John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I wondered. Now, continuing my reservation of objection, could my dear friend from Florida tell me a little about this bill we are bringing up before the hour's notice? Is this a bill we have seen before? Was this bill up in committee?

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, could the gentleman tell me why we are doing this under unanimous consent?

Mr. DINGELL. To suspend the rules and pass the bill.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand. What is the unanimous-consent request here?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman please restate the unanimous-consent request?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, is this a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my affection and respect for the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] and also the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and I want to point out that we on the Committee on Commerce have no concerns about the jurisdiction or jurisdictional questions or the referrals of these matters. I want to talk a little about the history of how this bill came to be and what is in it and why, perhaps, it ought to be rejected. First of all, the bill was only voted out of the Senate last night. No legislative hearings were held upon this bill either in the House or in the Senate. The bill, if my colleagues will read it, is poorly drafted and it is ambiguous. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure broke off discussions and negotiations with the other committees last week, so there have been no real discussions during that time. The threat to communities from unsafe pipelines is real. In 1994, a gas pipeline explosion destroyed an apartment complex in Edison, NJ. In 1993, a leak in the Colonial Oil Pipeline in Fairfax County, VA, caused extensive property and environmental damage, and other events of this kind are waiting to happen. The bill allows, in a rather curious provision, the Department of Transportation to substitute a voluntary demonstration project for real regulation. That is hardly protecting the public safety or public interest. It does not ensure public participation when the Department of Transportation considers whether or not a pipeline should be exempt from regulation. That is possible even for pipelines which go through heavily settled metropolitan areas where some fine, fine explosions could occur. The bill discontinues the existing requirement that pipelines be inspected every 2 years, even in high density communities or in environmentally sensitive areas. Now, there are a lot of questions about this bill: Does the bill undermine rulemaking protections under the Administrative Procedure Act? The language of it indicates yes, that it does undermine the Administrative Procedure Act's requirements. The bill also raises questions of whether the APA applies or not. I do not believe that any member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure can tell us whether in fact it applies or not. The question arises are the safety standards referred to in section 60102 required to be set by rulemaking? Are they going to be done publicly? Or will they be done in some curious, sneaky, dishonest, underhanded fashion in the dark of night without public participation? Another question: What is going to happen to existing and pending pipeline safety standards? How will this requirement affect DOT's pending rule for replacing pipelines to facilitate better safety inspections? What kind of delay is this going to introduce in finalizing that rule? Now, there is a question of demonstration projects in public participation. The bill permits DOT to set up demonstration projects for pipelines in lieu of existing regulation. What does that mean? Question: Does DOT consider an application under this type of exemption? If it does, can local citizens participate? Are exemptions done through rulemaking where they can be challenged in court? Are citizens' comments to be a part of the public record, or will we hear only from pipeline executives? Will pipeline executives function in some kind of a curious darkened place where there is no public participation? The bill significantly alters wetland protections. It sets up some new category of critical wetlands. These are not defined in the bill. Question: What are these curious types of wetlands? Are they better or worse? Are they entitled to different protections than other wetlands? And what does this all mean? Now there is one other little item that is in this: peer review. The question here is, does the secretary have to put a peer review panel above the other rulemaking process? Does he bring into the peer review process ordinary citizens? Who is to be on this peer review panel? Are they going to be pipeline lobbyists or pipeline lawyers or pipeline executives or will ordinary citizens be permitted to participate in this? Is the mayor of a community that a major pipeline goes through going to be involved in this, or will there be representatives of cities and counties and local governments and safety authorities and fire insurance people and specialists in public safety of all kinds? The hard fact here is this bill drips questions, this bill raises more questions than it answers. It puts in place loopholes which raise questions about public safety. It was done in a very curious fashion. There have been no hearings. Nobody of the Transportation Committee can tell us what is in the bill. The Transportation Committee endorses it with great enthusiasm, and perhaps that is because they do not really know what is in the bill. The bill raises the fine question then of whether we should perhaps reject it because we are supposed to pass a bill on which there can be no amendments, without adequate discussion, in a period of 40 minutes which is going to raise fine questions later as to public safety. I would remind my colleagues that in the 1940's there was a natural gas explosion in the City of Cleveland which cost the citizens of Cleveland better than $300 million. That was in 1940's dollars; that was a huge sum. Enormous numbers of buildings were destroyed, citizens were destituted, and the consequences were horrible to see. The pipeline explosion which occurred in New Jersey was a spectacular event. It was reminiscent of an atom bomb going off. I would say that in the addressing of questions of pipeline safety we should consider the need to be concerned about the well-being of the pipelines. We also should be aware of the need to be concerned about the safety of citizens and about the mechanisms that government has to assure the safety of citizens from risks of leaking or exploding pipelines or fires which are associated with leaks in these pipelines. I urge the rejection of this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I joined several colleagues who expressed concern about funding for the control of the sea lamprey, a nonindigenous creature that for more than 50 years has threatened the ecological and economic health of the $4 billion Great Lakes Fishery. As we prepare to consider an omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997, I thought I should share with my colleagues a communication I received from the Government of Canada, assuring me of our northern neighbor's continued commitment to the sea lamprey control program administered jointly with the United States through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission [GLFC], as well as continuation of the Great Lakes Fishery Convention Act. I was informed also that Canada is greatly concerned about action taken in the other body of Congress to scale back the U.S. contribution to the Commission by $1.5 million from the House-approved funding level. It is my hope that conferees to any omnibus bill will retain the House language on funding, but recede to Senate language which wisely retains the GLFC within the Department of State, as was discussed during debate in the House on H.R. 3814. Mr. Speaker, I have attached the correspondence of Canadian Charge d'affaires D.G. Waddell. I urge my colleagues to remember the pressing needs of our Great Lakes as we conclude the 104th Congress. Canadian Embassy, Ambassade du Canada, Washington, DC, September 20, 1996. Hon. John Dingell, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Dingell: On January 31, you wrote to Ambassador Chretien expressing concerns regarding a reduction in Canadian funding and legislative initiatives for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. I am pleased to follow up, in the Ambassador's absence, on his interim response to you of March 6. On August 7, following discussions with the Province of Ontario and Canadian stakeholder groups, the Honorable Fred Mifflin, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, announced that the Federal Government has decided to maintain funding for the Great Lakes Sea Lamprey Control Program for fiscal years 1996-97 and 1997-98. I enclose a copy of the press release issued in this respect. I am also pleased to inform you that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has decided not to recommend the repeal of the Great Lakes Fishery Convention Act. Meanwhile, I understand that a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations has reduced the United States funding for the Commission by U.S. $1.5 million. The Canadian government is accordingly concerned by what appears to signal a weakening of the U.S. commitment to the goals of the 1954 treaty and to a strong, healthy Great Lakes fishery. I would, therefore, be grateful if you would convey these concerns to your colleagues on the appropriate committees. Yours sincerely, D.G. Waddell, Charge d'affaries, a.i.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today the House has a signal opportunity to do the right thing for the American people. S. 1044, legislation to reauthorize the health centers program, gives us that chance. This is good legislation. But, more importantly, these are good programs; necessary programs; programs that care about people and help people. Earlier in this Congress, we heard a lot about why and how this country should care for its vulnerable citizens--children, young mothers, low-income senior citizens, struggling middle-class working families. We disagreed strongly--and we still disagree--about the philosophy and policy this country must pursue to protect its people. Today, I hope, we will see no such disagreement, for today we will talk about programs that truly are ``motherhood and apple pie'' (made from Michigan apples, of course). For many years, health centers have been the bastion and the fortress of high-quality health care for people who otherwise have no access to care. They have provided this care to every person, regardless of health insurance status or ability to pay for services. Health centers have developed with the communities they serve, working with the people in those communities and becoming active, supporting members of each community. In my own 16th District of Michigan, we are proud and pleased that two health centers serve our people. The Family Medical Center in Temperance serves approximately 6,000 people, including migrant farm workers and their families. The Monway Family Health Center in Carleton serves about 4,500 people. These centers provide health care in rural areas, where geographic, financial, and other factors create a critical health care need. I have strongly supported these centers, because they have served the people well. The legislation before us today reaffirms our support for health centers. It also advances the administration's proposal to consolidate some of the centers' authorities and to simplify the program administration. Wisely, it does this while retaining a special focus on populations such as homeless people and residents of public housing, so that the unique needs of these people are not overlooked in the future. The bill also authorizes a careful and limited loan guarantee program to allow health centers some flexibility in forming or participating in integrated health networks, so they can modernize with the changing health care system. Health centers are important programs--a real example of Government working well, doing right, and functioning 100 percent in the public interest. They are a critical piece of the solution to the continuing question of how to provide good health care for all of our citizens. Health centers are increasingly challenged as the number of people without health insurance grows. We can help them meet these challenges by our continued support. However, as the health care system changes, the centers need to change as well, and we must assist them to make those changes. This legislation accomplishes both of those objectives. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to two men. First, the distinguished chairman of the committee, my friend from Alaska, Don Young, with whom I have served over the years on other committees and in other places and with whom I have done some great work. I have enormous respect and affection for him, and I wish to salute him at this time. I also wish to pay tribute to my distinguished friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Gerry Studds. I have served with him on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee earlier in happier days. I also have had the pleasure of serving with him on the Committee on Commerce, in which capacity he has been an extraordinarily competent, dedicated and decent man. I want to praise him for the hard work he has done in the area of the environment, in the area of conservation, and to note that milestone legislation in the whole area of conservation bears his name and his imprimatur. Superfund legislation on proposals relating to conservation, fish and wildlife, things like the endangered species, ocean dumping, marine mammals protective legislation, and National Environmental Policy Act, are pieces of legislation which bear the imprint of his hand, his wisdom and his character. We are grateful to him for what he has done in these area. The people that he has served so well in the Cape Cod, Massachusetts area, have reason to be grateful to him for his interest in fisheries and natural resources, for the splendid programs that he has pushed, not only to protect fishery resources, but for the constituent service which he has given, and for the concern he has had about them, about the people of the country, about the environment, about the future of this Nation, and about the general things that are so important to quality of life to the people of this country. He has been a valuable member of the Committee on Commerce, and I will personally miss him. The committee will miss his wisdom, his superb service, and his diligence. We will also miss his sense of humor and the good will and good spirit with which he approaches legislation and the problems of this place. I express to him my warm good wishes for great happiness and success in his future undertakings. I will miss him, and the lovely Deborah, my wife, joins in expressing to him our joint wishes for happiness, success, and long life.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of good reasons to oppose this bad legislation, but let me tell my colleagues about another less publicized provision. This is a Republican special interest fix which was so bungled we are not in this legislation about to eliminate a key airline safety provision. The tale starts with some airline companies that were concerned that EPA may be overly aggressive in regulating airplane emissions from engines. I, too, frequently have criticized the EPA for its ovezealousness but I cannot support the solution that this conference has advised. I would also point out that existing law, the Clean Air Act, forbids this action from being taken by EPA where it would jeopardize the health and the safety of the traveling public. As passed out of the Senate committee, the measure included a provision which stripped EPA of its power to regulate aircraft engine emissions. When the measure got to the Senate floor, an amendment was adopted that basically stated EPA could not change aircraft emission standards where the change would impact engine noise or aviation safety. Unfortunately, this was translated into legislative language on the Senate floor and as adopted by the conference, from which the Committee on Commerce, which has jurisdiction and expertise on clean air, was excluded, the result was that the provision literally only applies to EPA emission standards, which both significantly increases engine noise and harms engine safety. In other words, as passed by the Senate, the safety concerns alone are not enough to stop EPA engine emission standards. Bungling. Incompetence. Worse, because this new language was placed by the conferees, over my strong objections, directly into the Clean Air Act, this provision now conflicts with existing provisions of the law in the Clean Air Act which allowed FAA to prevent implementation of EPA airplane emission standards where airline safety may be compromised. The result is a thoroughly screwed up, incompetently done statute, which risks the safety of our traveling public. We can resolve this whole problem by rejecting the bill and going about our business in a more sensible fashion.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the answer is the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure thoroughly bollixed up and botched this matter. Airline safety is adversely affected because the committee did not talk to the Committee on Commerce and because the Committee on Commerce was excluded. The result is that the traveling public is going to be much less safe under this legislation than they are under existing law.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], my friend, the author of this bill. We are going to miss him. He is a fine Member of this body. I wish, however, that he were leaving behind him a greater legacy than this piece of legislation which happens to be a bill in search of a reason to exist. The interesting question that we must ask is what does this bill to. It really does not do much. I think that can probably comfort us. But in point of fact, it sets up a nonprofit corporation. It gives it no money. It assigns it no responsibilities. We are curious; what is this nonprofit corporation that is being set up by my dear friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for whom I have so much respect and affection? The bill is clearly, then, unnecessary. It promises more than it delivers. Very frankly, were it anybody other than the distinguished and gentleman from Wisconsin, the author, it would probably be charged with being a cynical approach to addressing legitimate issues concerning the U.S. travel and tourism industry. No one disputes the importance of travel and tourism. The industry generates billions of dollars and employs thousands of Americans. It is an important part of the economy of every State, including my own State of Michigan. Indeed, the travel director of our State, working on behalf of our good Republican Governor, Mr. Engler, asked me to support full funding for the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration early in this Congress. I wish very much that he had communicated that thought to my Republican colleagues, because it was not very long before they abolished the bill or, rather, they abolished the legislation. I have been a strong critic of USTTA in the past. If felt that the agency never proved it brought more into the United States than it cost American taxpayers to fund it. In 1985, I tried to abolish the agency. The effort was rejected by a bipartisan majority of the Committee on Commerce. The vote was 20 to 22. Seven years later, in a serious effort to address the problem, the Congress passed bipartisan legislation to reform and to reinvent USTTA. Under Secretary Brown's leadership the agency made improvements and it significantly increased its effectiveness. Last fall, the President convened a successful conference on tourism. Ironically, shortly thereafter, the Republican Congress passed legislation eliminating USTTA's appropriation. After that, this bill was introduced. Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, the bill is in search of reason to exist. Why do we need Federal legislation to create a private organization? Either there is a compelling interest in justifying government involvement in the promotion of U.S. tourism interests, or there is not. If there is such an interest, then the decision to eliminate the U.S. Travel and Tourism Office funding should be reconsidered. If there is no such compelling interest, then we should leave it to the industry to take up and to care for its own interests. My Republican colleagues are very fond of preaching that we should get the Federal Government out of the way and turn the matters over to the States, but their bill creates a Federal mandate to establish a nonprofit corporation. Laws already exist in the District of Columbia and in every one of the States governing establishment of nonprofit corporations. Supporters of the bill refer to this as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that is needed more than ever in view of the demise of USTTA, But anyone who takes a close look at the bill knows that it is really only feel-good, do-nothing legislation. It does nothing that the private sector cannot fully and as well do on its own. However, I am certain that the private sector will be back soon, and the private sector will then say, now it is time for the Congress to shower money and special benefits on this new congressionally mandated corporation. I do not know how anyone in this body can in good conscience support this bill. It is an apology to the travel and tourism industry, and I guess it is what politicians could refer to as cover. It is designed to make it look like the Congress is doing something good while trying to hide what the Republicans have already done. I am going to watch with great curiosity and with great interest in the coming months to see how this wonderful newly formed U.S. National Tourism Organization measures up to the splendid promises that are made in support of this legislation. In truth, when we look at this bill next year and when we go through the budget process, we are going to find it has not done anything. In truth, we are going to find that very shortly people are going to be down here in this well or over there at the hopper, introducing legislation or talking for a bill, saying now it is time we have to spend money on this organization which we set up. I am not sure who is going to be in this organization. I am not sure what it is going to do. But no one has established that there is any reason to put any money in it. As a matter of fact, I suspect that even the sponsors of this legislation were too embarrassed to suggest that it should be funded. So we are passing a bill with neither funding nor responsibilities. It is going to do nothing, it probably is going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money, but we can comfortably say it is not going to pass them now. The really sensible thing to do with this legislation is simply reject it, vote it down, and be done with it. I would urge that even more strongly, were it not for the great respect and affection that I have for the wonderful gentleman from Wisconsin who is the author of the legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we should be meeting here today to discuss a bipartisan bill to better protect American jobs, public services, and our borders. We have missed that opportunity. We are now faced with a bill, H.R. 2202, introduced after closed-door Republican sessions, that could damage our borders, hurt American workers and their families, and increase the burden on our taxpayers. Jobs are the magnet attracting illegal immigrants, and it is a criminal network of employers who hire these workers at the expense of unemployed Americans. We must make it clear to those rogue employers, who are willing to cheat hard-working Americans out of employment opportunities, that their behavior will not be tolerated. Instead, this bill lessens the penalties against those who skip over American workers to hire foreign workers. It also reduces the number of inspectors we wanted to put in the field to combat this illegal behavior. If you are a U.S. citizen, willing to work hard and make an honest living, you may still lose out due to the growing number of employers allowed to flaunt the law and hire cheaper illegal immigrants without the real risk of punishment under the law. Mr. Speaker, existing laws limit the ability of legal immigrants to become public charges. However, the harsh deeming requirements in H.R. 2202 will deny many legal immigrants assistance they should be entitled to. I say entitled, not only because they are legal residents who pay taxes and are eligible for the draft, but because they pay far more in taxes than they use in public services. The Urban Institute conducted a study which found that legal immigrants pay $40 billion more in taxes than they collect in public assistance. Similar studies have shown that legal immigrants are less likely to collect public assistance than U.S. citizens. And the conservative Federal Reserve Bank of New York published a study which shows that immigrant families contribute approximately $2,500 more in taxes than they obtain in public services. In addition, it appears that the anti-environment 104th Congress had to attack our environmental laws one more time in their mad rush to adjourn. The provision, deemed even by my pro-environment Republican colleagues to be outrageous, would inflict a loss of power for States and local governments anywhere along thousands of miles of our Canadian and Mexican borders to build fences, roads, or other infrastructure. As a representative of a Canadian border district, I cannot support legislation which casts aside opportunities for public participation under the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] so that local communities and citizens in Michigan could have a say before the INS decides we need a giant fence to separate ourselves from our Canadian neighbors. Indeed, Speaker Gingrich has received word from the attorney general, the Secretary of the Interior, and the chair of the President's Council on Environmental Quality that the administration objects strongly to this weakening of environmental standards. Mr. Speaker, previous experience teaches us that: limiting services to legal immigrants can risk public health and safety, as well as raise costs; limiting employment enforcement provisions costs American's jobs; and limiting environmental protections under Federal statute can place our communities' health and well-being at needless risk as a result of incompetent legislation. I urge support for Democratic efforts to fix some of the more obvious errors in the bill through the motion to recommit, and barring its acceptance, I urge rejection of the conference report.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the House Commerce Committee has a long history of investigating problems in professional boxing. Since 1965, the committee has held numerous hearings and considered a broad array of legislation in this area. Over the years, persistent allegations of serious improprieties have plagued professional boxing, including: First, inadequate health and safety protections for boxers; second, organized crime influence; third, boxer exploitation; fourth, fan deception, such as mismatches and fixed contests; fifth, blatant conflicts of interest between regulators and those who promote and arrange matches; sixth, market monopolization; seventh, the industry's inability to police itself; and eighth, the inadequacy of existing regulation at the State and local levels. Despite a variety of efforts, no law has been enacted to date. During the past few weeks, Representative Manton and I have worked with Chairmen Bliley and Oxley, Representative Williams, Senators McCain and Bryan, and with others, to seek a consensus on this legislation. Last week, the Commerce Committee reported the same bill we are considering today by voice vote. I believe this compromise represents a positive step forward in trying to address some of the most egregious problems in the boxing industry. In particular, I support the bill because it includes a provision that prohibits State boxing regulators from contracting with, belonging to, or receiving compensation from the boxing organizations they are charged with regulating. This should help address conflicts of interest between State regulators and the industry. It will not clean up all problems in the industry. But it is a positive step. It will lend credibility to State regulatory activities and prohibit incestuous relationships that too many State officials have developed with the boxing industry. There are those who argue the bill does not go far enough and others who argue it goes too far. On balance, I believe the bill represents a sound bipartisan compromise that will strengthen State regulatory activities and promote improved health and safety standards. I want to single out two Members for their contributions and leadership in this area. First, I commend our colleague, Mr. Richardson. Over the years, he has authored several bills to improve oversight and regulation of the boxing industry. I understand his concerns that this bill does not go as far as he would prefer. Despite his misgivings, Mr. Richardson has continued to be a constructive force in forging this bipartisan compromise. His efforts are greatly appreciated. Second, I commend my good friend from Montana [Mr. Williams], the sponsor of this legislation. He has made many lasting contributions to the debate in this particular area. Unfortunately, he has announced his retirement at the end of this Congress. All of us will miss the leadership he has exhibited during his distinguished tenure in this body on this bill and, more importantly, on many other issues of national concern. I urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and yield back the time of my balance.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of this measure as amended by the Commerce Committee. It will clarify our intent that traffic signal synchronization projects should go forward without delay while still preserving the overall duty of regional authorities to monitor the air quality impacts of transportation projects. In this way, the bill promotes local flexibility while ensuring that air quality will not be harmed. I do regret that we must even take up this amendment to the Clean Air Act. It is my strong view that there should never have been an issue as to whether traffic light projects that ease congestion are subject to the Clean Air Act's conformity requirements. However, EPA failed to reach this common sense conclusion so we are forced to act. I thank Chairman Bliley, Mr. McKeon--the author of the measure--and Mr. Waxman for their work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the measure.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 3217, the National Invasive Species Act. As a cochair of the House Great Lakes Task Force and a citizen of the Great Lakes State, I know all too well how much damage can be caused by nonindigenous, or non-native, nuisance species. Even as our Great Lakes have made a tremendous comeback from industrial and other pollution as a result of the Clean Water Act, we continue to see a significant threat from biological invasions. Over the past few decades these invasions have included the sea lamprey, the zebra mussel, and the Eurasian ruffe. My colleagues may remember the lively floor debate that took place during consideration of the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill over funding for sea lamprey control. The sea lamprey is an eel-like creature that attaches itself to lake fish. With federal assistance, we have been somewhat successful at controlling sea lamprey infestation, meaning the preservation of a multi-billion dollar fishery. Despite the best efforts of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), however, the lamprey still exist in the lakes and remain a threat to be controlled. Most commonly known today is the zebra mussel, which became widely known in 1989 when millions of the mussels became encrusted in the water intake in Monroe, MI, threatening Monroe's water supplies for several days. Since that time, the mussel has clogged other water supply intakes on American and Canadian shores, creating drinking water shortages and public safety hazards. Power plants, industrial cooling operations, and other large water users now spend an average of almost $400,000 per year to keep their investments clear of the zebra mussel. Since 1989, the zebra mussel has spread throughout much of the nation, threatening waterways from coast to coast. According to Dr. Alfred M. Beeton, Acting Chief Scientist at that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the rapid growth of the zebra mussel has caused not only added business costs for big industry, but for small intakes as well. The filtering activities of the zebra mussel, while increasing water clarity, have taken away desirable algae by 86 percent while helping bring the amount of native clams in Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair to near-extinction. As a result of the Great Lakes problem, Congress passed the Non- Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646). While this act has been successful, more efforts are needed to help States and communities nationwide control the biological integrity of their waters. The National Invasive Species Act will achieve that by establishing a national ballast plan for ships entering our seaports, lakes, and rivers. It also authorizes greatly needed funding to further research ways to prevent and control the growth of nonindigenous species. This research will be carried out in part by the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) in Ann Arbor, MI, in cooperation with several universities under the National Sea Grant College Program and other agencies. Mr. Speaker, the National Invasive Species Act provides necessary help to States, cities, and industry while helping protect our native plant, animal and aquatic species. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased that the House conferees followed the Democratic motion to instruct the conferees to retain the Senate provisions regarding mental health insurance coverage and coverage for appropriate hospital stays for mothers and newborn infants. it is a single moment of enlightenment in this otherwise dismal Congress--a moment when we can say honestly we have put the needs of average American people ahead of the concerns of big insurance companies. Equitable treatment of individuals with mental illness has been a long time coming, and these provisions--though they are not all that anyone could have wanted--are a major step in the right direction in two important ways. First, we are opening a door to understanding mental illness. Mental illness is not shameful, but treatable. It is not something to be concealed, but something to be helped. And second, it tells insurers that they must be fair about the coverage they provide to their clients, treating all conditions equitably and providing appropriate coverage so that patients can be treated and can be restored to health, from a physical or a mental cause. The conference report also includes provisions that place in the hands of new mothers and their doctors the power to decide what kind of care these women need when they give birth to babies. Several months ago, I introduced the MOMS bill, which required health insurance coverage for at least 48 hours of hospital stay, or 96 hours for a Caesarean section, for new mothers and their babies. I am pleased that these requirements of my bill are included in the legislation before us. However, my legislation also recognized that some doctors and new mothers may choose a shorter hospital stay. Thus, my bill provided that a shorter hospital stay could be accompanied by covered services providing care and support for the mother and the baby after they leave the hospital. But, again, that after care would be on the terms and conditions decided by the doctor and the mother together. The MOMS bill did not bring the heavy hand of Federal regulation on this decision. Unfortunately, in negotiating this conference report, the Senate provisions relating to insurance coverage for after-hospital care of new mothers and babies were dropped. I understand the Senate provisions were considered too much Government interference. I regret that the conferees did not look at my legislation for guidance about this decision, because I think they would have found a happy solution. While this provision is not perfect, it is good for women and for babies. It means that the era of the so-called drive-through delivery will come to an end. And it means that this important health care decision--what kind of care a new mother and a new baby need--will be made where all health care decisions should be made, in discussions between doctors and their patients. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the conference report addresses the very real and pressing public health needs of more than 1.5 million people who live in Michigan's 16th Congressional District, as well as six other congressional districts in my home State. The Rouge River national wet weather demonstration project, a $1.4 billion effort to improve the condition of one of this Nation's most polluted rivers, will continue with $16 million in additional Federal commitments in fiscal year 1997. My colleague from Bloomfield Hills, Mr. Knollenberg, worked very hard in the Appropriations Committee to assure inclusion of these much- needed funds, and as a result, dozens of communities in Metropolitan Detroit will gain from a cleaner and more usable Rouge River watershed. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the conference report.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the House is considering today a bill to correct a legislative oversight regarding eligibility for Medicaid reimbursement of board-certified osteopathic physicians. The primary purpose of H.R. 1791 is to clarify this eligibility, which has been in question since the omnibus budget reconciliation bill was passed in 1990. At that time, purely through an oversight, board certification by the American Osteopathic Association was omitted from the amendments to the Medicaid statute. Unfortunately, because this just required a short, simple solution, it has fallen to the bottom of the in-box, so to speak, beneath other legislative business that has been viewed as more significant. In addition, since making this correction required opening the Medicaid statute, it has been a magnet for other controversial measures. In short, Mr. Speaker, this simple but important technical correction has spent an inordinate amount of time caught in the twists and turns of the legislative labyrinth. It is time to fix this problem once and for all, and I am pleased that my colleague from Virginia, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, was willing to include the bill as one of the committee's last items of business for the year. This clarification has been sought by osteopathic physicians and supported by many Members of Congress for a number of years. The Medicaid statute requires that physicians be certified for family practice or pediatrics by the American Board of Medical Specialties to provide care for pregnant women and children in the Medicaid Program. Except for a mistake during the drafting of that provision, it also would have included certification by a board recognized by the American Osteopathic Association. To address this oversight in part, the Health Care Financing Administration issued regulations stating that providers certified by a State Medicaid program may be reimbursed. However, those regulations are necessarily time-limited and thus do not correct the problem. Doing this permanently requires amendment of the Medicaid statute. This amendment is long overdue, and I support it. This bill may seem a small matter, but I know it is very important to many osteopathic physicians in my home State of Michigan and across the country. It's time to correct the error in OBRA '90, and I hope we will pass this bill today and the Senate will complete the process quickly so that the legislation can be signed by the President soon.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on October 8 of this year, Ford Motor Co. will produce, somewhere in the world, its 250-millionth vehicle. Since 1903, when Henry Ford's first car was built in Dearborn, MI, working men and women in Ford factories have pumped out an average of more than eight cars or trucks each minute. All told, the Ford vehicles produced throughout history would stretch bumper-to-bumper around the world 30 times. They would reach 756,000 miles into space--to the Moon and another half-million miles beyond. And, they are estimated to have carried Ford customers in more than 200 countries some 25 trillion miles. Henry Ford, indeed, put the world on wheels. His announcement in 1914 that he would pay workers $5 for an 8-hour day astounded the world. Today, the United Auto Workers and Ford share a heritage of innovative management-labor agreements that make Ford a leader in the field. I know that my colleagues join me in saluting Ford Motor Co. for its innovation and its contribution to world prosperity. The coming milestone reminds us again of the advancement in mobility and progress we all enjoy.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the State of Hungary and Hungarian-Americans everywhere in commemorating the 1100th anniversary of the settlement of the Hungarian people--1,100 years ago the ancestors of the Hungarian people settled in the Carpathian Basin. Before this time Hungarian ancestors roamed the area as a seminomadic people, but in 895-896 A.D. Magyar tribes passed through the Verecke pass in the Carpathian mountains and settled on the plains. The fertile land of the region helped the agrarian tribes to settle permanently in the Carpathian Basin. The Magyar system of social and political institutions served as a direct link to the foundation of the Christian Kingdom of Hungary. The Hungarian Apostolic Kingdom was established in 1001 A.D. by Saint Stephen, the first King of Hungary and founder of the State. This monumentous event is celebrated by all Hungarians and those of Hungarian descent on the Hungarian National Holiday, Saint Stephen's Day, which occurs on August 20. The coronation of Saint Stephen put Hungary firmly on the path of Western-type European development, which was defined Hungary's place on the continent up to the present day. In the many centuries of struggle for survival and advancement, cultural represented the decisive factor whose beginnings are rooted in a structure and political culture in harmony with the specific natural environment and social conditions prevailing in the Carpathian Basin. In fact, three major ecological regions--the Mediterranean, Atlantic, and Continental--come together in the basin. These factors demanded the need for great flexibility and capacity for adjustment. The early Hungarians were successful in adapting to meet the challenges of their age. During the early years of this century, large numbers of Hungarians migrated to the industrial centers of the American Midwest. Detroit, and especially its downriver communities, benefited dramatically by this influx of a people known for their honesty and work ethic. Hungarian immigrants played an integral part in the industrial growth of Michigan and the Nation. Yet, Hungarian immigrants were known for far more than just strong backs and willing spirits. The intellect and compassion of this community continues to capture the imagination of the Nation. More than 50,000 Hungarian-Americans remain in the Detroit metro area, with their positive influence still shinging brightest in Delray and Allen Park. It is to these friends, to all Americans of Hungarian descent, and to the honor of a nation whose turbulent past has produced such a delightful people, I offer these words from the Hungarian National Anthem: God, bless the Hungarian With Abundance, gladness, Graciously protect him when Faced with foes or sadness. Bring for people torn by fate Happy years and plenty: Sins of future, sins of late, Both are paid amply.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Oxley and his staff for working in an open, bipartisan manner on this legislation. I also want to commend our ranking member on the subcommittee, Mr. Manton, for his leadership on this and many other important legislative issues. The Federal Trade Commission is one of our most important independent agencies. Its core statutory duties are twofold: To prevent antitrust violations and to protect consumers from deceptive and unfair commercial practices. Its mission is vital to protecting the public interest. During the 103d Congress, our committee worked in a bipartisan fashion to enact two important laws involving the FTC. First, we enacted a compromise bill that broke the 14-year-old stalemate on FTC authorizing legislation. The bill provided a reasonable statutory framework, based on previous Commission policy statements, for determining whether acts or practices are unfair. The bill also beefed up the Commission's enforcement authorities in several important respects. Since enactment of this landmark legislation, the Commission has been able to choose among a broad spectrum of enforcement options against those who violate the FTC Act or Commission rules. Second, the 103d Congress enacted a telemarketing bill that provides new tools for the FTC and State law enforcement agencies to crack down on those who use a telephone to cheat, swindle, and defraud consumers. The FTC, working closely with State attorneys general, consumer organizations, and other interested parties, has successfully prosecuted multiple telemarketing fraud cases since enactment of the 1993 legislation. The regulations promulgated by the Commission early this year provide additional protection for consumers in this important area. The record clearly indicates the FTC is performing its mission with improved efficiency and effectiveness. Through efforts initiated during Janet Steiger's tenure as Chairman and continued under Chairman Pitofsky's leadership, the FTC has embarked on a program of responsible regulatory reform. It has repealed unnecessary regulations and updated other regulations where appropriate. Those who advocate responsible regulatory reform would be well advised to look at the FTC's method of streamlining and improving regulation. The FTC's efforts contrast sharply with the ill-advised, blunderbuss approach taken in several legislative initiatives Republicans have pursued during this Congress. The agency also is doing more with less. Although it has roughly half the staff it had in 1980, it continues to perform its core statutory duties effectively. But, as former Chairman Janet Steiger said in her testimony before the subcommittee, Any further significant decline in the FTC's staffing imperils the performance of its main mission. The modest funding levels in the Oxley-Manton bill are well justified when considering the revenues returned to the Treasury from FTC merger fees and enforcement actions and the benefits the agency produces for consumers and the economy. I am pleased that the Commerce Committee chose to authorize the FTC on a bipartisan basis and to ignore hastily drafted provisions in the House budget resolution that recommended the elimination of the agency. I also note that an identical authorization bill has been reported by our sister committee and is pending in the other body. I commend Chairman Oxley and Mr. Manton. Their bipartisan leadership during the last Congress was critical to enactment of the first FTC authorization bill in more than a decade. The bill before us builds on that progress. I urge all Members to support this legislation. general leave

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this conference cane up a day late and $725 million short. The old saying is, ``A day late and a penny short.'' We are $725 million short and 2 days late. However, the $725 million that should have gone for paying for safe drinking water for this Nation's community water systems somehow got misplaced on the way to the floor with this bill. That is $725 million that should have been there to help the States pay for what are now unfunded mandates created by this bill. It should have gone for community water systems to pay for filtration and disinfection plants. It should have funded a part of the grant to the District of Columbia to restore the decrepit and unsafe water system of this Nation's Capital. What happened? That is the interesting story. Well, it is a tale of speed, and it is a tale of greed. The speed, or should I say the lack of it, and both occurred at unfortunate times, with which the House leadership appointed the conferees made it virtually impossible for the conference to complete its work in time to secure the $725 million that was set aside to make the drinking water of this Nation safe. Let me explain further. The House has known since April that the 1996 appropriation for EPA included $725 million, which would be immediately available for a new safe drinking water revolving loan fund, if the act was authorized by July 31. Under the leadership of my distinguished friend, and I want to pay tribute to him, the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the House passed without a dissenting vote a strong, bipartisan safe drinking water bill on June 25. That left us a total of 35 days to reconcile a Senate measure that passed that body, noted for its slow movement last year. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure added to the House bill at the last minute some noteworthy porcine provisions, with the blessing of the leadership. Then, whether due to inattention or the intervention of the Speaker, the conferees on this bill were not appointed until the week the bill passed, the next week or even the next week. In fact, it took 22 days to appoint conferees. Worse, when the conferees were appointed, the leadership added layers of complexity by appointing from three committees. The Committee on Science latched on to a variety of provisions, but their success pales in comparison to their brethren at the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure desperately wanted their no-priority, high-waste, who-cares-about-State-needs, election- year, bringing-home-the-bacon, name-the-project-after-me, no shame pork fund. Their insatiable appetite did face one hurdle. The bill included firewall provisions that provided they could not have their luau unless and until the state drinking water revolving fund was capitalized at 75 percent of its appropriation, or $750 million. Now, because I have dealt with the appetites of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure before, as have most of my colleagues, we made a motion to instruct to make sure that the House conferees would not forget this explicit commitment in the House-passed bill. That passed unanimously through this body. But guess what? In the closing days of the conference, with the deadline staring us in the face, the conferees from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure announced that they would not allow the conference report to be filed unless and until the firewall was removed. In fact, at many points, the Senate offered to recede to the House on these provisions, but the conferees on the part of the House; namely, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, constantly and consistently refused. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure would not accept their own provisions unless and until the firewall was removed. So yesterday, the Speaker gave in to their raid on the Treasury, and the 75 percent trigger was removed to create a $175 million fund. Not surprisingly, and in complete disregard for the numerous claims made by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure porkmeisters during the debate on my motion to instruct, the statement of managers quite without shame earmarks the money for 24 projects, many of which are in freshman and marginal Republican districts. Since there is only one pot of money available for safe drinking water, the gain of my pork-loving colleagues comes at the expense of the safe drinking water revolving fund. I would like my colleagues to know that this raid and this wonderful pork is going to cost everybody except those Members who have been able to dip their hands into this fund to come up with a wonderful little helping of pork for their district, and it is going to come up without any regard to the need of the public or to the questions of public health and safety. It is simply going to be a short-stopping of funds, a plundering of a fund which is inadequate to meet the total needs and a fund which is absolutely necessary to assure the safety of the people from unsafe, unhealthy and dangerous drinking water. That is what is at issue. This is why it will be impossible for me to support what had been a sound and fair piece of legislation, which is now converted into pure pork for the benefit of a few people who are happily situated. Now, I want to make it plain that I think that taking care of districts is a good thing. I think that getting necessary projects to better the country is good. But I do not think that this kind of raid falls even within that category. It lies simply in the area of seeking special presents at the expense of all, and we will be submitting to my colleagues a list of how your State, my colleagues, will be adversely impacted by the events that have transpired previous to the bringing of this bill to the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I include that list for the Record.