John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald). (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), whose father was my good friend.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the chairman of our caucus.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation being offered today by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. H.R. 2545, the ``Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act,'' quite simply is trying to head off an unmitigated conservation disaster for white geese, including greater and lesser snow geese and Ross' geese. During the past three decades, these mid-continent snow geese species populations have literally exploded, from an estimated 800,000 in 1969 to more than five million today. This dramatic increase has resulted in the devastation of nearly 50,000 acres of snow geese habitat around Canada's Hudson Bay. This tundra habitat, most of which comprises a coastal salt marsh, is vital for nesting. As the snow geese proliferate and consume this habitat, other populations of birds are also placed at risk by this loss of habitat. A special report issued in January 1998, by Ducks Unlimited provides a good example of the depth and the breadth of the problem. In studies conducted in Churchill, Manitoba, there were 2,000 nesting pairs in 1968. In 1997, that number grew to more than 40,000 pairs. The result is a cruel fate for the birds, particularly the thousands of orphaned, malnourished and eventually dead goslings who cannot survive on barren tundra. Together with expected population increases is another vexing problem: recovery of habitat, destroyed by overfeeding at this far- north latitude, is expected to take at least 15 years; it will take even longer if some of the acreage continues to be foraged by geese during the recovery period. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been working for a few years in partnership with the Canadian Wildlife Service, several departments of Fish and Game, Ducks Unlimited, the Audubon Society and other non- governmental entities to try to address the problem. In February of this year, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued two final rules to authorize the use of additional hunting methods to reduce the population of snow geese so that a reasonable population can survive on a viable habitat. The goal was to reduce the number of mid-continent light geese in the first year by 975,000 using additional hunting methods carefully studied and approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Unfortunately, the Service withdrew the rules in the aftermath of a court challenge. The result of inaction, however, would be devastating. Chairman Saxton was correct to press for a legislative solution to expedite the recovery process by implementing the Service's rules, as the bill before us does today. It is clear that human decision making has contributed mightily to the light geese problem through increased agricultural production, sanctuary designation, and reduction in harvest rates. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us takes an affirmative and humane step to help assure the long-term survival of mid-continent light geese and the conservation of the habitat upon which they and other species depend. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, no, that is not correct.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DINGELL. The way to address the matter is to take out unfortunate language and put in good language in a separate medical records privacy bill. At least, if we do not allow this language to remain in the legislation when it finally does go to the President, if that occurs, it would then assure that we would keep in place existing protections of patient privacy which are superior.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 1999. I support the idea that we should have responsible modernization legislation. That legislation must contain strong protection for taxpayers, consumers, investors, that ensures the safety and the soundness of the banking system, as well as the efficiency, competitiveness and integrity of the capital markets of the United States, and also fair and nondiscriminatory access to our economic opportunities by all Americans. I voted against H.R. 10 on final passage earlier this month because it did not meet these tests, and I intend to work hard in the House- Senate conference to improve this legislation so that all Members can support it in good conscience. We cannot come back to the House with a conference report that does not give consumers adequate control over their private, financial, and medical records. Mr. Speaker, I would note that the so-called health information protections in H.R. 10 serve only to protect the insurance industry, not consumers. Proponents of the medical privacy provisions of H.R. 10 contend that consent is required before the insurer discloses personally identifiable health information to another party, but they never note that there is a two-page list of exemptions to this rule that basically guts any real right of the consumer to be protected, or his right of consent. In fact, there is nothing in H.R. 10 that would prevent insurers from selling one's health information for profit. Neither are there any restrictions whatsoever as to what people or companies that receive one's medical records may do with them. They are free to sell one's records to employers, information brokers, banks, pharmaceutical companies, or anybody else they please for good motive or bad. Once one loses one's medical privacy, they cannot get it back. The medical privacy provisions of H.R. 10 would actually preempt stronger State protections already in effect. It would wipe out over 57 State laws, many of which have stricter safeguards for sensitive medical records such as mental illness or HIV. There is also a question of whether enactment of the medical privacy provisions of H.R. 10 would preclude authority otherwise already available to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to go forward with the issuance of real consumer privacy protections that apply to health information held by doctors, hospitals, and government agencies. In addition, the bill contains some rather laughable financial privacy provisions that tell a bank simply to disclose its privacy policy, if it has one. H.R. 10 also gives very weak protection to investors for transfers of sensitive financial information to third parties, leaving the door wide open for sharing one's personal financial information with affiliated telemarketers and others. By voting to instruct the conferees on this bill, the House will be on record in favor of the strongest possible provisions to protect consumer privacy, both with regard to financial records and health records. A vote in favor will also put the House on record in favor of ensuring that this legislation will allow all consumers to ensure not only the benefits of the legislation and nondiscriminatory access to financial services and their communities. I urge all of my colleagues to support this motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, what is correct, I would observe to the gentleman from California, is that, if this language is in here, the fears that I have expressed and the fears that are expressed by the professional health care organizations and individuals would occur.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would observe something in response. There is a conflict here on the part of some of my colleagues, including my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). This medical privacy provision has no more assurance of protection of the ordinary citizen or patient than does a lace doily of stopping a flood. The simple fact of the matter is existing law is better than the provision that we are talking about. And I would observe something else. Very shortly the provisions of HIPAA will kick in and the secretary will come forward with decent regulations which will protect the people. I am not going to enact a fraud, sham or delusion of the magnitude that we have before us with regard to medical health care protection and protection of medical information when I know full well that existing law is better and that further improvements will be coming along when the secretary issues her regulation.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would begin by expressing great respect and affection for everybody who has participated in this debate, especially the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) who is an outstanding Member of this body in all particulars. I do think it is important we understand what is at stake here. I will address only the question of protection of medical privacy. Here is what the administration says. The administration strongly opposes the medical privacy provisions of the bill. Unfortunately, those provisions would preempt important existing protections and do not reflect extensive legislative work that has already been done on this complex issue. The administration thus urges striking the medical privacy provisions and will pursue medical privacy in other fora. Now listen to what some of the unanimous voices of all professional organizations in the field of medicine have had to say. First, the American Medical Association, I quote, ``Medical records provision of H.R. 10 undermine patient privacy. The bill would allow the use and disclosure of medical records information without consent of the patient in extraordinarily broad circumstances. Unfortunately, the medical records confidentiality provisions of H.R. 10 will deter many patients from seeking needed health care and deter patients from making full and frank disclosure of critical information needed in their treatment.'' The American Nurses Association said this, ``The proposed language would facilitate the broad sharing of sensitive health and medical information without the consent of the consumer.'' Here is what the American Civil Liberties Union said, ``This proposal will preempt existing medical privacy protections and offers essentially no privacy rights to replace the ones which the amendment, if enacted, will usurp. It is deeply flawed.'' AFL-CIO: ``This provision would facilitate the broad sharing of sensitive medical information in a matter that is harmful to health care consumers.'' That tells my colleagues what is said about this. I would urge the adoption of the motion.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, we do have colleagues from the Great Lakes Basin who wish to make some observations on this matter, so I will rise again at a later time for the purpose of withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of concerns shared by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Great Lake States who value highly the quality of service that we received from the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army. The legislation before us caught quite a number of Members of the Great Lakes task force by surprise, because it will have the effect of closing the Corps of Engineers' regional office, which is located in Chicago, which oversees planning and technical assistance for the world's largest and most highly populated fresh water watershed. I am offering an amendment to strike this language today because of concern not only of Members of Congress, but also of State and local governments along the Great Lakes, and upon the concern of millions of Americans who have rightly depended upon the timely and professional service of the Corps with regard to the use, the development, and also the protection and preservation of that important body of water which means so much to us in the Middle West. For most of this decade it seems as if we have been struggling with how to restructure the Corps of Engineers. The Great Lakes task force repeatedly opposed general and early plans which, in our view, would have gutted the Corps' ability to serve the Lake States. Finally an agreement was reached in 1996 which established a dual division headquarters in the Great Lakes in the Ohio River division in response to the administration's proposal at the time to close the Great Lakes division. As a result, today the Corps of Engineers has two headquarters in the Midwest, in Chicago and in Cincinnati; and I would note the importance of this in terms of service to the Midwest and protection of the Great Lakes. The movement of many full-time employees from the Great Lakes to the Ohio River office caused a lot of distress amongst the constituencies of our region. However, Great Lakes Members of Congress accepted this split in the spirit of compromise. My amendment today would remove a provision which moves beyond that compromise, which has generally worked to the satisfaction of the Great Lakes States and their Members of Congress. The result is a high level of uncertainty with regard to both the domestic program coordination and joint implementation of international responsibilities with Canada for the protection and the preservation of the Great Lakes. Issues of concern include the implementation of the boundary waters treaty, Great Lakes waters diversion, lake levels, flood mitigation, technical assistance for our fresh water lakes. The Chicago office of the Corps, the old north central division, was recognized as a national leader among Corps divisions with regard to the professional development of environmental projects. Already, concern has been expressed by Members of that area and our constituencies about the continued success of those efforts. Mr. Chairman, I plan to withdraw this amendment after remarks of a few of my colleagues, again in the spirit of trying to make some time between now and conference to have the issues appropriately resolved in partnership with the Corps, the appropriation committees, and the Members of the Great Lakes States. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California, for whom I have enormous respect, for whatever comments he wishes to make at this time.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the comments of my good friend, the gentleman from California. We in the Great Lakes are very much troubled about this situation. It means, I think, serious problems to us in terms of protecting one of the great treasures of the United States, because this constitutes the largest reservoir of fresh water anywhere in the world, and of course, one of the most precious and necessary needs of the United States is going to be for water. I want to thank my colleagues who have joined me in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I will at this time, with respect to the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, withdraw the amendment, in the expectation that the matter will be discussed carefully and that they will work with us to achieve the protection of the Great Lakes by the continuation of this important service from the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of a concern shared by many of my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--in the Great Lakes states who value highly the quality of service we have received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The legislation before us caught quite a few of the members of the House Great Lakes Task Force by surprise, because it would have the effect of closing the Corps of Engineers' regional office--located in Chicago--which oversees the planning and technical assistance for the world's largest and most highly populated freshwater watershed. I am offering an amendment to strike this language because of the concern not only to Members of Congress, but also state and local governments along the Great Lakes who have rightly depended upon timely and professional service by the Corps. For most of this decade, it seems as if we have been struggling with how to restructure the Corps of Engineers. The Great Lakes Task Force repeatedly opposed several of the early plans which, in our view, would have gutted the Corps' ability to serve our states. Finally, an agreement was reached in 1996 which established a ``dual- division'' headquarters in the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division in response to the Administration's proposal at the time to close the Great Lakes Division. The result is that, today, the Corps of Engineers has two headquarters in the Midwest: in Chicago and in Cincinnati. The movement of many full-time employees from the Great Lakes to the Ohio River office caused a lot of distress among constituencies in our region; however, Great Lakes Members of Congress accepted this split in the spirit of compromise. My amendment would remove a provision which moves beyond that compromise. The result is a high level of uncertainty with regard to both domestic program coordination and joint implementation of international responsibilities with Canada. Issues of concern include implementation of the Boundary Waters Treaty, Great Lakes water diversion, lake levels, flood mitigation, and technical assistance for our fresh-water lakes. The Chicago office of the Corps (the old North Central Division) was recognized as a national leader among Corps' divisions in the professional development of environmental projects. Already, concern has been expressed about the continued success of these efforts. Mr. Chairman, I plan to withdraw this amendment after remarks by a few of my colleagues again, in the spirit of trying to take some time between now and conference to have these issues resolved in partnership with the Corps, the Appropriations Committee, and Members of Great Lakes States. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this tax cut legislation there are a number of aspects of it requiring the attention of the public. The first causes the ghosts of Ponzi, Sam Insull and Phineas Barnum to hover over this chamber in smiling admiration. Is this a tax cut or is it not? The answer is no one knows for sure. The bill is tied to receipts and deficits, so in some years there may be a tax cut, in some years there may not. Indeed, if the national debt does not go down, there will be no tax cut. Now it is hard to speculate how this works, or whether there will be a tax cut, when, how, or how much, because all the negotiations were done by the Republicans alone in closed meetings, and the printed version has not been available to analyze or discuss in proper legislative fashion. According to the sketchy reports I have been able to receive, it will possibly work something like this: After an initial 1 percent across the board tax cut, all further cuts will be conditioned on whether the total national debt (including that related to Social Security and most trust funds) goes down. Now I cannot tell anyone exactly what that means, but I believe I can be excused, because the Republicans have not said, and apparently they cannot either. So here we have a remarkable Republican tax cut, a here you see it, now you don't tax cut--maybe you get it, maybe you don't. Now, if this massive punitive tax cut really goes into effect, lets look at some of its most deficient aspects: The Republican tax bill would blow a three trillion dollar hole in the budget and threaten the vitality of Medicare and Social Security. The Republican tax scheme does nothing to extend the life of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. It eats the entire surplus, leaving absolutely nothing to ensure the long-term solvency of Medicare or Social Security. It soaks up all of the money. It leaves nothing to protect or reform Medicare or Social Security. It also ensures that there will be no money left over to fund a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The Republican plan also spends all of the non-Social Security surpluses and leaves nothing for debt reduction. Rather than paying down a large portion of the national debt, the Republicans would be adding to it. When one includes the $141 billion of additional interest payments that are required to finance the tax cut, on-budget deficits are likely to appear. The bill will force education, veterans programs, federal health research, environmental programs, farm programs, our national defense and other vital programs to be slashed. The Republican tax bill will require an average 27 percent cut in all domestic spending programs by 2009. To cite just one example, if the Majority sticks to their budget caps, $1.4 billion would be cut from veterans' health programs--which are already universally recognized as woefully under funded. In point of fact, our veterans programs are an outright disgrace and the Republican bill exacerbates the problem. The Republican scheme will also explode the deficit and threaten our growth over the long-term. Last year, for the first time in thirty years, the federal budget was in surplus. The Republican bill will reverse that course because it will cost as much as $3 trillion in the out-years. Although it is cleverly and carefully masked, the Republican bill explodes the deficit in the out years and will produce higher deficits, higher interest rates and cripple economic expansion. Rather than paying down the debt as proposed by the President, the Republican tax scheme adds to the debt. Finally, the plan put forth by the Republican leadership would only benefit the wealthiest Americans. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the wealthiest one percent of taxpayers would receive 45 percent of the benefits. Sixty-five percent of the total tax cut will benefit the top ten percent of taxpayers, those with incomes over $115,000. In aggregate, 90 percent of taxpayers will receive less than a third of the benefits included in this package. That is simply unfair, and Americans know it. Congress must use the surplus for Medicare and Social Security first. Then we can consider responsible tax proposals that sustain our growth and do not threaten our economic prosperity. The Democratic alternative is the responsible approach and I urge its adoption. In short, my Republican colleagues have crafted either one of the slyest now you see it, now you don't scams in the history of government or they have crafted one of the most irresponsible tax cuts ever designed to cripple government and to endanger essential programs like Medicare and Social Security. Moreover, they did it in a sneaky partisan way, totally disregarding traditional open legislative practices. No wonder the tax program here is so bad. It must be defeated and I urge a no vote.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, since the Senate passed this bill on June 23rd, Members of our Committee and staff have expended considerable effort to address several problematic issues presented by the Senate- passed version. I commend my colleagues, Mr. Green, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Brown, as well as Mr. Bliley and Mr. Bilirakis for their diligent efforts to make the necessary revisions to this bill in an expeditious and cooperative manner. This bill amends section 112 of the Clean Air Act, entitled ``Prevention of Accidental Releases.'' To achieve this purpose, the facilities that handle threshold amounts of extremely hazardous substances are required to implement risk management plans to detect and prevent or minimize accidental releases. An integral part of these plans is the evaluation of worst case accidental releases--also called the worst case scenario. There is no question that the drafters of the Clean Air Act in 1990 required these risk management plans, as well as the worst case scenarios, be made available to the public on equal footing with emergency responders and other recipients. We may never have anticipated the complex issues posed by impending popularity of the Internet, but we certainly knew the inherent risk of a free and open society. We struck this balance in 1990, but today the national security agencies have urged us to consider that balance once again. I believe we have done so in an appropriate fashion in this bill, although I would not deem this bill perfect by any means. I remain concerned about the imposition of any penalties, particularly criminal penalties, on the state and local officials who are the statutory recipients of the worst case scenario information. These are the very people we trust to respond in the unlikely event of tragedy, whether caused by accident or criminal act. I would not want to discourage these much-needed individuals from volunteering to serve on local emergency planning committees or emergency response teams, nor would I want to discourage them from obtaining and using this information for its intended purpose. It is not these people, who are performing their official duties, whom we intend to deter or punish. The House amendment to S. 880 improves the Senate product markedly. But by imposing criminal fines for willful violations of the Act or the yet to be promulgated regulations, we nevertheless will punish a local official for sharing this information by electronic means with his constituent, even if the information is related only to a facility in his own neighborhood. I do not believe that such sharing of information, by the very official the community relies upon to inform them, should be deemed a criminal act. This bill makes clear, however, that state and local officials may summarize the information or discuss the information with constituents or with other local officials. As our only concern is that a national, searchable database of worst case scenario information should not be readily compiled, it is sound policy to freely allow any use of this information, such as discussion of the information or distribution of the information in any other format that avoids compilation of a national database. We require that the President promulgate regulations that will govern the dissemination of worst case scenario information. As this requires an assessment and balancing of the national security against the public's need to be informed of hazards associated with extremely dangerous substances, I prefer that Congress perform that assessment. However, I believe that we have given clear direction in this bill to the President that he must follow in promulgating the regulations. The bill guarantees that the public will obtain the information, without geographical restriction. Although the President will decide on whether and how to limit the number of requests for this information that an individual may make, I believe that any person should be able to obtain all worst case scenario information on any facility that may affect his or her community. Further, I would like to clarify the intent of the provisions pertaining to the preservation of state laws. This bill plainly provides that if a state, under an existing law or a law yet to be enacted, were to require the submission of similar or even identical information about chemical releases, no federal restrictions would apply to its distribution. I believe it is sound policy that we allow the state legislatures to strike the appropriate balance between security concerns and the value of this information to the public, as we have attempted to do on the federal level. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the United States has long been proud of its public schools. Our schools, locally supported and run, have increased our country's prosperity, raised our quality of life, and been the source of tremendous community pride. Supporting our public schools has been, and always must be, a duty we perform in full. Our public schools face a variety of problems today that make it difficult for them to perform their mission of providing a world-class education to all children, regardless of race, gender, religion, or economic status. The people of our country, from coast to coast, realize that we must invest in public schools now. At this time, with our schools crowded, outdated, understaffed, and underfunded, we must pull together to provide educators the tools they need to guarantee that our country's future will be bright. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are well aware of the seriousness of the problems faced by our schools. We are concerned about soaring student enrollment, the shortage of qualified teachers, and acute school construction needs. In Dearborn, Michigan, and in other school districts in my district, students must learn in temporary classrooms. These cheaply constructed buildings, often just trailers, are hardly long-term solutions to crowded classrooms. While many schools lack enough classrooms, many others have insufficient roofing, heating, and plumbing. As public schools--where 90% of our nation's children are enrolled-- face these daunting challenges, politicians have rushed to reform education. Reform is needed, but hastily passed and poorly written legislation fails to provide accountability or guarantee positive results. We must not, for reform's sake, endorse education measures offering vague objectives. Doing so is gambling with our future. Remember what a great idea charter schools were? They were going to save schools here in DC, in Michigan, and everywhere. Have charter schools proven their worth? The answer is a loud NO. Studies in Michigan have shown little, if any, educational benefit. At the same time, they have sucked public monies from public schools that desperately need additional funding. Today's Washington Post chronicles the mismanagement and poor achievements of one of the District's charter schools; this school--opened in 1996 without accountability-- robbed taxpayers of their money and jeopardized the future of many young people. Today we debate the Teacher Empowerment Act. This bill promises more local control, increased support for teachers, and class-size reduction, but does none of these things. It offers only vague accountability. It does not address class-size reduction. While giving more power to state governments, it does not give more control to local schools. Nor does this bill provide ongoing professional development. Ideally, giving states education block grants with no strings attached would allow education-friendly governors to work with educators to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, and improve our schools. We do not live in an ideal world. Many governors, by their words and deeds, are not friends of public schools. They have used teachers and schools alike as punching bags to further their own political agenda. More seriously, they have implemented education policies that abandon public schools by subsidizing private schools with public tax dollars. I am opposed to giving these ``reform-minded'' governors more control. Mr. Chairman, despite the good intentions of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this bill will not solve the many problems public schools face. These problems demand answers far and beyond block grants and waivers to rules in quality federal education programs. I am hopeful that we can all work together, write quality legislation, help our schools, and protect our nation's future.