John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I hope everybody has listened very closely to the comments by my dear friend from Ohio and looked at these wonderful posters that he has put up. The wonderful posters that my good friend from Ohio has put up do not mean anything and they do not have anything to do with the debate in which we are now engaged. There are two amendments pending. The first is an amendment by my good friend from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. That amendment does two very simple things. It says first that one cannot give rebates to polluters in connection with cleanup. Now, I have heard some rather novel and stressed explanations of why that might be a good idea, but the simple matter is that is a device to pay the polluter. That is something that has always been alien to the principles that we have had with regard to dealing with Superfund. Second, it would prohibit compensating people who have already cut a deal with the Federal Government and with other polluters to clean up and to allocate the responsibilities. My good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] who is a most sincere Member of this body, has come forward with an amendment which says that the first is a good idea, that we should not pay polluters for cleaning up. But he says that we should permit polluters to continue to get paid after they have cut a deal so that they essentially would be drawing moneys above and beyond what they should get in terms of their cleanup. Now, this is a most curious posture, and I am sure that the gentleman from New York will have an interesting explanation for this. It is going to, I am sure, be extremely interesting, and he has nodded ``yes'' to me, but I think it is probably going to lack merit. Now having said these things, there has been pending a long time an effort to get a decent cleanup under Superfund. I was highly critical of the last Superfund bill, and I was roundly criticized by a lot of people for being very much opposed to many of the things they tried to do in terms of compounding the difficulty of enforcement. So I do not apologize for anybody for my views on this. I will tell my colleagues there is urgent need for enactment of new and improved Superfund legislation, get rid of some of the things that my good friend from Ohio, Mr. Oxley, properly complained about. There is time, however, to address this question. Last Congress we reported out legislation out of the Committee on Commerce. It was duly killed by my Republican colleagues, who did not want to move forward on Superfund legislation during the last Congress. The Republicans during the last Congress killed our efforts to pass a better Superfund bill, and I know it distresses them to have this fact revealed because it is one of the nasty little secrets that they carry around in their pocket. Now having said this to my colleagues, I think that we should observe that there is the ability on the part of my Republican colleagues to address Superfund. They chair the committee, they chair the subcommittee, they have the majority of the House, and they have extraordinary discipline.

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman is a fine chairman, and all he has got to do to get us a Superfund bill to the floor which is really meaningful is to see to it that the subcommittee convenes, writes a bill, and reports it out and excludes paying the polluter. Now I guess the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] wants me to yield to him?

Mr. DINGELL. That is right, and we reported out a good Superfund bill unanimously out of the Committee on Commerce, and my Republican colleagues----

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. I will yield to my friend because I know he has something important to add, and I am sure he wants to agree with me. But I want to conclude my statement, and I know he understands because I listened to him with great interest even though his comments were, in good part, irrelevant to the discussion that we are engaged in. Having said these things and expressed great respect for my good friend from Ohio, who is not only a dear friend but one of the finest Members in this body, even though he is wrong in this matter, I would observe that the Republicans have the full capability to move forward. We stand ready to assist them in moving forward on good legislation. I will observe that good legislation does, however, not embody the principle that we should pay the polluters for cleaning up. We should cause the polluters to pay, and we should not absolve those who have arrived at a settlement of the responsibility that they have achieved by having set at risk the health and the welfare and the well-being and the environment of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues then to reject the amendment offered by my good friend from New York, for whom I also have enormous respect, and to adopt the amendment offered by my good friend from Massachusetts because it says that the polluter pays, the polluter gets no break for his wrongdoing, whereas the gentleman from New York says that he might get some.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have in my hands the two amendments which we are discussing. The first is the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. It is an excellent amendment. What it does is it says that there can be no money paid to a fellow who has polluted for cleaning up; he has to clean up after himself. This reminds me of a wonderful sign that I once saw on the wall. It said, ``Your mother does not live here, so you will have to clean up after yourself.'' What the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] wants to do and what my Republican colleagues want to do is to modify that slightly. Mr. Markey says that if you pollute, you cannot get paid for cleaning up. The gentleman from New York says that. Now, the gentleman from New York has then established that he is half right, and for that we should salute him because it is quite a rarity in a Republican Congress for a Republican to be half right. Having said that, we come to the second part, however, which the gentleman from New York has stuck in there. I always thought the gentleman from New York was a very smart fellow, and I still do, but something happened here tonight that I cannot explain and perhaps he can. What he says is, but if you have made a settlement, then the Government is going to pay you to clean up and give you a rebate for cleaning up after you have made a mess and after you have been forced into a settlement. I do not understand why we should pay a wrongdoer who has made a mess and not settled, and I do not understand why a fellow who has made a mess and then settled should be paid. It just does not follow and it does not make good sense. Now, I have enormous respect for the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. He is a very wise and very good Member of this body, and I salute him for the good work that he has done over the years. But tonight he has things a little wrong. What we really need to address is to understand that there are two situations where a polluter could profit under this legislation. The first is where he has gone out and made a dirty mess, risked the lives of the people, contaminated the water, polluted the air, dirtied up a major area, threatened the life and well-being of the people, and under the Republican idea we will then pay them for cleaning that up and having put large numbers of people at risk. This will look very good on their balance sheets, and I am sure my Republican colleagues like that. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, it must be observed, however, that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] would address that, and for that we should salute him. But it is so that he does not address the other equally important situation which arises under the bill. That is, that a polluter who has cut a deal and has agreed that he has done something wrong and has agreed freely that he, along with other polluters, will then clean up, is going to get a rebate. Now, that may be a splendid idea if you are a polluter, but from the standpoint of the taxpaying public and from the standpoint of people who have to pay the taxes for the cleanup, it does not make good sense, because what it does is it diverts moneys from an already short Superfund into the paying off of wrongdoes. That is wrong. Now, if we need to address the question of Superfund, we ought to be addressing it in the committee. My Republican colleagues have run the committee now for almost a year and a half. There is no Superfund bill. My good friend from New York, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], got up and castigated the Democrats because we have not gotten a bill. Now, it may be that he does not know that the Republicans control this Congress, but believe me, and I will tell him now, they do. As a matter of fact, I understand the distinguished gentleman from New York is a subcommittee chairman on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York for purposes of explaining what he is doing tonight, I will be very happy to do so because I notice he is standing and I do have great respect for him.

Mr. DINGELL. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, but what the gentleman from New York would do is to give forgiveness and absolution retroactively. It isn't what we are going to do prospectively that my good friend from New York would address, it is that which has already been done. He is going to catch a bunch of rascals and scoundrels who polluted and go out and make them whole for what they have already agreed to clean up.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the chairman, ranking member, and other members of the Subcommittee on VA-HUD-Independent Agencies for their recognition of the continuing importance of the Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project. In particular, my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Knollenberg, deserves credit for proposing and steering an important provision of this legislation which will provide $20 million in fiscal year 1997 for the Rouge Project. This project was begun in 1990 following the completion of the Rouge River Remedial Action Plan [RAP] in 1989 which found that the most densely populated and urbanized river in Michigan was contributing significantly to the quality of the fresh surface water of the Great Lakes--which contains 20 percent of the world's fresh surface water. A report of the General Accounting Office [GAO] 2 years prior to completion of the RAP found that the cost of restoring the Rouge watershed would be massive. In fact, the most recent cost estimates show that the clean up will cost nearly $1.4 billion by 2002. That is why I joined a group of my colleagues from the metropolitan Detroit area to see if we could muster the resources to meet a tremendous challenge: comprehensive watershed-wide clean up, while developing a technological, managerial, and financial model that could be replicated nationwide as other communities come to grips with the costs and other problems associated with cleaning our waters and keeping them clean. As it so happens, southeast Michigan had many local and regional resources in place to implement such a model, but were in need of Federal partnership. Congress accepted that challenge, and with passage of this measure tonight, the Federal Government will have contributed almost 25 percent of the cost. The remainder is being paid by ratepayers in each watershed community in seven congressional districts, in combination with clean water revolving loans administered by the State of Michigan. It is important to note that, despite this help, our citizens are still being asked to pay higher water bills, and our cities are being asked to stretch resources which already are stretched to their limits. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report to my colleagues tonight that, although such a massive undertaking is never easy, the citizens and community leaders of metropolitan Detroit, on a bipartisan basis, are working together to solve a common problem using innovate approaches to save a precious resource. With the first phase of the project due to be completed soon, project administrator Wayne County is already transferring the knowledge it has gained to other communities across the nation. Again, I would like to commend my colleague from Bloomfield Hills for his leadership this year, so that the state that led in the industrialization of America can lead in the clean up of its natural resources.

Mr. DINGELL. And the gentleman is a fine chairman----

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am mightily distressed at that, and I therefore yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, our Republican colleagues rejected the bipartisan bill that was approved 44 to 0 by the Energy and Commerce Committee in the 103d Congress in favor of a new bill, H.R. 2500, that was not introduced until October 1995. It seems that it took 10 months to figure out how to destroy the bipartisan agreement we had achieved in the prior Congress after months of stakeholders discussions. It is my firm belief that we should dedicate as much Superfund money as possible to cleanup, and not to relieving polluters of their responsibility. And that is exactly what Mr. Markey's amendment is designed to do. Mr. Markey's amendment will assure that Superfund money will be spent on cleanup and not on reimbursing polluters. The Markey amendment will ensure that existing consent decrees, under which parties have agreed to conduct or pay the costs of cleanup, will not be disturbed. Why should EPA expend enormous transaction costs to revisit existing consent decrees when the parties to those decrees have agreed to conduct a cleanup? If those parties have agreed, why do they expect to be relieved of their obligations under these decrees? This amendment absolutely does not disturb the EPA's ability to provide funding at sites where there are existing consent decrees if EPA decides to provide funding to cover all or part of the shares of insolvent or defunct parties. This amendment does not adversely affect the EPA's ability to fund the relief contained in the recent Superfund liability proposals offered by the Democratic members of our Committee as well as the administration. Our recent proposals include fair share funding, limitations on municipal owner liability, exemptions for small business generators and transporters of waste, and exemptions for generators and transporters of municipal waste. The administration's letters in support of Mr. Markey's amendment confirm that this amendment is consistent both with the administration's Superfund reform initiatives as well as the liability proposals we have offered during our bipartisan negotiations. Moreover, this amendment will not bring Superfund cleanups to a halt. That is, unless companies decide to use this as a hollow excuse to breach their agreements to perform cleanup under the consent decrees they have already signed. I urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment to assure that Superfund moneys are spent on what I had thought was our mutual goal-- expediting cleanup.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am certain most of our colleagues remember the bruising fight waged last year in an attempt to end funding for the AmeriCorps Program. I am equally certain that most of our colleagues remember the loud public outcry and the Presidential veto which occurred once that misguided priority was passed by the Congress. And lastly, I am perfectly certain that most of our colleagues remember the large bipartisan majority who eventually voted to increase AmeriCorps funding. While some of my colleagues may have voted ``yes'' in an effort to keep the Government open, I voted ``yes'' because I believe AmeriCorps is a vital example of the good work Government can do. The gentleman from Indiana has offered an amendment to reverse this bipartisan agreement to preserve AmeriCorps. It also would reverse the efforts of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee to provide the funding needed to sustain this program. Both of these committees have voted in support of funding the well-run, highly popular AmeriCorps Program. I plan on following the recommendations of the Appropriations Committee. I will vote to continue funding for AmeriCorps, with my only regret being that difficult budget circumstances make it unlikely that Congress can provide the full amount this program deserves. I hope that, at minimum, the 399 Members who voted in favor of increasing AmeriCorp funding in last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill join me once again in support of this worthwhile program. The question raised by the gentleman from Indiana remains: Can our country afford to reward voluntarism in this period of fiscal austerity? My answer, and the answer of the appropriators is ``yes,'' which is why we have before us a program that will return as much as almost $4 to the taxpayers for every dollar spent. Investing in AmeriCorps volunteers, produces homes in poor neighborhoods, feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, cleans the cities and towns, teaches the uneducated. Investing in AmeriCorp volunteers, produces a core of educated youth who have learned a strong dedication to their fellow Americans with sweat and toil. Mr. Chairman, with that education, and that volunteer ethic, AmeriCorp participants are going on to make our country a more prosperous, and more compassionate, place to live.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the idea of terminating AmeriCorps is perhaps appealing if one does not know the issues, but it is very dangerous and unwise if the facts are analyzed which are involved here. Thousands of young Americans have been educated and benefited by this; enormous public good has been achieved by the program. The program is cost effective. It pays back better than $1.54 to $3.90 for every dollar that is invested. It has generated thousands of volunteer hours by nonparticipants. It has come in well below the costs per participants, better than a thousand dollars less per participant. It raised $41 million in the private sector during the first year alone. This is something which appeals to Republican Governors. Governor Engler, Governor Weld, Governor Wilson, Governor Merrill all support AmeriCorps. Religious groups, the Catholic Network of Volunteer Service, the Episcopal Church, Aguda Israel of America and more support AmeriCorps. Corporations like General Motors, IBM, Microsoft, American Express, Nike, Tenneco, Bell South, U.S. Health Care, Home Depot support AmeriCorps. Even the wives of our Presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and, to my Republican colleagues I would observe, Elizabeth Dole, support this program. In Michigan alone it has stimulated the creation of some 13 major programs. Better than 400 participants a year are involved in this, and the work on behalf of the State of Michigan has been productive indeed. Why then would we want to terminate a program which is showing such tremendous success on behalf of the people? Why would we want to terminate a program which has such widespread beneficial consequences and such enthusiastic support of prominent and responsible Americans? I cannot conceive of a reason. Perhaps someone can better that. I urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] to speak against pork.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. It was observed to me that pigs cannot fly, but they can swim, and they are in our drinking water. The Committee on Public Works, or now, I gather, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is it, has never forgotten how to put pigs in the drinking water. They have never forgotten how to take a fund which would benefit all of the Members of Congress, all of the people of the country and convert it into a proposal which will take care of just a few congressional districts, with, quite frankly, a very shameless raid upon a fund which is already too small to do what it has to do. Now, I am not going to defend the situation which triggered this. I am sure the natural instinct of that committee was to do exactly what they did, regardless of how large or how small the fund is. Because the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is it, yes, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has never seen a pile of money that they did not want to use for pork, and that is what has transpired here. So I would say to my colleagues in the House, if we do not have money to deal with the problems of clean water and safe drinking water in our districts, it is the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure which has very carefully extorted from us and from our districts the funds which would make that possible.

Mr. DINGELL. That was a wise expenditure, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].

Mr. DINGELL. I know it by the old name, and they are still up to their old practices which is pork, pork at all costs, pork at any cost, pork without responsibility, pork without need, pork. We perhaps should change their name to the committee on pork.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to pay my respects and my compliments to my dear friends, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis]. They have tried hard to work with us on a fair and a decent bill. I believe that it had in that effort a real seed of careful and good legislative work. For that I commend them and for that I thank them. But between the time that Mr. Bliley and Mr. Bilirakis, the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, and I agreed with regard to the substance of the bill, something peculiar happened. All of a sudden, we have found that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, well known for its ability to seize pork wherever that pork might be found, has done so again. So we do not bring Members a bill which is going to make safe the waters only. We bring here a bill which through some curious process between the time the bill left our committee and the time it came to the floor came to contain 375 million dollars' worth of pork. My staff informs me that perhaps a couple of the projects which are in this area of pork have some merit. Most of them are, quite frankly, nothing more or less than shameless raids by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Not only are they quite shameless raids, but they are for projects which are quite lacking in merit. More importantly, they are an attempt to raid a small fund which is going to help communities all across this country to make safe the drinking water upon which their people are dependent. They are things for parks and for rehabilitation of water systems, improvement and restoration of an aquatic system at Pennypack Park. They are other wonderful programs for water line extensions. They are programs for construction and activities at a reservoir. There are other infrastructure water assistance programs, not for making water safe for the public at large, not for carrying out the purposes for which this program was set up, but simply to take care of some political things so that we now have a safe drinking water bill where the moneys available to assist communities in addressing the problem of safety of their water simply are being perverted by the Committee on Public Works to seize a wonderful opportunity to convert meaningful public expenditures into pork to benefit the members of that committee and to get around the constraints that are put on by Republican colleagues over here with regard to how public moneys have been spent. This is a sneaky, dishonest effort to get around the requirements of the Budget Act and the budget. That is all it is. This is not good, honest, carefully thought-out legislation at all. It has been perverted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in a fashion which is unique to that committee, and it manifests in a splendid way fiscal irresponsibility on that side of the aisle from which Members over here were totally excluded. It also manifests splendid irresponsibility in seizing and converting funds which should have gone to communities for making water safe, into pork. Thus has the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure served this body. Every Member of this body could look at this piece of legislation and say my district would have had a chance to get real and meaningful assistance in terms of cleaning up our water supply, making it safe, but the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has stolen $375 million out of that fund for their own peculiar, unreported purposes for which there have been neither hearings nor reports, and they have done so in a way which evades the Budget Act. Now, the bill started out to be a responsible effort to clean up the drinking waters of this country, to avoid the kind of things that struck Milwaukee where they had a major infestation of an intestinal parasite which caused a large number of deaths and an even larger number of sicknesses and illness. It is an attempt to see to it that water systems in places like Washington, DC, where we have been told that the waters of this city that are used by the citizens of this city should be boiled because they are unsafe. But, no, we have gone to steal money from the State-controlled drinking water fund to fatten pork projects suggested not on the basis of need, but on the basis of congressional politics and in a splendid way to escape the constraints that my Republican colleagues would put on the budget for the Committee on Public Works. I think this is clearly wrong. The revolving fund which is raided to the tune of $375 million is an important assistance to communities across this country, which desperately need those moneys to carry out important projects. But some 14 members of the Committee on Public Works and their friends have decided, no, those moneys are going to be shortstopped, those moneys are going to be taken off to take care of their own peculiar special nice interests at the expense of all the other Members of this body and at the expense of a program which is already far too small for the cleaning up of the drinking water supplies of the people of this country. The only source of money, apparently, that the Committee on Public Works could find from which they could filch this money was the funding which is included in this bill for the protection of drinking water supplies and for the restoration of the safety of those drinking water supplies. Those moneys are limited, but they are essential, and they are important to the public health to the safety of the people of this country, Mr. Speaker, and they are a public expenditure which is very important to all the people. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] briefly.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] to speak on behalf of pork. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].