John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, as I understood, it opens up the bill through page 93, line 15; is that correct?

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

Mr. DINGELL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, what is the request?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak for peace in the Middle East. Lasting viable peace, with justice for all the people in the area, Jew, Arab, Christian, or of whatever race or religion. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], because I do not believe it serves the interests of the Israelis, the Palestinians, or the United States. Since 1993, our Government has tried mightily to achieve a lasting peace which will allow Israelis, Palestinians, and all Arabs to live with greater security and dignity. In almost 4 years, the Middle East peace process has had many positive developments. Unfortunately, most of the progress has slowed in the past 18 months, the result of provocations, charges and countercharges issued on both sides of the negotiating table. The situation has degenerated so much that not only has the Oslo schedule fallen behind; discussions have virtually stopped, and the United States is being thwarted in its effort to serve as mediator in concert with European and Middle Eastern allies. The Saxon amendment implicitly lays blame for the recent difficulties squarely upon the Palestinians. Does the Palestinian Authority have some serious problems with civil administration, human rights, and controlling extremism? It certainly does. However, these problems are not unique to Mr. Arafat's government, and American policy has been predicated on the assumption that tightly controlled foreign assistance should be a tool that helps solve these problems while promoting a final accord with the Israelis. The administration strongly opposes this amendment. In addition to finding it counterproductive to achieving peace, the State Department has concluded that it would go well beyond reasonable limits in imposing new restrictions on Palestinian assistance without meeting the minimal criteria of reason and fair play. Over the past 10 days, there has been a quiet resumption of talks aimed at jumpstarting the peace process. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey would place these efforts in jeopardy, as well as risk another flareup of passions and violence in Israeli and Palestinian neighborhoods. There are several problems with the amendment. First, it is not balanced. If signed into law, our Government would be unable to provide financial assistance to the Palestinian people for 3 months. Worse yet, United States aid could resume assistance to the Palestinians only if Congress votes to approve a report on the Palestinians which would be submitted by the administration. Unlike other limitations on aid this body has approved in the past, this amendment allows no Presidential waiver, even if the President finds it to be in our national security interest. No disruption in aid to Israel is contemplated, and there should not be a disruption. However, it is not fair or consistent to tie the State Department's hands on only one side of a very sensitive negotiation. If foreign aid is going to be used as a bargaining chip to achieve our goals on foreign policy, human rights, judicial process, or prison conditions, we must apply a single fair standard to all. This amendment would do just the opposite. Mr. Chairman, I also am very concerned about the other standards this amendment would apply only to the Palestinian Authority. These provisions include: A prohibition on any speech which could be somehow deemed anti-Israel if it is believed that such speech undermines the peace process. It is not clear how a violation would be handled, by whom the violation would be judged, or just what constitutes a statement which is anti-Israel. What if Palestinians were to say in negotiations that they question Israel's right to hold all of Jerusalem? What if a Palestinian were to make allegations of unfair treatment under Israeli law? The lack of a clear definition is very troublesome. If such a provision was ever imposed upon our citizens, it would be swiftly condemned as unconstitutional. A requirement that our Government to certify the viability and fairness of the Palestinian court system. There is no doubt that the nascent Palestinian Authority must continue to pursue a more consistent application of justice. But in the interest of balance, the 1996 State Department Human Rights Report mentions many abuses within the Israeli justice system. The Saxton amendment would not seek a review of these problems. Rather than turn our backs on the Middle East peace process, Congress should be providing additional tools to the State Department to provide the elusive breakthrough. The United States has acted boldly in the pursuit of Middle East peace. The Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1993, which allows our Government to recognize the Palestinians, work with them, and provide them the help they need to establish security and work for a peaceful existence with Israel, will expire on August 12. Rather than completely obstructing our administration at this most crucial stage by punishing only the Palestinians, I believe it is in our own best interest to extend the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act [MEPFA] for another 180 days so we do not risk the loss of peace--or worse yet--the resumption of war. I am therefore, introducing a bill with the Gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] to extend MEPFA. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, and if at all possible, for this body to extend MEPFA before we leave for the August recess. Have no doubt, there are many in Middle East who are paying attention to us this evening. Almost two months ago, this House approved a resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 60, which reasserted the view of this body that Jerusalem should be the exclusive territory of Israel. That action was viewed in the Middle East as a preemptive strike against the successful completion of final status negotiations laid out in the Oslo accords. The result was to spark additional violence and bloodshed, placing in further jeopardy even the modest level of trust which is necessary for an agreement. A vote for this amendment not only will hurt the Palestinians; it will send the message that this Government no longer cares whether or not a secure peace is achieved. I urge the Palestinian and Israeli people to try to show additional restraint, and know that they still have many friends in America who care more about peace and security for both races. Let us not jeopardize the peace, let us not jeopardize the long and hard efforts of the United States to bring the parties together in negotiations leading to a peaceful resolution of a long and terrible struggle which has cost thousands of lives. The events of today, the bombing are terrible, they deserve condemnation of all right thinking human beings. The events of today must not be repeated, but the Saxton amendment rather than reducing the incentives for this kind of terrible action, provides more pressure for violence and terrorism. It provides the kind of frustration, anger and outrage that invites violence and murder. Do not remove the tools this nation needs to bring about peaceful negotiations, leading to peace in the Middle East which will bless all the people there. I urge the House to reject the Saxton amendment. Its adoption leads us away from peace and hope.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the spending reconciliation bill before us has a number of important and commendable provisions. At the same time, like many compromises, it includes some provisions which I consider quite objectionable. On the positive side, the bill represents the first major expansion of health care in many years by establishing a $24 billion program to insure our Nation's children. Extending health care to as many as 10 million uninsured children has been one of my most important goals, and this bill takes the first step in that direction. The bill also makes useful and important reforms of the Medicare Program that will extend solvency of the Medicare trust fund, while expanding new preventative services and adding consumer protections. Similarly, new consumer protections have been added to the Medicaid Program. Unfortunately, despite these commendable provisions, we should not delude ourselves that this bill will likely provide a balanced budget, in part because it uses $24 billion in phony revenues from sale of the public spectrum. These telecommunications provisions will give away the public spectrum for pennies on the dollar, and tamper with the public's Universal Service Fund that provides affordable telephone service to all areas of the country. In addition, I have serious problems with some of the Medicare provisions, such as medical savings accounts and private fee-for- service plans, that threaten the long-term viability of Medicare. I also have strong objections to the provisions in this bill that make unnecessary cuts in our veterans' health programs by as much as 20 percent. This is undoubtedly the worst place we could choose to balance the budget. Any bill that is so comprehensive and filled with compromise is bound to have both very good and very bad provisions, but as a Member of Congress we must choose either yes or no. In this case, Mr. Speaker, I believe there are too many important provisions in this bill, particularly in improved health care, to turn it down. Therefore, I intend to vote yes to this conference report.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the United States has acted boldly in the pursuit of Middle East peace for several years under two administrations. The Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1993 [MEPFA], which allows our Government to recognize the Palestinians, work with them, and provide them the help they need to establish security and work for a peaceful existence with Israel, will expire on August 12. At this moment, there are quiet efforts to resume constructive diplomacy between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The United States is trying to bridge differences and refocus talks on the true goals first agreed to in the Oslo Accords. However, within the next few days this body is likely to let MEPFA expire while considering whether to cut off all United States assistance to the Palestinians, leaving no incentive to work with our Government to achieve peace. In fact, the expiration of MEPFA will mean that any United States contact with the Palestinian Authority is illegal after August 12. Rather than completely obstructing our administration at this most crucial stage by punishing the Palestinians, I believe it is in our own best interest to extend MEPFA for another 180 days so we do not risk the loss of peace--or worse yet--the resumption of war. I am, therefore, introducing a bill with Representative Rahall to extend MEPFA for 6 months. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, and if at all possible, for this body to extend MEPFA before we leave for the August recess. MEPFA was approved by Congress to allow the administration to have the tools it needs to promote peace. It has twice been extended. We must not let this authority lapse.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, for less than 38 cents a year, each American supports a program which benefits our country culturally, educationally, and economically. Since its creation over 30 years ago by President Johnson, the National Endowment for the Arts has more than proven its value. Today, I would like to stress the importance of the NEA, and urge that my colleagues vote to save it. Balancing the budget is a goal that we all share, and we are on the right road to achieving that goal. We have all worked hard, as has President Clinton, to bring more fiscal order to our house by eliminating unnecessary programs and wasteful bureaucracy. Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported, as did newspapers across the country, that even without cutting additional governmental programs, our budget could well be balanced by 1998. Mr. Chairman, at a time when we struggle to balance the Federal budget many of my colleagues have targeted the NEA as a program which could, and should, be eliminated. However, even if the NEA was eliminated, it would do little to balance our budget, as the NEA accounts for less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of the budget. We spend more on military bands each year than on the NEA. Furthermore, a $99 million Federal investment in the NEA yielded a $3.4 billion return to the Treasury in taxes from the arts. Another oft-mentioned misperception is that NEA funds are used to sponsor controversial programs that Americans find distasteful. The majority of these claims are distorted, overblown, or misunderstood. While it is true that some clearly distasteful projects were funded in the past, it is also true that the rules as to which programs can be funded have been changed to eliminate funding for controversial projects. The NEA was created to enrich cultural lives in all corners of America. The arts have always flourished in our Nation's biggest cities, but not so in may of our rural areas, less affluent areas, and smaller communities; the NEA has changed this. Without the NEA, Michigan communities such as Muskegon, Ada, Tecumseh, Flint, Ypsilanti, Dearborn, Temperance, and Monroe would not be able to offer the quality arts programs that they can today; these programs make a difference. In Michigan's 16th District, the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, the University of Michigan-Dearborn, numerous youth and community programs could lose all Federal funding. Mr. Chairman, arts exposure and education is of great importance to our children and our future. Statistics don't lie. Students with 4 years of arts education score, on the average, 35 points higher on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Arts help students excel in math, science, reading, and all areas requiring critical thinking. Finally, Americans enjoy the arts and support the NEA; 79 percent support funding for arts programs. When looking at the NEA, I urge my fellow colleagues to think about the budget, think about the importance of our culture, think about our children, think about our future, and reject narrow thinking. Join with me today to save the NEA.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago. I cast my vote in favor of the budget resolution with the hope that it would yield a well- reasoned reconciliation package which I could support. Clearly, the majority has failed to assembled such a package. I have heard the quote, ``Here we go again,'' used by some of my Republican colleagues. While I applaud the rhetorical effulgence and I agree that it is appropriate in this instance, I question the context in which it is being used. The legacy of that former President--who so eloquently spoke those words--is the massive Federal debt we are confronting today. So, after a careful review of this tax package, the only proper conclusion is, ``Here we go again.'' We have yet to learn the lesson of 1981. Yesterday, I spoke of how the proposed $20.3 billion savings from the broadcast spectrum auctions are an illusion. It isn't surprising that those very savings account for nearly one quarter of the offset for the tax package. The budget gimmickry used for the capital gains tax cut will explode the deficit after 2002. Because wealthy Americans can pay their accrued capital gains in 2002 to receive the benefit of indexation, the end result is a one time $6 billion golden egg paid to the U.S. Treasury. It is a Ponzi scheme which benefits the wealthiest Americans, a throwback to the ``voodoo economics'' another Republican President warned us against. In 1948, my father argued against a Republican plan to allow employers to skip out on Social Security taxes. It is ironic that I am here nearly 50 years later to argue the same position. This bill allows employers to easily reclassify employees as independent contractors and to deny employees health care coverage as well as their Social Security contribution. Republicans speak of class warfare; it is obvious who is on the offensive. This is a blatant assault on hard-working Americans. It is clear that we are not talking about granting tax relief for those who need it most. A majority of the benefits in this package go to the wealthiest Americans and it squeezes those who need relief most, the working poor. Why will millionaires be able to sell off stock portfolios and pay less in taxes than middle-class Americans currently pay on income tax? It is shameful. The Democratic substitute would correct these flaws. Our tax relief plan would allow the parents of 24 million more children to benefit from the $500-per-child tax credit. Capital gains and estate tax relief are targeted towards small businesses and families. It permits homeowners to who sell their homes at a loss to take a tax deduction. Most importantly, two-thirds of the benefit go to those making less than $75,000. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this shameful Republican tax scheme and vote for the Democratic substitute.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I commend my good friend for the fine work which he has done on this very important subject. I had voted for the prior resolutions on this matter. I regret I will not be able to do so. This budget suffers from a number of fatal defects, the most important of which, it breaches agreements contained in the earlier budget resolution and it will not achieve a balanced budget. There are a number of defects with regard to medical savings, with regard to moneys which should better be spent for preventive care such as mammographies, prostate cancer screening, and more. The bill treats the young people of this country poorly. It will not achieve a balanced budget. The Committee on Rules put in sweeping amendments to the section on spectrum auctions that have completely gutted taxpayer protections that were included in the Committee on Commerce's recommendations. Our committee made sure that the public's assets would not be sold at fire sale prices by permitting spectrum auctions to be canceled if they did not raise a minimum amount of revenue. The policy changes included in this bill were rejected by the Committee on Commerce members, and for good reason; they do not protect American taxpayers. Indeed they do great harm to them. My colleagues need to know one issue of permanent and paramount importance. A sizable portion of this budget bill is held together by sham and fraud consisting of phony revenue assumptions about the value of spectrum auctions. We know that the revenue assumptions here are phony. We have seen them before. Last September Congress ordered a spectrum auction for the sole purpose of plugging a revenue gap. CBO estimated that the auction would raise $1.8 billion. Instead the auction produced just $13 million, less than one penny on the dollar. One speculator won the right to serve four States for a total of $4. It appears that the Committee on the Budget, like the Bourbons of France, have learned nothing from this and forget nothing also. The evidence shows that the market for radio spectrum is saturated and demand is at an all-time low. Yet we are, under the aegis of the Committee on the Budget, proceeding to rush forward to sell out spectrum for pennies on the dollar under a pretense that it will balance the budget. In fact, it will not. The money is not there and we are looking at further deficits because of the fact that we have lied to ourselves, lied to each other, and lied to the American people. Even the FCC chairman says his engineers cannot identify where at least half the spectrum will come from and that they have no idea how this will be accomplished. We have also learned that some of the spectrum identified for auction in this bill is currently used by the FAA. We can be sure then that this proposal will jeopardize the health and the safety of the flying public. Beyond this, the GAO report says operations like Desert Storm could be severely impaired by the auction of radio frequencies. Can the Committee on the Budget or the Committee on Rules assure members of this committee that the bill will not have a disastrous effect on the viability of the Nation's military operations? Put your expertise against the GAO, which says that this puts our national defense effort at severe risk. The losers here are going to be the American taxpayers who are not only being misled but who will continue to face a continued mounting budgetary deficit because of a phony set of assumptions and a doomed- to-fail policy on spectrum auctions.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, over a period of 14 years, the Committee on Commerce, under my chairmanship, conducted hundreds of investigations, issued thousands of subpoenas, and never were any of these events done without full participation by the minority, without full consultation, and without a vote of the minority. The public wants a good investigation of the election process and the fundraising. They will expect this Congress to do an honorable and a decent job. Let us investigate everybody. Let us see to it that we find out where the wrongdoing is, when it was done. Let us not have a carefully cooked investigation wherein only one side is investigated. Let us find all of the wrongdoing, and let us use this as what the American people want it to be, an investigation to lay the predicate for meaningful reform of our campaign laws. To do less brings shame upon the investigation, brings shame upon this body, and I would urge that this body make the kind of investigation that the American people want, where we get to the bottom of the facts and we conduct it in a fashion in which the American people may say, the Congress did well, and trust us to do well in the future. That is not to be seen here.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage at a deplorable and despicable act which disgraces the honor of our country--the burning of the U.S. flag. Behind the Speaker stands our flag; the most beautiful of all the flags, with colors of red, white, and blue, carrying on its face the great heraldic story of 50 States descended from the original 13 colonies. I love it. I revere it. And I have served it in war and peace. However, today I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 54, the flag amendment, which for the first time in over 200 years would amend our Bill of Rights. Mr. Speaker, throughout our history millions of Americans have served under this flag during wartime; some have sacrificed their lives for what this flag stands for: Our unity, our freedom, our tradition, and the glory of our country. I have proudly served under our glorious flag in the Army of the United States during wartime, as a private citizen, and as an elected public official. And like many of my colleagues, I treasure this flag and fully understand the deep emotions it invokes. But while our flag may symbolize all that is great about our country, I swore an oath to uphold the great document which defines our country. The Constitution of the United States is not as visible as is our wonderful flag, and oftentimes we forget the glory and majesty of this magnificent document--our most fundamental law and rule of order; the document which defines our rights, liberties, and the structure of our Government. Written in a few short weeks and months in 1787, it created a more perfect framework for government and unity and defined the rights of the people of this great Republic. The principles spelled out in this document define how an American is different from a citizen of any other nation of the world. And it is because of my firm belief in these principles--the same principles I swore an oath to uphold--that I must oppose this amendment. Because if this amendment is adopted, it will be the first time in the entire history of the United States that we have cut back on the liberties of Americans as defined in the Bill of Rights. Prior to the time the Supreme Court spoke on this matter, and defined acts of physical desecration to the flag under certain conditions as acts of free speech protected by the Constitution, I would have happily supported legislation which would protect the flag. While I have reservations about the propriety of these decisions, the Supreme Court is, under our great Constitution, empowered to define constitutional rights and to assure the protection of all the rights of free citizens in the United States. Today, we are forced to make a difficult decision. There is, regrettably, enormous political pressure for us to constrain rights set forth in the Constitution to protect the symbol of this Nation. This vote is not a litmus test of one's patriotism. What we are choosing today is between the symbol of our country and the soul of our country. When I vote today, I will vote to support and defend the Constitution in all its majesty and glory, recognizing that to defile or dishonor the flag is a great wrong; but recognizing that the defense of the Constitution, and the rights guaranteed under it, is the ultimate responsibility of every American. I urge my colleagues to honor our flag by honoring a greater treasure to Americans, our Constitution. Vote down this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today the House agreed to an amendment to H.R. 1757, the Foreign Policy Act, which condemns the use by the Palestinian Authority of the death penalty for any Palestinian who sells land to a Jew. Indeed, the statements cited in the resolution offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon] cause great concern because those statements support a violent, divisive, and foolish policy which is based in prejudice and hatred. To condone, or worse yet promote, the execution of citizens for the sale of property to Israelis is wrong, and I support this body's assertion that this policy should be condemned. I am troubled, however, Mr. Speaker, by the tone of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York, as well as by the accusations that this behavior represents a unique and unilateral breach of the Oslo accords. Most knowledgeable individuals and observers understand that the breakdown of the Middle East peace talks plays prominently in the background of policies on all sides which have stymied constructive peace negotiations. Both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have undertaken activities which have led to charges that each side has violated the peace agreements signed on the South Lawn in 1993. Following the recent insistence by Israel that construction of settlements in Har Homa must go forward, there has been a break in the peace talks which has greatly concerned our Government. Secretary of State Albright has concluded that a trip to the region makes little sense until Israel and the Palestinians do more on their own to break the impasse and resume a constructive dialog. Given these many problems, Mr. Speaker, I must express my reservations with the parts of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York which imply that only the Palestinian Authority must resume a responsible course. For when it comes time for the President to assure that the Palestinian Authority is meeting its commitments to Israel, will anyone be mindful of the commitments made by Israel to the Palestinians?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my dear friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink], who has provided such valuable leadership in addressing the important issue that he now raises in the House. I want to commend him for his distinguished and able service here on behalf of the people that he serves and on behalf of the people of the United States. I also want to thank my colleague for his kind remarks towards me Mr. Speaker, the situation here is a serious one. It is interesting to note that we are making, according to Administrator Browner, significant progress in cleaning up the air and that that progress will continue for at least 5 years and that no change in the Clean Air Act is necessary to continue significant progress in terms of evading pollution. It is interesting that in the same appearance before the Committee on Commerce, in which she said those things, she had to admit that much of what are the supporting facts or science with regard to the changes that EPA proposes with regard to particulates and ozone, she does not know the answer and she does not have the science upon which she can base the judgments that she needs to. Certain facts are very clear. The air is getting better, the air is getting cleaner. Significant progress will be made. One of the admissions made by Ms. Browner before the Committee on Energy and Commerce was that the changes she is suggesting will not significantly result in major improvement in air quality between now and the year 2002. In addition to this, it is plain that the economic consequences of the rulemaking now proposed by EPA will be very, very significant in terms of jobs, opportunity for our people, and competitiveness. It is very plain that the jobs in industrialized America will move to unindustrialized areas and that new brownfields will be created and new greenfields will be torn up for industrial change. It is also very plain that significant loss of economic opportunity and economic impetus for this country impends and that the consequences of these rules being adopted will be that the United States will see significant jobs lost to Mexico, Canada, and other places around the world as American industry moves out. One might ask why that situation will obtain. The answer is very simple. What is going to transpire is that the rules suggested by EPA will create no less than 400 nonattainment areas in the United States and those areas, while getting cleaner, will be legislated into nonattainment by the rules that are being suggested by EPA. The consequences of this are that those areas will become subject to sanctions, will become subject to transportation limitations, will become subject to losses of jobs stemming from losses of building permits, and to changes which will be imposed on industry with regard to the fashion in which business is conducted. More importantly, business will be faced with the significant problems of achieving building permits. Ordinary citizens will face significant risk to lifestyle; and while those lifestyle changes are impossible to predict at this time, the rules which could be imposed on those areas could include things like controls on barbecuing, house painting, on running of power mowers, operation of motor boats, and other things in the areas which are nonattainment. The consequences in terms of lost jobs, lost opportunity, loss of quality of life by Americans is indeed significant. While it is impossible to predict exactly what the consequences of this will be, they will be extremely onerous and need not be imposed upon American industry and upon American citizens. The cost to the American people of the changes that this is going to impose will be enormous. One of the interesting things is that if we had, for example, a fourth grader playing in a grade school playground here in Washington, DC, under existing rules and regulations, that child is going to live in an area that meets existing standards by 1999, a mere 2 years from today. If EPA adopts the new standard, EPA hopes to force continued progress. But this attainment deadline will not be enforced, at least according to the transitional guidance issued by EPA with the proposed rules. Instead, EPA will provide a new attainment date with the new standard. That allows States to take up to 12 years to bring an area into attainment. So in point of fact, what will transpire to this child is that 12 years after today he will live in an area which has reached attainment if all goes well. If the past is prologue for the future, we know that EPA and the States will use the maximum amount of time allowed. So in point of fact, that child, instead of seeing the cleanup of his area or her area in 2 years, will observe it in a period of 12 years. The number of counties that are going to be put into nonattainment area is significant, as I mentioned, better than 400 in the United States. It is interesting to note that amongst that number will be a significant number of counties in the State that I have the privilege and the pleasure to represent. Some 26 counties in Michigan will be legislated from attainment into nonattainment. Some 26 counties in Ohio will find same situations. EPA's standards may result in cleaner air, but they may also result in significant hardship which will be imposed because of the requirements for sanctions and other things to be imposed. It should be noted that of the 50 States, all 50 will see questions raised about the validity and the propriety of their State implementation plans. The consequence of this is again to subject every county within those States to the possibility of sanctions, penalties and other things. And failure to comply with these will subject the cities, the counties and the States to the strong possibility of citizen suits which will take control away from the local units of government, away from the States and put them into the courts. The consequences of this, I reiterate to my colleagues, are indeed serious. I commend again the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership. One of the questions I did not mention that is going to confront us is the Clean Air Act as now constituted requires all Federal highway funds to be withheld by EPA as an automatic sanction for nonattainment areas, whether they be counties, whether they be cities or whether they be States. As a result, industrial and transportation projects can be delayed years and decades by the Clean Air Act requirements in nonattainment areas where good faith effort is now being made by the citizens and by their governments to comply with the law. These changes suggested by EPA are extremely destructive, hazardous of economic growth, unneeded and will result in serious hardship not only for American industry and competitiveness but also for the people of the United States. I would hope that those who are within reach of my voice or are observing what I am saying will take to heart what I have said and communicate with the administration about their concerns of the unwisdom of this kind of unnecessary step.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], my good friend, for yielding me the time, and I want to commend him and thank him for his work on behalf of this piece of legislation. He is a valuable Member of this body and I am indeed grateful to him. Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a fine piece of legislation. It is a strong piece of legislation. It will protect one of the Nation's most precious resources, our national wildlife refuge system, hundreds of areas, and millions of acres, and they will be protected for the future, but they will be under wise use. My colleagues might perhaps wonder why I rise here today. My first reason is to commend my colleagues who have participated in this, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], my dear friend of long standing, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], my good friend, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking minority member of the committee, and the very fine staffs of all of us, including Dan Beattie from my staff, who participated in the work that made this possible. I also want to rise to commend the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt, who worked so hard and so well on this battle. And it is probably with some surprise that all of us who participated in these discussions find that we have accomplished the remarkable task of bringing this legislation to the floor. It is indeed remarkable because there were great differences that existed as we went through the business. The legislation is good. It is a successor piece of legislation to the Refuge Administration Act, which years ago, when I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation of the old Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, on which my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources served at that time. I want to say that we were very proud of the good work that we did in those great days, as we are proud of the work that we do today. The legislation protects hunting, it protects wise use, it sees to it that the refuges both insofar as their habitat and their area are protected. It also sees to it that the wildlife species, which are so precious and so important and which are the reason for the existence of the refuge system, achieve the full and necessary protection which they must have. The bill expands the National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966 by providing a strong mission statement for the system and by ensuring that each refuge is managed in a way that fulfills the mission of the system and the purpose for which the refuge was created. It provides in this strong statement the following language: ``To administer national networks of lands and waters for the conservation, management and where appropriate the restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats with the United States for the benefit of the present and future generations of Americans.'' It directs the service to implement conservation plans and to determine the compatibility of activities on the refuge and gives protection to compatible wildlife- dependent activities, like hunting. And I would remind all my colleagues and everybody in and outside this body that it was the hunters who set up and who maintained and who preserved, protected, and funded the wildlife refuge system, and it is the hunter with his small contribution of one duck stamp each hunting season that makes possible the continued acquisition of land for the precious purpose of protecting this system. I hope that my colleagues will recognize that this is good, sound, necessary legislation, and I hope that they will recognize that many of the important wildlife and hunting organizations support this: the Wildlife Legislative Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, the National Rifle Association, the Safari Club International, and by my colleagues who work here constantly on behalf of conservation, my colleagues and friends in the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. I do want to say one particular word about the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], my good friend. I know he had strong differences with the Secretary early on, and I know the Secretary had strong differences with my colleague. The two came together in a fashion which does credit not only to them but to this institution and to their respective responsibilities. I am proud to have had a little bit to do with the adoption of this legislation. I want to urge my colleagues to support the legislation, which brings viability and health to 92 million acres of the refuge system, which is one of the greatest national treasures in the possession of this country.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Oberstar, and I are introducing, at the request of the President, the Surface Transportation Safety Act of 1997. This legislation, which complements the national Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997, is designed to improve safety in a variety of transportation areas. In some cases, the provisions make important improvements in existing safety programs. In other cases, new approaches are taken. Other provisions make technical changes to reduce paperwork burdens on industries and Government. Introducing this bill by request, I do not necessarily endorse each provision, but I believe that this comprehensive bill is a serious effort to save lives in the transportation field. I would encourage the appropriate committees of the House to give these provisions the attention they deserve. As is the case in any comprehensive bill, the provisions fall into a variety of committee jurisdictions. Various committees may wish to move certain sections or titles separately as they see fit to expedite consideration. As I briefly describe the provisions of the bill, I will also indicate the committees of jurisdiction for each provision, based upon consultations with the Office of the Parliamentarian. As a second part of NEXTEA, the bill begins with title IX, which makes a number of amendments to our traffic safety laws. Perhaps the most important change is found in section 9001, dealing with primary safety belt use. The provision, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, would transfer certain highway funds to occupant protection programs in any State which failed to enact a law requiring the use of safety belts. The connection between traffic safety and seat belt use is clear and convincing. No other engineering feat can match the safety provided by seat belts. The Department of Transportation estimates that over 75,000 lives were saved by safety belts between 1982 and 1995. A study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1995 found that in States with a primary enforcement law, seat belt use increased by about 15 percent. This increase translates to a 5.9- percent decline in fatalities. For example, in California and Louisiana, States that recently upgraded their laws to provide for primary enforcement, safety belt use increased by 13 and 17 percentage points respectively. Sections 9002 through 9005, within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, would make a variety of minor changes to various auto safety laws. One of the provisions would allow an expansion of a program to allow manufacturers to seek waivers of various safety standards to adopt more innovative safety approaches that would provide greater safety protection. Section 9006, primarily within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, with jurisdiction also in the Judiciary Committee, seeks to improve standardization in State titling requirements to alert consumers when they are buying severely damaged vehicles. Many damaged vehicles are rebuilt for sale, but they continue to pose a serious safety risk. Title X of the bill would reauthorize hazardous materials programs within the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Title XI of the bill, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Commerce, would upgrade programs to prevent excavator damage to underground utilities, such as natural gas pipelines. In the past decade, 98 people have lost their lives and 425 others were injured from accidents to pipelines caused by excavation. The bill would seek to reduce these accidents by enhancing one-call programs at the State level. One-call programs provide excavators a simple and effective way of avoiding pipelines. Title XII, would clarify and reallocate responsibilities for ensuring food transportation safety among the Departments of Health and Human Services, Transportation and Agriculture. The provision, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, seeks to improve food safety by giving a primary role to the Department of Health and Human Services. Title XIII, within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, would create criminal sanctions for violent attacks against railroads similar to the sanctions against attacks against airlines. Unfortunately, we have seen increased terrorist attacks against railroads, such as the attacks on Amtrak passenger trains near Santa Fe in 1996, near Hyder, AZ in 1995, near Opa-Locka, FL in 1993, and at Newport News, VA in 1992. The new provisions would make these intentional attacks on trains a Federal crime subject to penalties associated with attacks on airlines. Title XIV, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, would amend certain rail and mass transportation programs to require certain safety considerations to be made in grants. In summary, Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a comprehensive approach to transportation safety that will undoubtedly save many lives and prevent tragic injuries. The provisions deserve careful consideration by this Congress.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Congress and the Nation the concerns of the National Conference of State Legislatures with regard to H.R. 1306, the Riegle-Neal Clarification Act of 1997, which the House will consider today under suspension of the rules. H.R. 1306 was introduced on April 10, 1997, and referred to the Banking Committee where it was approved by voice vote in subcommittee with no full committee markup. As the NCSL letter notes, this legislation would negatively affect the ability of State legislatures to regulate the sale of the insurance products when those sales are conducted through banks. As most Members are aware, the Comptroller of the Currency presently is considering whether to preempt a statute enacted by the State of Rhode Island. I am inserting in the Record copies of the NCSL letter and the comment letter I signed with 11 other House colleagues critical of the OCC proposal. We have been afforded insufficient time and process to consider the negative implications of H.R. 1306 on consumer protection and fair competition. I remain concerned about these issues and trust that our Senate colleagues will address these matters with more deliberation than has the House. National Conference of State Legislatures May 16, 1997. Hon. John D. Dingell, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Dingell: We write to you today to reiterate the concerns of the National Conference of State Legislatures with regard to H.R. 1306, the ``Riegle-Neal Clarification Act of 1997,'' which will be considered on Suspension Calendar during the week of May 19th. You may have heard from certain sources that NCSL had withdrawn its opposition to H.R. 1306. We want to make clear that this is simply not true. The National Conference of State Legislatures has long been a proponent of our nation's dual banking system and the benefits of that system to our nation's financial well being. In recognition of the advantages of the dual banking system to the public and to the health of the financial services industry, NCSL historically has opposed any efforts by the federal government to restrict state authority to charter, supervise or regulate the powers of state-chartered banks and thrifts. For this reason we must oppose H.R. 1306. The legislation would alter the intent of Congress as embodied in the Reigle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which set specific parameters for the branching of state chartered banks across state lines. For the 45 state legislatures which voted to ``opt-in'' to interstate bank branching, this would significantly change the ground rules which they accepted in allowing their states to host branches of banks from another state. Let us provide one example of the impact of H.R. 1306 on the authority of state legislatures. The Rhode Island General Assembly has passed legislation which sets the requirements that all banks must follow in the sale of insurance products. At present the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is considering preempting this legislation's applicability to national banks. Should this happen, under H.R. 1306, the Rhode Island statute would not apply to branches of state-chartered banks from other states doing business in the State of Rhode Island. The Rhode Island law would only apply to those state banks chartered in Rhode Island. This would cause an unfair competitive disadvantage for Rhode Island state banks and thus limit the ability of state legislative authority. It does not take any stretch of the imagination to understand that should H.R. 1306 be enacted in its present form the OCC will soon be the sole arbiter of banking law and regulation. As state legislators we are as concerned about the financial viability of our state banking systems, as are state banking supervisors and governors. We are well aware of the enormous contributions that state banks have made to the economic vitality of our states and we seek to continue working with our states' governors to ensure the viability of the dual banking system. However, we must also be concerned that state chartered banks which have no desire to branch across state lines are not placed at a competitive disadvantage. Of the over 7,000 state chartered banks, less than 30% have assets over $100 million and therefore are not likely candidates to branch across state lines. Most state banks are small community banks which have well served our nation's cities and rural areas and have been the economic backbone of our country for over one hundred years. They are the banks which have responded time and time again to our communities economic needs. They have no desire to become a multinational financial giant, branching from coast to coast. As elected state officials we have an obligation to these smaller community states banks and their customers that efforts such as H.R. 1306, geared to the top 30% of state banks, do not place unfair burdens on the vast majority of our state banking industry. During the mark-up by the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, NCSL offered reasonable amendments to the legislation which would have provided sufficient accountability to host state legislatures and most importantly its citizens. Unfortunately, the Subcommittee did not accept our changes. Therefore, we must once again declare our opposition to H.R. 1306. We respectfully request that you abide by the commitment made by a previous Congress and we would ask that until some accountability is restored to the host state, you vote no on H.R. 1306. Thank you for this opportunity to make clear NCSL's position on this important legislation. Sincerely. Bill Schroeder, Senate Majority Chairman--Colorado, Vice Chair, NCSL Commerce & Communications Committee. Myra Jones Chair, House City, County & Local Affairs--Arkansas, Vice Chair, NCSL Commerce & Communications Committee.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of balancing the budget. That is why I will offer my mild support to this resolution. It is, by my view, flawed in many respects. I will not, however, see fit to impede further movement toward a balanced budget. The budget agreement is a product of compromise which is the hallmark of our great democracy. I cannot help but remember 1993, when the Democrats, without the support of a single Republican, passed the budget plan which cut the deficit and provided a solid framework for the economic expansion we currently enjoy. While we would have appreciated some Republican support, I recognize the need to move past malevolent politics and engage constructively with my colleagues in a bipartisan effort to solve a national problem. We have it backward. We've had our ice cream and cake but its time to eat the spinach. I fear that we do not remain wise and diligent, we are doomed to repeat the same failure of the 1981 Reagan voodoo budget agreement. I am concerned that the tax cuts should be fully paid for up front, and this agreement backloads the tough budget cuts. I also have serious reservations about a proposal to index the capital gains tax cut which has the potential to empty the U.S. Treasury. Soon after this we will have to work through the reconciliation process to ensure that we move in a fair and equitable way to accomplish our purpose of a balanced budget. I will be voting in favor of the budget resolution because I believe it is with all its flaws, the best tool to achieve a balanced budget. As in any compromise, there are aspects which I support and some which I do not. I can only hope that the good will and bipartisanship will finally deliver us a total final package for which I can more enthusiastically cast my vote. We will wait and see what the future brings. I hope the process will bring us votes which I can support at every stage, including the last one.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. There are $23 million to cover two major air crashes which occurred in the United States, the ValuJet crash in Miami and the TWA crash off Long Island. This would treat another crash in the same fashion, making available $300,000 for the costs incurred by the county of Monroe, a small county in Michigan, for their cooperation in terms of assistance, rescue, search and other activities including cleanup. It would treat Monroe no differently than it would treat the other communities and States which were involved in cleanups of this kind and it would afford them no benefits not available here to others. It is simply a plea for equity to my colleagues in the Congress, that they would treat another small county on a small item in the bill but a very big item to that county. I hope my colleagues will support it. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which would make available up to $300,000 to reimburse Monroe County, MI for costs associated with the crash this past January of Comair flight 3272, which claimed the lives of 29 passengers and crew. When Comair flight 3272 fell from the sky late in the afternoon January 9, an emergency situation befell local officials in Monroe County, MI which called for immediate and swift response. Like some counties its size, Monroe County had trained personnel who performed ably and admirably in the hours following the crash. The first mission was to determine how to help the victims' that mission was quickly surpassed by the stark reality that there were no survivors. At that point attention was turned to the grim task of victim and wreckage recovery, along with the collection of data and other clues to determine the cause of the accident. For the first few hours after the tragedy, local authorities took control of the scene and attempted to secure the site. After several hours, Federal officials from the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] arrived in Monroe County and took command of recovery and investigation efforts over the next several days. Much of their work was performed outdoors under extremely cold and windy conditions, necessitating special efforts to procure mobile morgues, heaters, and other equipment so Federal efforts could continue. Just a few weeks ago, I received from Monroe County a summary of the costs associated with the crash. It is important to note that some of the outstanding costs are subject to continued negotiation with the airline and its insurance carrier. I believe very strongly that Federal taxpayers should not be made liable for costs legitimately belonging to air carriers, and I hope that Comair and other air carriers do not misconstrue this amendment to mean relief from their financial obligations to the victims and families of air disasters. I have been informed that underwriters have recently been prevented from meeting with the NTSB by their air carrier clients. If true, such action contradicts the intent of Congress, which had hoped that air carriers would be more responsive, not less responsive to families. If such a move signals a lack of cooperation on the part of air carriers, Congress may have to send a stronger--and perhaps a more stringent-- signal to the airlines to gain the cooperation we anticipated last year. Last year Congress approved legislation, the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act, which required the National Transportation Safety Board to coordinate more help for air disaster victims and families. I was an early and strong supporter of this act, which became law in response to many horror stories shared with Members regarding poor treatment of families by airline and airport personnel, government officials and lawyers. Thankfully, this new law corrects some of those abuses. However, we instructed the NTSB to take on this mission without providing the funding necessary to support the new tasks, while failing to make more clear the responsibilities of air carriers and their underwriters following such disasters. The crash of Comair flight 3272 was the first real test of the new family disaster assistance law, and I would agree with those colleagues who have concerns about the manner in which the liability and cost issues are being settled. I believe that the proper authorizing committee, working with the Appropriations Committee, should review the Comair case to determine how to make certain the new law works as intended. Also very important is clarification to determine how disaster costs will be settled and paid by responsible parties in a consistent, swift, and fair manner. The legislation before us attempts to help remedy the problem by providing more than $23 million in emergency assistance to communities which have suffered these disasters. My amendment simply tries to make certain that Monroe County is dealt with in a manner that is consistent with the existing situation. Mr. Chairman, when disaster struck Monroe County in January, local officials and citizens responded in a selfless and heroic way to come to the aid of those in need. This Sunday, a memorial service will be held in Monroe to remember those who died, give comfort to the families, and provide a chance for those local people whose lives were touched by disaster to reflect on a tragic experience. I believe that when the Federal Government plays a role in addressing the needs and concerns of aircraft accident victims' families, as called for in Federal law, we should not expect local communities to pick up the tab. I would hope that Congress will show its support and solidarity with Monroe by making certain that Federal assistance pays for Federal requirements associated with investigating the Comair crash. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to provide a small measure of assistance to a county that responded without hesitation to the urgent requests for help from a Federal agency. Once that job is done, I look forward to sharing my views with the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee so that disasters of the sort which struck Monroe County will be handled with the utmost care, efficiency, and accountability.

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

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

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

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. I have listened to the debate with a great deal of interest this afternoon. I have heard my colleagues who offer the legislation talk about the intention of the original authors of the Endangered Species Act. They were right. They said we did not want to prevent people from protecting their homes and avoiding calamities and taking steps necessary to repair after. I have also listened to my colleagues on the side who are pushing the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. They have said that the purpose of the original Endangered Species Act was to see to it that we protected precious species from being extinguished by the hand of man. Both are right. I think it is good that we should take steps to protect endangered species from being extinguished. I think it is also right that we should protect people. That leaves us a choice between the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York and the original piece of legislation. Interestingly enough at the time that the legislation was written, I was the chairman of the subcommittee. In fact, I was the author of the legislation. I thought it was good legislation then, and I still think it is good legislation. The distinguished gentleman from Alaska, if I recall correctly, was a member of the committee at the time we wrote that legislation. He is now chairman of the Committee on Resources, and I am delighted to see that because he is a fine chairman and a dear friend of mine. But I would observe to my colleagues that in choosing between the extinction and the extermination of species and the protection of human life, the choice here really is quite simple. That is, to adopt the amendment which was wisely and prudently offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and to reject the basic language of the bill, because the basic language of the bill does not just protect human life, it gives an absolute absolution, it gives an immunity bath to the wiping out of any species in connection with the construction, reconstruction, amendment, repair, or other things of some kind of a flood control project. It goes as far as drains and dams and it goes as far as fishways and protection of fishways. It goes even to things like beach erosion. I am not sure that that is necessary for the protection of human life. It allows anything to be done without any consultation or anything else. The Boehlert amendment says that if there is substantial danger to human life, all those things are waived. Substantial danger. We have just changed it to deal with the concerns that were expressed about imminent. The bill also affords reasonable time limitations in terms of how long this will go. The Committee on Resources is not going to close up its business tomorrow. It is going to be here. They will have oversight and look at the way that this legislation should be conducted and I think that is the way the Congress should function, and I commend the committee for what it is it does. The legislation they have brought before us is not good legislation. The legislation as amended by the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York would be good legislation. It would be legislation of which we could be proud. It would carry out the two purposes of the debate today. First, the protection of endangered species. If some of the proponents of this amendment would really like to talk to me about what they really have in mind, I would like them to tell me why we ought to wipe out species that are precious in terms of the gene pool, or that lend unique and rare quality to the life that we all enjoy in this world of ours. Or why it would be useful for us to sacrifice those kinds of species when there might be some future importance to them, to human beings going even beyond the simple knowledge that that species might be there. Let us talk about doing something and doing something quickly. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] makes it possible for us to have immediate relief. This legislation will whistle through the House if that amendment is adopted and it will whistle through the Senate because both bodies are looking for something to do. It also will be signed by the President. Now, the alternative is the adoption of the bill as it is laid before us, an immunity bath for any misbehavior under the Endangered Species Act which would relate to flood control projects. The President is not going to sign the bill as it now is. And so all of us are going to go home and we can tell our constituents about the wonderful speeches we made about how we were protecting people from floods. But the real answer is, if Members really want to protect people from floods, if we really want to do a wise and careful job of legislating, if we really want to protect endangered species and if we want to protect people, if we want to deal with the problems of floods and repairs and to do it responsibly and thoughtfully, adopt the amendment that is offered by the gentleman from New York and reject the bill as it is now drawn.

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.)