something of this kind going on. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and my distinguished colleague from Michigan (Mr. Bonior). I applaud their efforts to end a deplorable practice that violates the spirit and clear meaning of the 5th Amendment's due process clause. The use of ``secret evidence'' is an embarrassment to the U.S. justice system. It has unfairly targeted individuals solely on the basis of their nationality, and flies in the face of the values Americans hold most sacred. Today, at least 20 individuals are being held hostage in prisons and deprived of liberty, some for as long as 2\1/2\ years. They have not been charged with committing any crime, nor have they had a trial. They have not even been informed as to why they are being held and their lawyers have been denied access to the evidence being used against them. Mr. Chairman, am I describing the justice system in China? Or in Cuba? Or the justice system in post-communist Russia? No! I am, unfortunately, describing the American justice system, the very system that prides itself on protecting individuals' freedoms and liberties and, under the 5th Amendment, the due process right afforded to all persons whether they are citizens or immigrants. The secret evidence rule was created to allow the Immigration and Naturalization Service to deport those suspected of terrorist activities. I understand the need for America to protect itself from the growing terrorist threat. Terrorism will continue to grow as a threat, as cowards--both abroad and domestic--look to solve their differences with our government by targeting innocent civilians. But protection from potential harms is no reason to deprive people of their liberty. By adopting the tactics of the enemies of freedom, we are losing our own. Depriving one of their liberty is far greater a threat to America than terrorists. As Benjamin Franklin once said, ``They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor justice.'' In addition to depriving individuals of due process rights, secret evidence has been used in a discriminatory manner. I have the privilege and honor of representing the largest Arab-American community in the nation, and I have heard from my constituents of the discriminatory application of the secret evidence rule. I would note that in every case stemming from the 1996 secret evidence rule, only immigrants of Arab descent have been detained. This is wrong, unjust and a gross violation of civil rights. Mr. Chairman, let us stand up for our fundamental American values. Let us stand up for justice, liberty and freedom. We must guarantee that all persons in America are given the due process rights they are afforded in the Constitution. Vote yes on the Campbell-Bonior amendment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, as an active participant in the initial floor debate on the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation I want to clarify several issues. I supported the effort of my good friend, Mr. Obey, to clarify EPA's role. At that time we were concerned that EPA might violate the laws against advocating a treaty that has not been ratified by the United States Senate. We agreed that we should curtail lobbying and other activities, including implementing by regulation or statutory action a treaty which is, A. not in the interest of the United States, and B. which is not ratified and is not going to be ratified. The amendment regarding the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation offered by Mr. Olver to the VA/HUD appropriations bill today also raises the issue of what authority EPA has under current law. At this point, I would like to enter into the Record a letter I sent to Mr. McIntosh, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, and Mr. Calvert, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. As the Chairman of the House Conference on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, I understand the boundaries on EPA authority. The boundaries must be maintained and not allowed to grow through mission- creep. I will insist on this point and be watching over EPA. October 5, 1999. Hon. David M. McIntosh, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based on discussions between our staffs, about the disposition by the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled ``EPA's Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation Sources'' and an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled ``The Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean Air Act'' prepared for the National Mining Association. The latter memorandum discusses the legislative history of the 1990 amendments. First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas, such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address global climate change. The House, however, did include provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and global warming, along with provisions implementing the Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990). However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and 819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers to the ``Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' the Public law does not specify that reference as the ``short title'' of all of the provisions included the Public Law. One of these free-standing provisions, section 821, entitled ``Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases contributing to Global Climate Change'' appears in the United States code as a ``note'' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires regulations by the EPA to ``monitor carbon dioxide emissions'' from ``all affected sources subject to title V'' of the CAA and specifies that the emissions are to be reported to the EPA. That section does not designate carbon dioxide as a ``pollutant'' for any purpose. Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled ``Clean Air Research,'' was primarily negotiated at the time by the House and Senate Science Committees, which had no regulatory jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title amended section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c) through (k). New subsection (g), entitled ``Pollution Prevention and Control,'' calls for ``non-regulatory strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention.'' While it refers, as noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon dioxide as a ``pollutant,'' House and Senate conferees never agreed to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for regulatory or other purposes. Based on my review of this history and my recollection of the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990 the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing, and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse gases. I hope that this is responsive. With best wishes, Sincerely, John D. Dingell, Ranking Member.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce, and senior House Democrat conferee on the conference committee to resolve differences between S. 761, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, and the amendments of the House to the bill, I rise to clarify a matter involving the legislative history of this legislation. My remarks are an extension of remarks that I made during House consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 761 (June 14, 2000, Congressional Record at H4357- H4359). Mr. Markey, the other House Democrat conferee on this matter, has authorized me to indicate that he concurs in these remarks. Rule XXII, clause 7(d) of the Rules of the House provide that each conference report must be accompanied by a joint explanatory statement prepared jointly by the managers on the part of the House and the managers on the part of the Senate, and further that the joint explanatory statement shall be sufficiently detailed and explicit to inform the House of the effects of the report on the matters committed to conference. This is pivotal in guiding affected parties and the courts in interpreting the laws that we enact. Late in the conference negotiations, we reluctantly agreed to a request from the staff of the chairman of the conference committee that we expedite filing and consideration of the conference agreement by not extending the negotiations to include drafting and reaching agreement on a statement of managers. Accordingly, the conference report did not and does not include the required joint explanatory statement of managers. It only contains the agreed-upon legislative language. The rule by which the conference report was considered by the House waived any point of order regarding this deficiency. Given this chain of events and what we thought was a binding gentlemen's agreement, I was dismayed to discover that material had been inserted in both the House and Senate debate (June 14, 2000, Congressional Record at H4352-H4357 as an extension of Representative Bliley's floor remarks and June 16, 2000, Congressional Record at S5283-S5288 as an extension of Senator Abraham's remarks) in the fortnat of ajoint statement of managers. Our Senate Democratic colleagues also have expressed concerns with this language (June 15, 2000, Congressional Record at S5216, 3rd column, last para. and carry over on S. 5217 remarks of Senator Wyden and at S5220, I st column, 3rd para. remarks of Senator Leahy). While I respect the right of the distinguished Chairman of the conference committee and others to have an opinion on such matters and to express them in the Record, I want to clarify that this material is not the statement of managers for the conference agreement, notwithstanding its format. Both Mr. Bliley and Senator Abraham indicated in their remarks that the explanatory document had been prepared by them and expressed their views, and it should be taken as such. In several instances, their guidance does not reflect the intent or understanding of all the members of the conference. A number of their statements are simply not correct, and some of their views conflict with the very words of the statute. There is insufficient time to consult with the other conferees and prepare a joint point-by-point discussion of each of the statements the Chairman and Senator Abraham made that we disagree with. However, without prejudice, there are a few things that I would like to have more clearly reflected in the record. While agencies should seek to take advantage of the benefits that electronic records offer, they also have the obligation to see that their programs are properly carried out and that they will be able to enforce the law and protect the public, to help avoid waste, fraud and abuse in those programs, and to see that the taxpayer funds in their care are not squandered. In some circumstances, the bill gives agencies authority to set standards or formats; in doing so, they may decide in some cases not to adopt an electronic process at all for filings if they determine (consistent with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act), after careful consideration, that this alternative is not practicable. For example, section 104(a) preserves the authority of federal regulatory agencies, self-regulatory organizations, and state regulatory agencies to set standards and formats for the filing of records with such agencies or organizations. The authority contained in section 104(a) is not subject to the limitations set forth in section 104(b) or other limitations contained in the Act. The preservation of agency authority contained in section 104(a) is subject only to the requirements of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. Agencies that seek to promote electronic filings may set standards and formats for such filings as they deem appropriate. Standards and formats for electronic filings may be appropriate, for example, to ensure the integrity of electronic filings from security breaches by computer hackers. Likewise, agencies may set standards and formats for filings to promote uniform filing systems that will be accessible to regulators and the public alike, and to advance the agencies' statutory mission. Section 104(b) allows agencies to adopt regulations, orders and guidance to assist in implementing the legislation, subject to standards set forth in section 104(b). Section 104(b) contains criteria for agencies to use, but because of the vast numbers of transactions that agencies regulate, agencies must necessarily have appropriate discretion to apply those criteria to determine when to require performance standards or, in some limited circumstances (in a manner consistent with the this bill and the Government Paperwork Elimination Act), paper records. Having recognized in Section 101(d) the importance of accuracy and accessibility in electronic records, Section 104(b)(3)(A) recognizes the ability of federal regulatory agencies to provide for such standards. Section 104(b)(3)(A) gives federal regulatory agencies the flexibility to specify performance standards to assure accuracy, record integrity, and accessibility of records Although agencies should seek to implement the goals of the statute, the bill also provides federal and state regulatory agencies the necessary latitude to prevent waste, fraud and abuse, and to enforce the law and to protect the public, by interpreting section 101 in the appropriate way for their programs and activities, subject to any applicable criteria in the bill. It is my understanding that courts reviewing any such agency interpretations or applications of such criteria would apply the same deference that they give to other agency action. It is not my understanding that the conference report would demand unusual scrutiny beyond applying the criteria set forth in the statute. Consumers are given many protections in this legislation, and among those protections is the continued right to receive paper (or other non-electronic) notices on certain important occasions. For, example, Section 103(b)(2)(A) leaves intact laws that require paper notification of the cancellation or termination of utility services. This includes-- but is not limited to--water, heat and power. Other utilities, such as telephone service (a utility critical to safety in modem times), would also be protected. Obviously, Internet service would also be included in this exemption, to avoid the anomalous situation of a consumer trying to obtain, understand and respond to a disconnection notice that is available only through the very medium that has been disconnected. Consumer consent to electronic transactions is, in general, a critical safeguard that is maintained in this bill. The Chairman was absolutely correct when he began his statement by saying, ``. . . under E-Sign, engaging in electronic transactions is purely voluntary. No one will be forced into using or accepting an electronic signature or record. Consumers that do not want to participate in electronic commerce will not be forced or duped into doing so.'' However, the conferees recognized that there may be some specific instances in which stringent requirements for verifying consent might not actually be needed to protect consumers. Therefore, under the bill, agencies have a very limited authority to exempt certain transactions from the consent verification provisions. In those instances where it is truly necessary to eliminate a consent verification requirement--in part because there is no other way to eliminate a substantial burden on electronic commerce--agencies may sometimes be able to do so. However, even when eliminating a consent verification requirement is the only way to avoid a substantial burden on electronic commerce, an agency may do so only when there will not be any material risk of harm to consumers. I would also like to make another point that is very important to keep in mind when trying to understand the impact of this legislation. Of course, the bill does not force Federal and State government agencies to use or accept electronic signatures and electronic records in contracts to which they are parties. Therefore, the limitations in parts of the conference reports such as sections 102(a), 104(b)(2) and 104(c)(1) on the ability of Federal and State agencies to interpret section 101 do not apply to contracts in which such agencies are parties. Just like private commercial parties, government agencies have the freedom to choose their methods of contracting, subject to other applicable laws. The conference report does not force parties to a contract to use any particular method in forming and carrying out the contract, and allows them to decide for themselves what specific methods to use. When the government is a party to a contract, it naturally has the same rights. The restrictions in the sections that I cited do not apply in that circumstance and do not diminish those rights. Also, I note that this legislation was consciously drafted to avoid displacing the carefully-crafted provisions of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, Pub. L. No. 105-277 sections 1701-1710 (1998), or GPEA. That Act set a timetable for Federal agencies to make available electronic alternatives to traditional paperwork processes, and set standards for agencies to apply in determining whether and how to adopt such alternatives. To the extent that the two bills do overlap, this bill is crafted to allow agencies the flexibility to comply with the existing standards set forth in GPEA. Finally, I would like to raise an important law-enforcement issue. Senator Abraham's ``guidance'' states that ``if a customer enters into an electronic contract which was capable of being retained or reproduced, but the customer chooses to use a device such as a Palm Pilot or cellular phone that does not have a printer or a disk drive allowing the customer to make a copy of the contract at that particular time, this section is not invoked.'' (June 16, 2000, Congressional Record at S5284, 3rd column, last para.) Section 101(e) addresses more than the application of the statute of frauds to contracts entered into electronically. Section 101(e) provides that the legal effect of an electronic record may be denied if it is not in a form capable of being retained and accurately reproduced. As a threshold matter, businesses create the electronic systems being used by the consumer. Those designing and implementing these systems are obligated to ensure that electronic records are accurate, and in a form capable of being retained. Notably, the bill also applies to businesses that are obligated to make and keep accurate electronic records for examination by government regulators (and, if necessary, for enforcement action). The fact that a consumer uses particular technology that does not immediately produce an electronic record does not excuse the other party's regulatory obligation to have accurate and accessible records or otherwise exempt the transaction from this provision. To suggest otherwise, flies in the face of the plain meaning of the statute and opens up a gaping loophole for fraudsters to take advantage of. Conferees should be given adequate time to review and reach agreement on the statement of managers required under the Rules. This short-cut has proven to be a dangerous and unacceptable alternative.