John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the conference report. I do so mainly because this bill could let the Nation's largest polluter, the Federal Government, more specifically the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, GSA, and the Department of Energy off the hook. Under this provision, section 334 would directly amend CERCLA, otherwise known as Superfund, a law that is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. If my colleagues have defense or other Federal establishments within their district, they better be very careful before they vote for this legislation. The legislation will change current law to allow the Federal Government to transfer contaminated property that it owns prior to the completion of the required cleanup of the property. Remember, this is contamination with high-level hazardous wastes, high-level nuclear wastes and other terribly dangerous substances. This provision may actually delay the cleanup of contaminated Federal properties. This provision will impose upon citizens of this country the possibility or even the probability that there are no adequate or enforceable assurances that the cleanup will be completed by the party who buys the property in a timely manner and in a way which is protective of the human health and environment. The provision should be of particular concern to all of my colleagues who have Federal properties in their district. This is a defense authorization bill, and, if they vote for it, my colleagues should be aware that this provision applies not only to defense facilities but also properties owned by the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior and any property under the controls of the General Services Administration. Unfortunately, this provision has not been subject to hearings or examination by the authorizing committees, and no one knows exactly the level of peril which is imposed upon the people of this country. Equally important is the fact that it has no discernible support except amongst the Federal polluters, and it is interesting to note that people who address the question of pollution of our environment, and who are concerned about protecting the citizens of this country from dangerously contaminated and environmentally degraded areas have expressed particular concern. The Department of Defense has provided no examples of the need for the sweeping provisions in section 334, but the attorneys general of the States of Michigan, Washington, New Mexico, Texas, Minnesota, and Colorado have written to express their strong opposition to this provision. On behalf of its quarter-million members, the Natural Resources Defense Council has also opposed this provision. Amongst other concerns, these writers question the glaring absence of criteria for determining the suitability of contaminated Federal lands for transfer and the enforceability of cleanup requirements. Indeed the level of cleanup required is in question, insofar as whether the cleanup would be adequate to protect the health and the environment of people who would be affected and who live in the neighborhood. I urge a rejection of the rule, and I urge a rejection of the conference report.

Mr. DINGELL

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks of my good friend from California. I was so delighted to hear him. It ranks with the conversion of St. Paul. I have not seen any lightning bolts, and I have not observed him riding a jackass, but I do want to say that my Republican colleagues have finally come around and supported Kennedy- Kassebaum. Wonderful. Great news. Having said that, I commend the gentleman for having had the scales removed from his eyes, and I urge him to support the same kind of glorious advances in other issues. It would be helpful. I also would say to him that he was talking about the days when the Democrats ran the Congress and now the days when the Republican run the Congress. This is the way things go, but I would say that the gentleman from California has an urgent and an important responsibility in this place and that is to pay the bills. I was just thinking the other day how nice it would be if my office rent were paid on time, if my suppliers were paid on time, if my telephone bills were paid on time, and if the bills of the other Members on both sides of the aisle were paid on time. And perhaps if the gentleman would just diminish to a small degree these wonderful partisan speeches which he makes and concentrate on paying the bills of the House, how much better this whole operation would be. Then we could address the way the content of legislation is being considered, rather than engaged in these kinds of small pickety pickety polemics in which we have just engaged. Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to yield to the gentleman, but I do have a few other words which will be helpful to him and I know he wishes to hear, so I would yield later. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very curious process, and it will be noted my name does not appear on the conference report, even though I do urge my colleagues to vote for the bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to move this legislation at this late time, after long waits, with such speed that we were not able to confirm that the bill's language accurately reflected the agreements reached. Nevertheless, I will take faith that the language truly reflects the bipartisan agreement which Senator Kennedy so admirably defended. I trust that at least some of the advocates of this legislation have carried out their responsibilities, as they have said, and I do intend to support the conference report. The bill makes some small, but important steps forward. The portability provisions and the provisions against preexisting conditions will benefit about 25 million Americans. That leaves, however, I would tell my good friend from California, and I am delighted to see him standing because I want him to hear this, some 40 million Americans who do not have health care. I know that he will want to do something other than to just turn them over at some future time to a system which is not providing them health care. This bill will ensure that people who change jobs can get health coverage from a new employer without preexisting condition restrictions. This will provide peace of mind for workers who lose their jobs by assuring them they can purchase health coverage without devastating penalties and restrictions. While this legislation does good things, at least one of the things that it does needs to be examined. My good Republican friends have tucked away a couple of nice little provisions here which will hinder the fight against health care fraud and abuse. They will allow repeatedly negligent providers to escape civil monetary penalties, and they will require an unprecedented and indeed most curious advisory opinion process for an intent-based criminal statute, something which I have never seen before. American taxpayers will now also be asked to pay for inflated claims submitted by doctors and hospitals who are grossly negligent in the billing process. The Congressional Budget Office says that these provisions will cost American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. What a blow for economy struck by this particular provision! The advisory opinion requirement is opposed by the Attorney General, the Inspector General of HHS and by the National Association of Attorneys General. We may now reflect on whether this is good or not and, indeed, we may realize that at some time soon we will regret having included these provisions, and we may again need to address the problems of fraud and abuse which we are creating with this particular language. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we are passing this legislation today. I only hope that we can come back soon and continue the process to provide health care for the 40 million Americans who have no health care at all, and who live in raw terror of cancer or emphysema or stroke or heart attack or other illnesses for which they know there is no medical care available.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, with my colleagues Mr. Waxman and Mr. Stupak, I am today introducing legislation to extend an arbitrary deadline established by the House leadership that will deprive the States, cities, and towns of more than $700 million for protecting and enhancing the Nation's drinking water. Sadly it is the fumbling of the House Leadership that necessitates this action. Mr. Speaker, when the leadership cobbled together the Omnibus Appropriations Act earlier this year, it included language which set an August 1 deadline for the $725 million that had been accumulated to fund the new safe drinking water state loan fund. Specifically, the measure provided that Congress must pass Safe Drinking Water Act amendments authorizing the revolving loan fund before the deadline. Without passage of the amendments, the funds will pass to the clean water fund and will no longer be available to help this Nation's water systems provide safe and healthy water. All agree this loss would be catastrophic. To avoid this problem, the House unanimously passed a strong, bipartisan reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act on June 25, 1996. This measure will improve protection of our drinking water from microbiological contaminants that cause acute illnesses--even death-- from single exposures. It will reduce exposures to carcinogens, endocrine disruptors and other long-term human health threats. Equally importantly, the bill gives States and water districts unprecedented flexibility to customize their safe drinking water programs to meet their individual needs and circumstances. But with this progress and flexibility will come increased responsibilities for the States and the water districts. And this is where the State revolving fund comes in. This fund is vital to help States and localities meet the costs of complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This State revolving fund is to be divided between the States by an objective formula. States can use the money for grants and loans to their water districts under rules that focus the money on projects that address the most serious health risks, ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and assist water districts with the greatest need on a per household basis. Despite the strong, bipartisan support for this measure and for the establishment of the safe drinking water fund, the House leadership complicated the task of completing work by the deadline. First, while the bill passed on June 25, conferees were not selected until July 17, some 22 days after passage and after more than half of the time available before the deadline had passed. Worse, when conferees were appointed, the leadership added layers of complexity by appointing three committees as conferees on the bill. Indeed, the leadership decided that one committee which added some pork projects to the Safe Drinking Water Act on the floor would be the exclusive conferees on those pork provisions. I have asked the Parliamentarians for a list of the bills in this or other Congresses in which such an extraordinary and remarkable appointment had been made--naming as exclusive or even majority conferees a committee that was not the primary committee on a bill. Thus far, we have been shown no other examples. This leaves me to conclude that this is merely a political exercise. While, I trust, therefore, that it will have no precedential value, it still must be faced during this conference. In practical terms this means that there will be no conference report, and no safe drinking water bill enacted into law, until the conferees from the Transportation Committee have secured everything they want. This is not a formula for a fast conference. So today, only 6 days before this money is lost, we find ourselves in the following predicament. The conferees have not met. No issues have been resolved. We do have a conferees' meeting scheduled for tomorrow morning. But there is no telling at this moment whether there will be any progress before we depart this week. I remain hopeful that our staffs can make progress without our assistance over the weekend, and that time will not run out on us. But when we get back next week we will have to have an agreement reached, a conference report drafted and signed, approval of that report voted by both Houses of Congress, and a bill sent to the President and signed-- all before midnight on Wednesday. Mr. Speaker, is this possible? Yes, I still believe it is. But I do not want our constituents to suffer an irrational forfeiture of this money for safe drinking water. If it becomes necessary on Monday, I ask the Appropriations Committee, the leadership, and the House to move the deadline and rescue this money for the safe drinking water systems of this country.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Then, Mr. Speaker, I do not object. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, but I believe the request for the appointment of conferees represents the agreement that we have had earlier; is that correct?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so simply to have a very brief colloquy with my respected and dear friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall]. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I begin by expressing great respect and affection for my good friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank. I have the most enormous regard for him. I would observe, however, that on this matter both he and Mr. Dole are dead wrong, and I would like to explain why. First of all, I would point out that we have had this matter before the body for consideration on a number of occasions. It was debated on the floor last August, when the telecommunications bill was considered by the House. It was debated again in January when the House considered the conference report. And language similar to that which is offered by my good friend from Massachusetts was overwhelmingly rejected by the Congress. Now, why? The gentleman claims this is a giveaway. Nothing is further from the truth. The FCC and the broadcast industry are attempting to bring forward new technology of value to this country, high definition television, and to do so by lending to the broadcasters an additional channel. This will enable us to make the shift from current technology, using old-fashioned analog technology, to the new digital technologies which will afford this country the best and the highest quality television in the world. At the conclusion of that, the loan of the additional spectrum will have to be returned. Either the licenses which are now used by the broadcasters or the new licenses will have to be returned. The law requires that this exchange be done in the public interest. It is in the Communications Act of 1934. It was passed as part of the Telecommunications Act which was enacted last year. The specific controlling language says this, and I am referring to section 336(c) of the Communications Act: Recovery of License. If the Commission grants a license for advanced television services to a person that, as of the date of such issuance, is licensed to operate a television broadcast station or holds a permit to construct such station or both, the Commission shall, as a condition of such license, require that either the additional license or the original license held by the licensee be surrendered to the Commission for reallocation or reassignment (or both) pursuant to Commission regulation. What we are going is we are enabling this country to move forward into the digital age by making available spectrum which can be loaned to the licensees of the Commission, at the conclusion of which that spectrum must be returned to the Commission for reallocation. Remember that the licensees are going to have to make a huge investment in new broadcasting facilities. That is for the benefit of the public, which is going to be watching a new kind of technology coming over their television sets. And so we have to provide first the spectrum to the broadcasters, and then we have to give the viewers the time to decide whether, and when, they want to acquire a digital television set in the home. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my thanks to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky for yielding me this time. I want to begin by expressing great respect and affection for my dear friend from California, Mr. Brown. I agree with him fully with regard to the impropriety of cutting the money to the Weather Service. I also agree with him with regard to the urgent need to see to it that that program is properly funded and that the conduct of the lamprey program should be within the State Department. However, I would like my colleagues to understand something about the importance of the lamprey control program in the Great Lakes. The cost of this program is miniscule. The value of the fishery in the Great Lakes alone is better than $4 billion. Each salmon and each lake trout which are a part of the prey of the lamprey is worth better than $70 each, to each of the States in which it is caught. So the value of this fishery is enormous. A great and prosperous fishery is threatened by an alien species which has come into the Great Lakes. A few years ago better than 1 in 3 fish caught in the Great Lakes had a lamprey attached to it. The destruction of the fishery was enormous and the cost to the people both in terms of aesthetics and in terms of fish and wildlife values and just plain cash money was enormous. It is my hope that this program can be continued unimpaired. I recognize the value of the suggestions of the gentleman from California for whom I reiterate great respect, but I urge my colleagues to support this protection of one of the great treasures of the United States, the Great Lakes, and the precious fishery resources which are utilized for the benefit of all the people of this country.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is quite a historic moment, for today we consider in the House a piece of legislation that literally has been pending before Congress for over a decade. This bill overhauls the way the Government regulates pesticides, and at long last deals with the thorny issue of differing standards for different kinds of food products, and with the scientifically outdated application of the Delaney clause. It is an amazing compromise that has been reached, which has brought together some of the most staunch and bitter rivals in this debate-- consumer and environmental groups, the food industry, American agriculture, and the Federal Government agencies who oversee pesticide use and safety--the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. This bill represents the product of that successful negotiation. It meets the need of the agriculture and food industries for proper, consistent regulation of pesticides, without arbitrary standards such as the outdated and inappropriate Delaney clause. In accomplishing that goal, the bill delicately strikes the essential balance between this legitimate need and consumer desire to continue the already high level of safety of American food. Specifically, the legislation adopts the widely held view that special attention must be paid to dietary habits and health needs of special populations, such as children. At the same time, it provides flexibility to use methods and numbers that are appropriate and supported by valid information. Significantly, the bill recognizes the importance of pesticides to the food supply, and builds this benefit into the evaluation of how pesticides are used. No one group or individual will consider this to be perfect legislation, nor does it fulfill the full agenda of any one party. Its development required significant concessions from every quarter; it demonstrates that worthy goals are achievable through compromise. We are pleased that bipartisan negotiation produced good legislation. I want to express my appreciation to my colleagues from California, Michigan, Texas, and New York--Mr. Waxman, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Towns. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and also the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the chairman of the subcommittee. I also want to commend the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza]. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] is the valuable ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture and has long been interested in this. Those gentlemen and many others, along with the staff, have made an outstanding contribution to the solution of the problems before us today. I commend them and I thank them for the outstanding job which they have done.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, we must reform welfare. But as we work to reform welfare it is important to remember that we do not need to provide welfare assistance solely for altruistic reasons. We provide welfare assistance and financial assistance to those in need because it is in the best interest of our society to do so as we fit them for return to work and to membership in this society and in the productive units of this society. Madam Chairman, work works. One of the highest priorities must be giving States and their residents the tools to find and keep good- paying jobs. No Federal, State, or local government funds should be given to individuals without expecting something from those individuals in return. The purpose of welfare is to give financial lift to help people out of difficult times. Yet it must also provide them with the tools, training, education to support their families and to become productive parts of our work force. The Castle-Tanner bipartisan reform welfare program, of which I am proud cosponsor, provides the States with tools to reduce welfare rolls through education and training of recipients. I support this proposal for this reason, because it is the only version of welfare reform being considered today which will help Michiganians off welfare by providing the skills to achieve good jobs. Madam Chairman, we must care for the kids. Twenty-one percent of our children through no fault of their own are living in poverty. The Castle-Tanner bipartisan welfare reform will improve our welfare system so that abused children are protected. Neglected children get care, and hungry children will be fed. It will provide families with the support they need to care for their children while they move to become useful working components of our society. Without a guarantee for our children for food, shelter, and medical care, we will have a failure in this bill. The Republican bill fails by comparison. It does not take care of children. It does not take care of the hungry. It does not provide means for getting people back to work. I urge support of Castle-Tanner.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I rise in opposition to the preferential motion.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would observe that neither I nor Strom Thurmond were in this work at the time that the precedent was established. It is clear to me, however, this is a sound precedent by reason of the duration of its existence and the fact that it has been unchallenged during those periods of time. So having established that we have a sound and long-lived precedent that has served this body well, I believe it would be useful for us to adhere to that precedent. I would observe that the requirement here is that we are discussing a limitation on expenditures. The limitation comes into play not because the individual who must function under the limitation is required to do anything but simply because he has had matters brought to his attention. It imposes no duty on him other than to behave in conformity with the limitation when certain matters have been brought to his attention. The only requirement is that when information is brought to the attention of the officers who would be responsible for implementing the expenditure of these public moneys that they cannot then spend the money, a very sensible limitation and one which makes an extraordinary amount of sense. If the Chair will permit, I intend to yield to my distinguished friend from Maryland for whom I have enormous respect and affection.

Mr. DINGELL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman has been recognized for 5 minutes on the preferential motion. I believe that there will be 5 minutes made available to the other side for a rebuttal to whatever statements might be made?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, normally I would be very supportive of motions to strike the enacting clause and things of that sort. At this particular time, however, I am compelled reluctantly to rise against it in sprite of the vast respect I have for the offerer, the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia. I would like to devote my attention to the question of the motion to strike the enacting clause. One of the reasons that adopting the motion to strike the enacting clause would be very bad is simply that that would leave us in the awkward position of being unable to devote our attention to the Solomon amendment, and I would like to address now the reasons that the Solomon amendment is so important to the business in which we are now engaged. I would like to address first what has been going on, Mr. Chairman. What Mr. Solomon seeks to do is to see to it that the status quo remains in place, because what is contemplated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is an illegal act wherein the Comptroller of the Currency proposes to go beyond the authority which he has under law. And I would like to quote a letter written in 1995 by the present chairman of the Banking Committee to the OCC in which the chairman had this observation to make: There is not a shred of statutory support for the notion that a national bank is authorized to conduct activities in a subsidiary that are not permissible for the national bank itself. Now, at the appropriate time I will insert the whole of this letter in the Record, and what I am saying is that the chairman of the Banking Committee warned the Comptroller of the Currency that his action is illegal, in excess of his authority and beyond the powers that he is vested in under law. It is an act of some arrogance then on the part of the Comptroller to move forward. Now, what is the action of which my good friend from New York complains? That is that the Comptroller proposes to permit national bank operating subsidiaries to move forward into areas which are forbidden under the law, most specifically into stock underwriting and the sale of insurance. Now, I happen to think that banks and subsidiaries should have the authority to do certain other actions, including the sale of securities, including other activities which go beyond banking authority. But that should be defined by the statutory enactment of the Congress of the United States and not by the arrogance of the Comptroller of the United States. The practical effect of what he seeks to do is simply to allow a situation to go forward where a bank would find a citizen coming in for a mortgage or something of that kind and the banker, not all of them but some of them, would put their arm around the applicant and say now that we have agreed that we are going to give you your loan, but before you sign the papers, go down to the end of the hall and see Mr. Jones who handles our securities sales, or insurance sales, and all of the other activities. because we are a full-financial service firm. And the individual then would either go down there and agree to turn the entirety of his financial affairs over to the bank, or he would not get the loan. Mr. Chairman, this is an experience which the Congress has had before. It was in the 1920's, indeed in 1929, the crash, which was in good part brought about by the fact that banks were engaging in all kinds of financial activities without any sort of constraint. The purpose that the gentleman seeks to do is to simply see that if we are going to take the action of permitting the Comptroller of the Currency to get into the business of doing other things other than regulating banks and banks to do other than doing banking business, that the Congress will have a chance to look at it to see to it that it conforms with law and that it conforms with good public policy and that it does not upset some of the long-established precedents which have precluded banks from doing these kinds of things, for the very good reason that we found that serious abuses occur. I would tell my colleagues that banks are now moving into mutual funds and other things, and it has been found by inquiry after inquiry that banks are not telling the purchasers of these securities that these securities are not guaranteed by the Federal Government. Indeed, they are letting the purchasers of these securities walk out of the bank with the mutual fund operating under the assumption that in fact that mutual fund is guaranteed by Federal moneys. House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and Financial Services, Washington, DC, April 5, 1995. Mr. Eugene A. Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency, Washington, DC. Dear Comptroller Ludwig: I am writing to express grave concerns concerning your recent proposal to allow bank subsidiaries to engage in activities legally impermissible for banks themselves. Such an approach is not only highly imprudent but contrary to existing law. There is not a shred of statutory support for the notion that a national bank is authorized to conduct activities in a subsidiary that are not permissible for the national bank itself. If fact, it appears that the OCC's new interpretation of the authority of subsidiaries to conduct impermissible activities does not comport with longstanding OCC practice and policy. (See 31 Fed. Reg. 11459 (Aug. 31, 1966), 48 Fed. Reg. 1732 (Jan. 14, 1983)) Allowing a national bank or its subsidiary to engage in risky non-banking activities would jeopardize the deposit insurance system. Indeed, the news of the past weeks--the failure of Barings, one of Britain's oldest financial institutions--demonstrates the problematic nature of conducting activities in a bank subsidiary and shows how quickly an operating subsidiary can bring down a parent. Likewise, from the perspective of recent American experience, the OCC proposal would appear analogous to the direct investment authority granted S&Ls in certain states in the 1980s, which had the effect of placing significant uncontemplated liabilities on the deposit insurance system. In sum, I object to the OCC's judgement as well as its legal interpretation. The latter concern is particularly telling. No agency of government has the right through promulgation of regulations to obviate law. Sincerely, James A. Leach, Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate strong interest in that matter.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this motion instructs the House conferees to stand by the firewall provisions of the House safe drinking water bill. The provisions protect the funds established for State-selected and State-controlled safe drinking water projects from any raids to funds from congressionally directed construction projects added to this bill at the last minute by the House leadership. Those cholesterol-rich pork provisions should be a matter of legitimate concern to every Member of this body. While not everyone will agree with my assessment that these projects are 100 percent U.S. certified pork high in cholesterol, there is fortunately no dispute that they should not receive one cent of funding unless and until the State drinking water revolving fund is capitalized at sufficient levels. Luckily there is language in this bill which passes the House that provides some firewall protection. I commend my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for agreeing to include this language. My motion to instruct makes it clear that the conferees not forget this explicit commitment in the House-passed bill. Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks ago the House passed a bipartisan reauthorization of the safe Drinking Water Act. This measure makes necessary improvements to the act to ensure that the drinking water of this country is safe today and safe in the future. This measure will improve protection of our drinking water from microbiological contaminants that cause acute illnesses, even death, from single exposures. This measure will reduce the exposures to carcinogens, to endocrine disrupters and other long-term human health threats. The bill gives the States and the water districts unprecedented flexibility to customize their own safe drinking water programs to meet individual needs in their own special circumstances, but with this progress and with this flexibility will come increased responsibility for the States and for the water districts and other suppliers of water to the communities. For this reason the House bill creates a State revolving fund to help the States and localities to meet the costs of complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This State revolving fund is authorized to be funded at $1 billion a year through the year 2003. The fund is to be divided between the States by an objective formula. States can use money for grants and loans to their own water districts under rules that focus the money on projects that address the most serious health risks, ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and assist the several water districts in the States with the greatest need on a per household basis. Contrasted with this fair and impartial program are $375 million in grants. These were added behind closed doors in dark secrecy to fund projects selected on the basis of pure raw politics. Under this program some 14 projects have already been earmarked. Of these 14 a few represent honest high priorities. Many include water totally unrelated to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Not surprising to observe, the overwhelming majority of these projects are for Republican Members including some of the freshmen from marginal districts. Now, I want to be very clear with my colleagues on the subcommittee and full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I do not object to Congress properly funding important and desirable projects to the districts of Members. As was pointed out in the debate on the bill itself, my own district has been receiving funds for water projects and other projects which I and my constituents are properly grateful for. But I do think that it is appropriate to raise questions when these projects are inserted without hearings, without cost-benefit analysis and under the cover of darkness rather than in the open light of day and only as an exercise of pure political muscle, and the bill is totally unrelated for the purposes of these projects themselves. Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, there is a limited pot of money available for all of our Federal programs. That includes in a very special way the monies available for drinking water assistance. In fact, while the fund is authorized at $1 billion annually, the administration budget provides only $550 million next year, and the Republicans here cut $100 million from that amount leaving a badly starved fund desperately needed by the States and local units of government for the improvement of drinking water safety for the people of this country. Without some protections, some of the conferees may be tempted to divert some of the money from the drinking water fund so that pet projects selected for no reason other than the political value to particular Members will indeed be funded. Luckily there is a modest sense of shame left in this body. The proponents of the raid have included language which provides that there will not be any luau, and for the benefit of my colleagues, that is a big Hawaiian dinner where roast pork is served as a principle diet, to consume this scrumptious pork unless and until the drinking water State revolving fund receives an appropriation equal to 75 percent of its authorization. That is the language that this motion addresses. We are saying to our colleagues on the conference committee, do not make any changes in the firewall. At least have the shame not to go further. I might add that this instruction becomes all the more crucial given the unprecedented structure that the leadership has created for this conference. In a movement that to the best of my knowledge has never seen any precedent in the House outside of tax legislation, the leadership will make the sponsors of these special projects the exclusive conferees on these provisions. That makes, in other words, the fox the guardian of the hen roost. We ask the Parliamentarians to give us a list of the bills in this or other Congresses in which such extraordinary and remarkable appointments have been made naming as exclusive or even majority conferees a committee that was not the primary committee on the jurisdiction of the bill. Thus far we have been shown no other examples, and our research finds none. This leaves me to conclude that this was merely an exercise of raw and unadulterated power by the Speaker with no principle basis in the precedents of the House to support it. I trust therefore that it will lack future Presidential value. What it means in practical terms is that there will be no conference report and no safe drinking water bill enacted into law until the conferees from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have gotten everything they want. That is a holdup, and it is quite shameful. I want to remind my colleagues we face a critical deadline on this bill. If it is not on the President's desk and signed into law by August 1, there will be a $750 million loss in safe drinking water funds to several States. The money will not disappear. It will simply spill over into the funding of the Clean Water Act. While I do not doubt that it could be put to good use there, I believe that our States and our local water systems and ultimately the ratepayers want this money used for the safe drinking water revolving fund established by this bill. Thus the sole guardians of the firewall provisions will by the very individuals whose projects received dollar one if the firewall is to be stripped out. I hope our colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will work with us to ensure quick conference, a quick resolution and a fair and a proper result. With the firewall in place, the revolving fund should be largely shielded; and with this motion to instruct, the firewall should remain in place. We would then hopefully have a bill that both sides of this House will be proud of. It will also be a bill that can and will be signed by the President. We can still pass this bill by August 1. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this motion to instruct the conferees. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the amendment to cut 100 additional employees from the U.S. Government Printing Office, offered and accepted during debate last week on the Legislative Appropriations bill, was an impulsive and arbitrary maneuver with no focus whatsoever on the quality of services rendered by this public service agency. The amendment was another example of legislating in haste with uncertain results, which failed to take into account the tremendous record of personnel reductions that has occurred at GPO. In the past 20 years, GPO has reduced the number of its employees by more than half, from 8,000 in 1976, to 3,800 today. Last year, the House voted for additional reductions and the Appropriations Committee recommended a cut of 50 full-time employees for fiscal year 1997. This work force reduction was accomplished by efforts of not just Congress, but also the GPO leadership, to bring the agency into the modern world of communications, and they have succeeded in doing that through a transition to electronic technologies while maintaining the traditional quality of printed Government documents. I want to commend GPO's employees for their hard work and dedication to their jobs, which includes making this body run in a sound and effective manner. Without GPO, the nearly instantaneous transmission and publication of the Congressional Record and other vital documents could not be relied upon in an institution where swift access to information is crucial. The amendment approved last week is not the result of any careful study or performance review. Rather, it is one of those across-the- board types of reductions we have seen offered by the majority party for a number of years to make more difficult the delivery of taxpayer- paid Government services. Mr. Speaker, GPO has taken steps to keep up with the ever-changing nature of the information age and has done so in a cost-effective way. It should be given the necessary discretion to continue to implement needed management changes, including a reduction in unnecessary or duplicative employee positions as they occur, without interference by those who would rather enact arbitrary and across-the-board cuts. I commend the dedicated work of our GPO employees, and believe my colleagues would do the same when they come to know of the fine service they deliver.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is with concern that I cast my vote in favor of most favored nation status for China. Without MFN, I believe much would be lost, not only in the area of trade, but in our ability to continue to coerce China to address its labor and human rights violations. For this reason, I will be following China's progress in the coming year. If advancements are not made by China in these areas, I will be considerably less likely to vote as I did today.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on July 1, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] will celebrate its 50th anniversary. This is an important celebration for the agency, of its own signal achievements over this half-century, but it is also a time for all of us to celebrate the contributions of this small agency to public health in America and worldwide. Unlike many other excellent health institutions, such as the National Cancer Institute or the Food and Drug Administration, CDC is only infrequently in the limelight. But it is that very fact which provides confidence, for the lack of CDC headlines means that we are not facing a crisis requiring urgent expert action. When we do not hear about the epidemiologists, worker safety specialists, immunization gurus, laboratory scientists, and infectious disease experts of CDC, it is because they are doing quietly and efficiently what they have done every day for the last 50 years--protecting the public health. But when we do hear about CDC, we know we are facing an urgent crisis--but that the crisis is being handled expertly--whether it is occurrence of a mysterious infectious disease, later called Legionnaires' disease in Philadelphia, or the first case of AIDS in San Francisco; illness and death from food contaminated with E. coli in the States of Washington, California, Idaho, and Nevada; measles epidemics in major metropolitan areas across the United States; cryptosporidium in Milwaukee drinking water; serious illness from oysters in Florida; an outbreak of hanta virus in New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, and Colorado; the reemergence of tuberculosis as a serious health risk, especially in New York, Miami, and Los Angeles; or lead poisoning in children in Chicago and Rhode Island. While CDC has been catapulted only recently onto suburban movie screens because it inspired ``The Hot Zone,'' the agency has, over its 50-year history, cooled off many hot zones with its unique expertise and capability. CDC assists governments and health officials all over the world in preventing and controlling disease and responding to crises that literally threaten the health and safety of entire populations of people--ebola virus in Zaire; deadly chemical release in a Tokyo subway; disease-causing radioactive fallout in the Marshall Islands; outbreaks in Spain of illness from contaminated cooking oil; worldwide immunization efforts to prevent deadly childhood and adult illnesses such as smallpox--now completely eradicated because of these efforts; typhoid fever, and polio. Though its origins--in Atlanta, GA--and its early mission were modest--the control of malaria in war areas--CDC quickly gained strength and prominence as the world's emergency response team, as it formed critical and productive relationships with health officials throughout the United States and around the world. Its physicians and epidemiologists have been involved in public health activities ranging from the virtual eradication of polio from the Western hemisphere to quarantining the astronauts who first walked on the moon and examining the now-museum-housed moon rocks. CDC specialists have worked with American companies to help identify and solve workplace hazards and prevent worker injuries. The agency's specialized laboratories provide unique, state-of-the-art analyses of dangerous viruses, and unidentified toxins. The National Childhood Immunization Initiative, designed to achieve full, age- appropriate vaccination of all American children, to prevent completely preventable childhood illnesses such as whooping cough, measles, mumps, rubella, and polio; a nationwide program for early detection and control of breast and cervical cancer; and a dynamic education program targeted at smoking, the Nation's No. 1 preventable cause of illness, are all initiatives launched and still maintained by CDC. Today, as it moves into the 21st century, and the second half of its first century, CDC is focused on the future of public health, and refocusing efforts to direct attention at problems that are just beginning, or are growing--new infectious diseases; reemergence of diseases once thought to be controlled, such as drug-resistant TB; prevention and control of birth defects and genetic diseases, such as fetal alcohol syndrome, mental retardation, and spina bifida; identification and control of environmental factors that lead to serious adverse health effects, such as radiation and environmental lead; preventing disability and early death from injury and chronic disease; collecting and analyzing data that help to understand better how to protect and promote health; and refocusing a variety of activities on special health problems of teenagers and women. I am proud to have supported the work of CDC over many of its 50 years. Congress and the American people have entrusted one of our most precious possessions to this remarkable agency--the public health. Today, CDC employs a small cadre of 6,300 dedicated people with a big and critically important task. CDC has never betrayed our trust, and has lived up to our expectations. I expect no less in the future. I congratulate CDC on this 50th birthday, and wish the agency at least 50 more, equally productive years.