John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my good friend that the Service should, in fact, start such a review. It is my hope that that will take place and that they should make every effort to have it completed within 120 days and to be without any taint of outside influence.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from California (Mr. George Miller) for his kindness to me in this matter. Mr. Chairman, I ask the attention of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), my good friend, the chairman of the committee, but before I do so, I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my good friend, for the fine leadership they have given in working this bill to this point on the House floor. It is an important piece of legislation. It enhances and protects a great national treasure which are the different Federal aid to fish and wildlife programs which have existed for a long time. I am particularly proud that one of these was the Pittman-Robertson bill, which takes care of grants to the States for aid for wildlife conservation and, of course, Dingell-Johnson which was sponsored by my old dad some 50 years ago, which protects fish and fishery resources. This is the kind of bipartisanship that has always been shown during this legislation. It does both of these gentlemen and the committee great credit, and I want to commend them and thank them for what it is they have done and for working with me on this matter. Mr. Chairman, one matter not addressed in the bill, I believe, would be very important in the entire question of administration of Federal aid program, is an independent outside top-to-bottom review to determine how many people are needed to administer it and what mixture of skills they should have. Your able staff has undertaken to develop a staffing model, and Fish and Wildlife has offered what they believe is an appropriate level of funding. I do believe that an outside review by experts without any stake in the outcome would be beneficial.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blue Dog budget which balances fiscal responsibility with the need to adequately fund programs addressing our national priorities and needs. The Blue Dog budget is a responsible plan that balances the budget and retires public debt without tapping into the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased the Blue Dog budget provides needed funding to expand the Montgomery G.I. bill. The Armed Forces face serious recruiting problems. In order to meet our defense needs, the Armed Forces must have the tools it needs to draw men and women into uniform. The Montgomery G.I. bill has proven to be the military's most valuable recruiting tool. Unfortunately, the combination of a substantially devalued G.I. bill, which now pays only 36 percent of the cost of receiving a 4-year college education, and expanded Federal financial assistance to college-bound students without military service has crippled the G.I. bill's effectiveness. Recent recruiting gimmicks such as psychedelic humvees, Spike Lee advertisements, drag racers, or desperate cash giveaways are not the answer to these problems. Nor is conscription. Congress would best help our Armed Forces by improving the G.I. bill. Providing access to higher education in exchange for national service is the right thing to do. A strong G.I. bill helps veterans and their families, aids our national defense, and strengthens the economy. Last year, my colleague, Lane Evans and I introduced the Montgomery GI Bill Expansion Act (H.R. 1071) to ensure that our All-Volunteer Armed Forces had the ability to attract recruits, and, at the same time, provide veterans with the skills they need to better our economy and their lives. The Blue Dog budget wisely provides funding to expand the G.I. bill in line with H.R. 1071 and will restore the MGIB's value both as a meaningful readjustment benefit and an effective recruiting incentive. Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog budget is good for America's veterans and soldiers and is a solid blueprint for our Nation's future. Unlike the Republican budget that would foolishly squander the surplus, the responsible Blue Dog budget pays down the national debt. It will put the nation on a course to eliminate the publicly held debt by 2012 with a strong, immediate commitment to debt reduction. In addition to this, it provides for needed investments in our Nation's health, establishing a $40 billion Medicare reserve fund that can be used to fund Medicare reform and a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for veterans, soldiers and our nation's future. Vote for the Blue Dog budget.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object; this is a rather unusual process. Madam Speaker, I will not object, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes. Madam Speaker, we heard a remarkable speech from my good friend from Texas, a man of remarkable courtesy and courage and decency, wherein he addressed the problems that exist with regard to this bill. I want to express again my affection and respect to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), who has handled the bill for the majority. The simple fact of the matter is this is a bad bill. This is a bad procedure. What we find ourselves confronting is a bill which will be vetoed, a bill which does not have the chance of getting a veto-proof majority. It does not address the problems which confront us with regard to the handling of nuclear waste or what is required in the way of good nuclear waste legislation, but substitutes a Senate bill which everybody recognizes is inadequate. Why we should pass a bill recognized as inadequate is beyond my ken, particularly since it does not address the problems and since it triggers opposition by many of us, like myself, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and other colleagues on the committee, who have staunchly supported the resolution of this problem by the passage of proper legislation. We supported the bill so ably handled by my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), in which the process was led by the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). We supported the bill which passed the House last year. Why? Because we thought that those two pieces of legislation were good bills; that they took steps towards resolving a major national problem and did so in a fair and a proper way. This legislation does not resolve it. It does not deal with the problem of short-term waste. It, in fact, probably delays the time when utility waste and defense waste could be taken to Yucca Mountain. It does not provide the utilities with the choice of interim storage in Nevada. It does not restore the $11 billion paid by ratepayers to fund the program. It does not ensure there will be enough money to pay for the repository program. It does not expedite transportation of waste from my colleagues' States or my State to Nevada. In fact, it creates a situation which will probably tie up efforts to move waste to Yucca Mountain in knots for years to come. The interesting thing about this whole process is for some strange reason the leadership on the other side came to the conclusion, and I do not mean my colleagues on the committee but the leadership came to the conclusion that they would put the Senate bill on the floor. There was no consultation with the committee. There were no hearings on this. This bill was held at the Speaker's table. The legislation, if it had had hearings, would have become very plain. It does not resolve the problems. We have not addressed any of the real concerns that had triggered the enactment or rather the reporting of the original House bill from the Committee on Commerce, in a bipartisan exercise. The result here is that we are passing a bad bill, under a gag rule, under a bad process, in a fashion which, very frankly, assures we do not address a major national problem; and in fact we are creating further problems, including further litigation and the possibility of large losses to the taxpayers both in terms of the corpus of the fund because of judgments and also because of huge litigation costs that are going to arise. Clearly, we need to address the problems of procedure and have a procedure which is fair and sensible. Equally, it is clear that we need to address the fact that the substance of this bill affords no relief to the industry, does not resolve the problem and leaves us with a future mess on our hands. I urge my colleagues to reject the legislation, vote it down or recommit it to the Committee on Commerce. Let us put a decent bill on the floor and let us do it under a process which lets the House work its will. I would have offered the Committee on Commerce's bill, which was sponsored so ably by my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton). The Committee on Rules and the leadership denied us that right. Not just to me but to all of us, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, many of whom strongly desire to have a good piece of legislation because we know that the resolution of this question or these questions is in the national interest. Regrettably, we are rejecting that opportunity to pass a piece of legislation which will be vetoed by the President; and which I can guarantee cannot muster the votes, either to see an override of that veto in the House or in the Senate. This is an exercise in futility; and it, quite frankly, is a shameful waste of the time of this body. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I begin my comments by paying tribute to my dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton). He is a gentleman and a fine Member. He is also a dear friend of mine, and I grieve to see him placed in a position of handling a turkey like this. This is one of the most extraordinary examples of legislative bait and switch that I have ever seen. The House Committee on Commerce reported by 40 to 6 a good bill which did all the things that my friend from Michigan was speaking on behalf of. The bill, in a curious process of bait and switch, had a substitute of the Senate bill put in its place last night under a closed rule. No Member will have opportunity to perfect the bill, and the bill does not do any of the things that my good friend from Michigan says it does. One of the most remarkable things about this is not just that it is legislative bait and switch and that it does not do anything or the false representations, but my poor friend from Michigan is stuck with handling this bill because neither the chairman of the full committee nor the subcommittee have chosen to handle a bill that, quite frankly, stinks. Now, having said that, let us recognize that we have here a remarkable procedure. Nothing similar to S. 1287 has been considered by any committee of the House. The bill was voted out from the other body last month, held at the desk, and brought to the floor under a closed rule. None of the committees of jurisdiction have consented to this approach. Under the closed rule, all Members are denied the right to offer perfecting amendments to the bill. I would have offered an amendment today to substitute the text of H.R. 45, sponsored by my able friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton). That is a bill which would have done something. It was reported from the Committee on Commerce by a vote of 46 to 0. This puts Members of both parties who support nuclear waste legislation in the position of having to vote against the only bill on this subject that is likely to be brought before the House during this Congress. This is a shame, since the program is in sore need of improvement and a very different bill coming out of the Committee on Commerce during the 105th Congress gathered, as my good friend mentioned, a strong bipartisan vote of 307 to 120. However, we have been presented now with a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. I urge my colleagues to leave it. This bill is an affront and the procedure is a greater affront to the Members of this body. If any of my colleagues have a utility running out of storage space for its nuclear waste, this bill does nothing to help them, their district, their people, or their utility. Unlike the House bill, this neither directs the Department of Energy to build an interim storage facility in Nevada nor does it authorize the Department to pay for waste stored at the utility site until it can be taken to Nevada. It also provides no help in moving waste from DOE defense sites located in communities that have done more than their share for the national good. Second, the bill provides no assurance that the ratepayer money will be used in the nuclear waste program, but it continues to allow it to be diverted to other uses. Nearly $8 billion in taxpayer money has been siphoned off for other purposes; and, without this money, DOE will face funding shortfall in 2003. Unlike the House bill, which would have assured money paid into the nuclear waste fund will stay there, the Senate bill, which we have before us, only assures that the shortfalls will occur when the money is most needed. Third, the Senate bill does nothing to resolve the litigation questions that plague the DOE program and to ensure that payments for these suits will not drain the nuclear waste fund. These suits amount to billions of dollars, probably $8 or $10 billion at this time, and the number is growing. CBO estimates that there will be $400 million in litigation costs in addition to this between 2000 and 2009 because nothing is done to prevent that from occurring under this legislation. The bill, in fact, is going to create more lawsuits. And while it fraudulently purports to address the litigation issue, it does not do so until the year 2006 or 2007 and under terms that CBO said were too vague to score. Without an interim storage facility, which this bill does not provide, the utilities' cost and the legal damages, for which the taxpayers are going to probably be liable, will continue to mount. In short, if Members want nuclear waste to continue to pile up in their district or State, if they want ratepayers to continue to spend money for nothing, if they like lawsuits and want to see more of them, then they should vote for this bill. We do need a good nuclear waste bill. This is not it. It does more harm than good and, as I have mentioned, it is nothing more or less than bait and switch. It is a sham. It is a fraud upon this body. And we will be sorry if we pass it, because we will delay a resolution to the questions that we should be addressing if the Committee on Rules and the leadership had given us an opportunity to consider these matters under an open rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that only a Republican leadership could love. It is a bill that does precisely nothing. It is, at best, a sham and a fraud. It is a waste of the time of the House of Representatives. Frankly, if my colleagues are opposed to the nuclear waste storage in Nevada, they could probably vote for it in the perfect comfort and the solid assurance that it will do nothing. This bill stands in the way of real progress in addressing the difficulty of achieving a program of nuclear waste storage. It stands in the way of addressing the problem of billions of dollars of lawsuits which are now pending or will be pending against the Federal Government because of our breach of understandings with the nuclear power industry to take waste off the hands of the electrical utility generators who use nuclear power to generate nuclear power and to create nuclear waste. It is a piece of legislation which will assure that we will not go forward with an interim waste storage. And so utilities all over this country are going to continue to find their storage facilities choking with nuclear waste. We address virtually none of the problems that confront us with regard to nuclear waste storage. And we create a very interesting exercise. We enhance the probability of lawsuits against the Federal Government in the amount of billions of dollars. We also do something else: we postpone for a far distant time in the future the real settlement and the real addressing of these problems. This is a bad piece of legislation. The rule should be rejected because it does not even allow the House sufficient time to address the questions that the bill raises. It stands in the way of a piece of bipartisan legislation which came out of the Committee on Commerce by a vote of 40-6. And it does something else. It assures that, far into the future, this problem is going to continue to plague us and meaningful legislation will not be addressed because of this rather shameful and sham-ful exercise today.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his kindness to me. I want to express great affection and respect for the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). I want to observe that I have been much impressed with the gentleman's statement on the point of order. Regretfully, he is correct, but we still need this language to be enacted into law, and the reason is, without it, the President's ability to address national security questions with regard to oil is very much impaired and the country is put significantly at risk.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have been doing my best. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized on the point of order?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to simply observe that if the unanimous consent is granted, I would simply concede the point of order and would save substantial time to the House and some aggravation to the Chair.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I can save a lot of time if I am permitted to have the gentleman yield.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this bill here does not do much with regard to energy conservation. One thing that has to be done is to reauthorize the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, specifically with regard to the President's authority to draw down the strategic petroleum reserve to deal with any prolonged energy crisis, or any sharp spikes in the energy supply to the United States. It has been used before for this purpose, and it has worked admirably in terms of diminishing some of the more extraordinary movements in the oil and petroleum industry. The text of the amendment is exactly and precisely identical to S. 1051, which was authored by Senator Murkowski of Alaska, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year. I have always opposed precipitous use of the Reserve, which Congress directed should only be drawn down in a severe energy supply interruption, as determined by the President, and in accordance with specific statutory criteria. Certainly there is agreement now as to whether or not the hardships that Americans are currently experiencing, such as high heating oil prices and high gasoline costs, warrant the use of the Reserve. It is my view that they do not at this time. However, there is no disagreement I think amongst people who are familiar with the situation and with the law and with the history that the Congress must ensure the President continues to have the necessary authority to deploy the Reserve if it becomes necessary to protect either our economy, our national interests or, indeed, the defense of the United States. The Reserve contains some 570 million barrels of oil which has served useful purposes, as I have mentioned, in connection with the 1991 Persian Gulf War. This is not, fortunately, a complex drafting matter. The amendment consists of a few small, but necessary, changes to the relevant dates in EPCA. I would submit that the President's petroleum reserve authority is far more useful than some of the other things in this provision. The White House has warned about the possibility of a veto to this legislation, and the President has issued a statement which says as follows in the last paragraph: ``The administration calls for Congress immediately to reauthorize his Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the International Energy Program at the Department of Energy. This is necessary to ensure that the President retains the ability to use all available tools to respond to the needs of the U.S. economy. Further, to reduce the likelihood of future heating oil shortages which will harm consumers, the administration calls on the Congress to authorize the creation of a home heating oil reserve in the Northeast with an appropriate trigger that could supply additional heating oil to the market in the event of a supply shortage. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I urge them to recognize that there is no controversy with regard to this particular amendment, and indeed, it is something that makes the best of good sense from the standpoint of our national security, from the standpoint of pricing and supply of petroleum products to American consumers. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Point of Order

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a day when we appear to be quite determined to dress up nothing in a lot of finery and call it legislation. This is a piece of legislation which will do little or nothing. I intend to offer an amendment to it at the appropriate time which I hope will address some of the concerns that are held by most Americans, and that is an amendment which will extend the President's authority under EPCA, which will expire on the 31st of March, to operate and draw down as needed the strategic petroleum reserve. This is perhaps the only tool now readily available to the United States to address the problems of perturbations in the energy market and to see to it that we are able to calm a market which is subject to both overheating and enormous swings in the level of price. I hope my colleagues will support that amendment at the time that I do so. I would simply observe something which I think that this body should listen to. This is a letter from the executive office of the President, and I am reading the last paragraph: The administration also calls on the Congress to immediately reauthorize the strategic petroleum reserve and the international energy program at the Department of Energy. This is necessary to ensure that the President maintains the ability to use all available tools to respond to the needs of the U.S. economy. Further, in order to reduce the likelihood that future heating oil shortages will harm consumers, the administration also calls on Congress to authorize the creation of a home heating oil reserve in the Northeast with an appropriate trigger that could supply additional heating oil to market in the event of a supply shortage. I urge my colleagues to support these amendments and to recognize that, without these kinds of authorities, the President's ability to negotiate with foreign countries, particularly the energy-producing countries of OPEC and similar bodies, will be virtually nonexistent. Because, without these, his capacity to compel behavior by those countries or to ensure that there will be appropriate negotiations or that the negotiations will be backed up by the apparent ability of the United States to address the problems of supply and price. So I urge that these amendments be adopted. We consider perfecting this legislation and we pass legislation that, in fact, will accomplish something which will have merit and meaning and be of value to this country and something which will do credit to this body. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. This bill would mandate privatization of two international treaty organizations, INTELSAT and Inmarsat, according to a specific timetable and criteria. Privatization of these organizations has been a goal for us in the Congress for a number of years. It is interesting to note that these treaty groups themselves have been working diligently towards privatization. They have demonstrated their commitment to this goal, because to do so is in their own interest. In fact, Inmarsat has already privatized and INTELSAT is well on its way to accomplishing this end. Any opposition I had to the House-passed bill was based on my belief that the privatization criteria carried in the legislation were too dictatorial and had little chance of being accomplished in their original form. I am happy to report that some of the more onerous provisions in the House bill have been removed in conference. I believe the conference report is now worthy of support. Specifically, I am pleased that the provisions were added in conference that protect national security and public safety agencies from losing the INTELSAT services they need to perform their missions. I am also satisfied that U.S. companies who rely on INTELSAT will be given a voice in the FCC licensing process before INTELSAT services may be curtailed. The bill was also improved by removing an unconstitutional provision that would have nullified existing legal contracts. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention another important change in this legislation that persuaded me to sign the conference report. It involves the treatment of spin-off companies, or so-called ``separated entities,'' from INTELSAT. The original House-passed bill inappropriately singled out a specific company that was already spun off from INTELSAT, has since been incorporated, and is known as New Skies Satellites. The earlier version contained provisions that would have been punitive towards that company, apparently because the drafters believed the company might not be a true competitor for INTELSAT. This is, of course, not so. In recognition of that impending IPO, and New Skies' clear demonstration to the marketplace of its independence, the majority of the conferees of the House, including myself, insisted on changes to remove any doubt that New Skies meets the licensing criteria contained in the bill. I would like to thank my good friends, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and Chairman Burns, from the other body, for working with me to include these important changes and making it one we can all support. I am happy to have assisted in making the legislative history of this particular provision. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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