John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that no man holds the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules in greater esteem than do I or has greater affection for him, but he has just admitted, just admitted that there is no money in that $861 million. It is illusion. It is blue smoke and mirrors. I want to compliment the gentleman because never before have I seen this so adroitly done, even in the Committee on Rules, where he reigns supreme and issues closed rules and handles the business of this House up there behind closed doors.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], has left the floor, because the remarks I am about to make would have been of some use to him. This is a wonderful day for scams and shams, and we are seeing them hard at work. I would like to first begin by telling the gentleman that they have the votes on that side. You want a Superfund bill? Report it out. If you want Democratic cooperation on a Superfund bill, talk to us, we will be glad to work with you. What is at stake now in the committee is that my Republican colleagues want a Superfund bill which pays the polluter. They want to pay the polluter. They do not want to have the polluter pay. Now, this is nothing more or less than conversion of Superfund into a fine polluter entitlement program. Now, having set the record straight, if the gentleman wants to support that kind of bill, I would urge him to work with Republican members of the Committee on Commerce, who are diligently working towards that end. The simple fact of the matter is that my Republican colleagues on the Committee on Commerce recognize that that stinks so bad that they cannot bring it to the floor. That is the problem. Now that I have enlightened my good friend, I want to talk about some other matters which are of concern here. We have heard that there are precious few dollars available for Superfund cleanup. Citizens have been waiting for cleanup for a long time, yet my Republican colleagues have spent much of the time of this Congress in crafting what I have already described as a polluter entitlement program and other mechanisms to spend money for paying polluters instead of paying for cleanup. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the Superfund is a seriously flawed program, and I will support reasonable changes in it which will make it necessary for industry, which will reduce the enormous volume of litigation which that program contributes. I would remind my colleagues that when I was the chairman of the conference, I did everything I could to prevent that kind of situation obtaining with regard to Superfund. If I would have had more help from the gentleman from New York, and some of the other people that are now complaining about this, perhaps we would be discussing a different kind of Superfund package. I would like to think that this rule, which includes a self-executing amendment making $861 million available for the Superfund program contingent on the enactment of a subsequent appropriation bill extraordinary. I want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from New York, Closed Rule Solomon, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for the innovation that has gone into that step, that it might provide more money for cleanup. Unfortunately, the rule here is just meaningless from the standpoint of providing any real money for the program. In short, we have no assurance that this money will ever be available. It is a wonderful paper entry, and what happened is my friends on the Republican side suddenly found that they had spent money which was going to break the budget, so they went then to the Committee on Rules to get that problem cured by converting the whole thing into what, frankly, is nothing more or less than a sham. In any event, if this money then becomes available under the legislation that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] was speaking about, I can assume that the money will then be make available not for the cleanup of pollution but rather for paying polluters along the lines of the splendid ideas that my colleagues on the Republican side have been setting forth today. Last week we read with interest reports that the Committee on Appropriations had approved an additional $861 million for the Superfund program contingent on the enactment of a Superfund reauthorization bill. This now makes the appropriations of this money contingent on the passage of an appropriation bill. But the passage of the appropriation bill is not contingent on the passage of an authorization bill. So in point of fact, what is going to transpire here today is a great deal of nothing and probably a lot of subsequent finger pointing, but certainly nothing significant with regard to cleanup of pollution or Superfund site. The plan, I would note, which was put together was foiled when appropriators realized that CBO would have to score that money and, in the process, blow the caps off the VA-HUD bill and subject it to a fatal point of order under the budget act. So the Committee on Rules provided this wonderful and I say adroit self-executing amendment making the $861 million contingent on the enactment not of a future authorization bill but on the enactment of a subsequent appropriations bill, something I have never seen before in the few years that I have had the pleasure of serving this body. In other words, the new money will be appropriated in the future if new money is appropriated in the future. I hope that my colleagues on the Republican side have listened to that, because if there ever was a pea under the walnut shell game, this is it here. Let us see who is being fooled here. CBO does not have to score these additional funds because they are not being appropriated now. So all the claims we have heard from our chairmen that more money is available to finance their proposed Superfund reform are false. There is no money. What about the VA-HUD subcommittee's ability to appropriate these funds in the future? They cannot do that without an increased allocation or authorization. Between the budget resolution, the Superfund bill, and the VA-HUD appropriation bills, there is almost $900 million waiting to spill out, blowing an even bigger hole in the fiscal 1997 budget deficit that most of my colleagues have found reason to be distressed about. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. It is a scam. It is a pea under the walnut shell, and I would urge my colleagues to look around and try and figure out under which walnut shell the pea is. I suspect that they will not be able to find the pea. In the great traditions of the carny showmen and scam artists who engage in that, I am certain that they will find that there is probably no pea at all here. Not a pea which has fallen under the table through a hole in the table, but it is probably in the hands of one of my good Republican colleagues who is even at this minute clutching that pea with a hard grasp. I would simply urge my colleagues to vote no. This is a scam, this is a sham, this is a game. My Republican colleagues are not approving money for Superfund. They want to complain about the fact that the Democrats do not want to pass a bill on Superfund which will pay the polluter instead of causing the polluters to pay. Mr. Speaker, I include a communication to the chairmen for the Record. Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC. Hon. Bud Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. Hon. Michael G. Oxley, Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials, Washington, DC. Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Washington, DC. Dear Chairmen Bliley, Shuster, Oxley, and Boehlert: We are writing concerning the status of Superfund reform legislation. We greatly appreciate your efforts to seek a bipartisan consensus on this issue. Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as President Clinton and Administrator Browner, agree on the need for Superfund reform. Thus, your agreement in February to commence bipartisan negotiations was a welcome departure from last year's divisive and partisan proceedings. Since we commenced negotations in March, your staffs and ours have spent significant time and energy, as has the Administration, reviewing and analyzing scores of issues, proposals, and counterproposals. These activities have yielded a better understanding of each other's positions and a narrowing of our disagreements in certain areas. Despite out mutual efforts, however, fundamental differences continue to separate us. Perhaps the most obvious example is our conviction that any responsible legislation must conform to the basic ``polluter pays'' principle underpinning the Superfund law. Upon careful analysis, we have concluded that all of your liability proposals are premised on some notion of ``paying the polluter.'' Your rejection of the fundamental ``polluter pays'' principle fails to meet our mutual objective of responsible reform. Regrettably, we view the three ``options'' that you presented to us in your latest counterproposals as a mere reiteration of positions taken by the Majority before our negotiations began. Prior to our negotiations, Administrator Browner and others testified before House and Senate committees, and otherwise expressed their grave concerns about the site carve-outs contained in H.R. 2500 as introduced, and the wholesale exemptions for generators and transporters of hazardous substances set forth in Mr. Bliley's February 21 draft. Yet, we have been asked to choose among three options based entirely upon these same carve-outs and exemptions. Our inability to reach an agreement with one another on this fundamental principle is particularly disappointing in light of the amount of time and energy we all have expended in the Superfund reform effort to date. During the 103rd Congress, Democrats and Republicans worked together to produce Superfund legislation that was approved unanimously by the Energy and Commerce Committee and on a voice vote in the Public Works and Transportation Committee. Seeking to build on this bipartisan compromise, the Democratic leadership of the two committees introduced H.R. 228 in January 1995. It was a great disappointment to see our compromise bill languish for ten months without so much as a hint of bipartiship. The contentious Commerce subcommittee markup in November confirmed the wide gulf between our vastly different approaches to cleaning up toxic waste sites and assuring that responsible parties and pay the costs of cleanup. Unfortunately, it wasn't until February 1996, well after the subcommittee vote, that you agreed to commerce bipartisan negotiations. In the spirit of compromise, our April 1 proposals went significantly beyond H.R. 228 to address the liability of certain classes of parties, all within the framework of Mr. Bliley's February 21 proposal. These proposals were a significant step for us and for the Administration. We sought to address the liability of the same responsible parties that you specifically identified as most in need of relief, such as small businesses, municipalities, and contributors of minimal amounts of waste. Given the great deal of interest which we share in affording relief to these parties, reducing transaction costs, and most importantly expediting site cleanup, we are most disappointed that we have progressed no further toward achieving these mutual goals. We believe our proposal, as summarized below, can be signed by the President and will establish a fairer Superfund liability regime, including the allocation of liability and costs. Our proposal significantly changes current law to create a fair share allocation system for parties who are not exempt from liability. This proposal essentially eliminates third party contribution lawsuits and was unanimously supported by the Commerce Committee and overwhelming supported by the Public Works and Transportation Committee in the 103rd Congress. However, in a genuine effort to find common ground, our proposal addresses many of your stated concerns and also contains the following additional liability relief provisions: Our proposal would exempt small businesses with 25 or fewer employees and earning less than $2 million in annual gross revenues that are liable under Superfund as generators or transporters of hazardous substances from liability for activities prior to the date the legislation is enacted. Consistent with Mr. Oxley's stated desired to ``get the little guys, the small businesses whose margins are razor- thin to begin with, out of the system,'' this proposal recognizes the practical reality that these very small companies typically do not have the financial means to contribute meaningfully to the costs of a cleanup. Our proposal would exempt from liability all businesses with fewer than 100 employees, residential homeowners, and small non-profit organizations that are liable under Superfund as generators and transporters of municipal solid waste. This provision would exempt thousands of parties from liability, including the Girl Scouts and the people who disposed of things like ``pizza boxes''--two types of generators frequently cited by Mr. Oxley as examples of those who should be relieved of Superfund liability. In addition to businesses with fewer than 100 employees, residential homeowners and small non-profit organizations, our proposal also would exempt all other generators and transporters of municipal solid waste from Superfund liability at NPL sites for activities prior to the date of enactment. For activities after the date of enactment, the proposal limits liability at 10% of the total response costs at the site, so long as the generators and transporters participate in a qualified household waste collection program. Our proposal would cap the liability of municipal owners and operators of landfills that accepted predominantly municipal waste. Our proposal would double the ``de micromis'' exemption contained in H.R. 228 to exempt parties that, as generators or transporters, contributed less than 110 gallons of liquid materials containing hazardous substances or 200 pounds of solid materials containing hazardous substances. Our proposal provides for expedited de minimis settlements for parties at National Priorities List sites who contributed a small volume of waste, presumed to be 1% or less of the total waste at the site, unless EPA determines that site specific conditions indicate that another greater or lesser amount constitutes a small volume. Altogether, the Administration estimates that our proposal would provide relief from Superfund liability and a shield from contribution litigation for more than 40,000 parties. For the parties who remain liable under Superfund under our proposal, the process would be greatly streamlined, transaction costs would be reduced, and settlements would be expedited. Our proposal improves fairness and takes numerous smaller parties out of the liability net, but still preserves fundamental principles of corporate responsibility, which require as a general rule that companies responsible for hazardous substance contamination pay their fair share of the cleanup costs. This concept was endorsed by a wide range of industry and other stakeholders in the compromise bill in the 103rd Congress. The principal difference we have identified between our proposals and yours is that your broader liability exemptions (and consequent allowance of fair share funding) will exempt those generators and transporters of significant amounts of hazardous substances that in most cases are driving up the cost of the remedy and the health hazards at Superfund sites, as well as the owners (in your second and third options) who profited from the disposal of hazardous substances. We believe the additional parties you are proposing to exempt from liability generally are able and should be willing to pay their fair share of response costs in order to clean up the contamination for which they are responsible. We were informed by Commerce Committee Majority staff that Mr. Bliley's February 21 proposal had rejected site carve- outs in favor of retaining liability for the ``true polluters,'' i.e., the owners and operators. Nevertheless, your latest counterproposal contains two options for site carve-outs which would exempt owners and operators. The Administration has informed us that of the approximately 250 codisposal sites, about seventy percent contain predominantly hazardous waste that is contributing significantly to the type of remedy selected or cost of the response action, and that was disposed of by generators or transporters. We believe that neither the Fund, which needs to be preserved for cleaning up abandoned sites, nor the citizen taxpayer, who contributes to the $250 million General Treasury portion of the Superfund budget and who will pay substantially more if the Fund cannot cover the cost of cleanup, should assume the responsibility of those who created the mess. It is no answer in our view to say that the polluters pay because the Superfund into which they deposit taxes would bear the costs of your proposals. Superfund taxes are imposed on corporate taxpayers regardless of whether they are responsible for contamination at any site, and the greatest source of Superfund revenues, the Environmental Income Tax, is imposed regardless of the type of business in which the corporation is engaged. Revenues from these taxes should be used to support the cleanup program and to fund cleanup of sites where insolvent, defunct, or recalcitrant parties are responsible for the contamination. Quite apart from these fundamental policy considerations, we are troubled by recent developments in the Appropriations and Rules Committees relating to the Superfund appropriation. At our meeting on April 25, you sought to persuade us that the Appropriations and Budget Committees had signed off on, and would make available, hundreds of millions of new dollars for Superfund cleanups that would fund your liability proposals. Apart from our philosophical differences over whether the Fund should be used to let polluters off the hook, we expressed our skepticism that such funds could in fact be appropriated without offsetting reductions in other important environmental programs and priorities. Although it appeared at first that the Appropriations Committee last week would indeed make an additional $861 million available subject to enactment of a reauthorization bill, it quickly became clear that such a provision ran afoul of the Budget Act, would exceed the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee's allocation, and would be subject to a fatal point of order. The Rules Committee's self-confessed remedy for this Budget Act violation has been to make the $861 million subject instead to passage of a future appropriation. In other words, the additional money is either completely illusory and provides no independent justification for support of your liability proposals--or, the money may be appropriated at some indeterminate future time if the Appropriations Committee can figure out how to blow the top off the Subcommittee's allocation. This does not inspire great confidence. For all these reasons, we cannot agree to proceed on the basis of any of the three options outlined in your letter. We are, however, willing to consider compromises that work within a basic framework consistent with the ``polluter pays'' principle. With productive and creative attention to these issues, perhaps a bipartisan compromise on liability remains possible. In this context, we would be willing to discuss additional funding, pursuant to the Administrator's discretionary mixed funding authority, for the purpose of facilitating comprehensive settlements at codisposal facilities that accepted predominantly municipal waste. Your April 30 letter also presents a number of proposals on other issues that merit our response. Our review of your remedy selection proposals persuades us that they would result in a significant and unacceptable rollback of human health and environmental protection. During Subcommittee hearings on H.R. 2500, Administrator Browner testified that the bill inadequately protects human health and the environment and lacks sufficient emphasis on reliable, long- term protection at a reasonable cost. We support your efforts to make cleanup decisions based upon reasonably anticipated future use of property and to eliminate ``relevant and appropriate'' (as opposed to legally applicable) state standards. But any new remedy selection provisions must in our view meet the same test the industrial community and other key stakeholders used to favorably judge H.R. 228--the provisions must consider costs and risks ``realistically, fairly, and pragmatically.'' In particular, we believe that legally applicable state standards should apply to cleanups as they do in current law. Subjecting such standards to an incremental cost-benefit test weakens current law at the expense of human health and the environment. Moreover, preserving legally applicable state standards in remedy selection is an issue of vital importance to the overwhelming majority of states. We also believe, based upon staff discussions, that your groundwater proposals fail to provide adequate protection even for aquifers that may provide drinking water supplies, in part because your proposals maintain the prerequisite for establishing a ``substantial probability'' that groundwater may be used for drinking water in the future. Further, the proposals do not contain the necessary emphasis on restoration of precious groundwater resources that are of increasing importance to our communities' economic development. And we are finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile your Leadership's professed support for returning power to the states in some areas--for example, Medicaid and welfare reform--with the apparent willingness in so many other areas to override state laws when they are inconvenient for the business community. Many of your proposals threaten to mire the cleanup process in litigation and delay. Under a process even more cumbersome than initially introduced in H.R. 2500, your proposal allows for reopening records of decision and eliminating the current law's bar on preenforcement review of remedies. This promises more delay and litigation, as past decisions are reconsidered and judges are asked to second-guess cleanup choices that were previously made by EPA or states. We fail to understand how these provisions can be reconciled with the overarching concern about reducing transaction costs that you have expressed in our liability discussions. Under these provisions of your proposal, bulldozers will be idled, health risks will remain unaddressed, and affected communities will have to wait for cleanup, while lawyers and consultants clean up with hundreds of new fee-generating opportunities. While we could support limiting the preference for treatment in current law to the most contaminated and highly mobile toxic waste (hot spots), we cannot support a complete elimination of the preference for treatment. Rejection of this fundamental tenet of the President's Superfund reform proposal would create more brownfield sites that, for all practical purposes, could never be suitable for redevelopment or other productive future use. Changing long-standing concepts, such as the definition of environment and minimum health standards (even as modified in your latest proposal), creates ambiguous and ill-defined terms and certainly will result in a litigation bonanza. These changes are, in our view, ill-advised and unnecessary. While we are willing to consider adding a Governors' concurrence provision for new additions to the NPL, we cannot support the arbitrary constraints, or ``caps,'' contained in your proposals. Both the General Accounting Office and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials have concluded that many states do not have the funding to address sites within their boundaries that otherwise would be placed on the NPL. We also are highly concerned about your proposals for natural resource damages, a set of issues that are as important to us as liability and remedy. In our view, your proposals would dramatically limit the ability of federal, state, and tribal natural resource trustees to restore natural resources injured by releases of hazardous substances and allow losses to remain uncompensated. As you proposed, we are pleased to have our staff participate in stakeholder discussions on natural resource damages which commenced this week. In summary, H.R. 2500--and the proposals you have made based on it--seeks to create a regime that abandons the ``polluter pays'' principle, rewards egregious and recalcitrant behavior, delays cleanups, drastically minimizes health and environmental standards, jeopardizes restoration of natural resources, encourages litigation (even to the extent of opening up previously settled decisions governing cleanups), and leaves states responsible for enormous financial obligations for cleanup. We cannot support such an approach. If we are to achieve our shared goal of Superfund reform this year, we urge you to consider an approach that addresses concerns about further liability relief within the bounds of genuinely available fiscal resources and at the same time adheres to the basic ``polluter pays'' framework that always has been central to Superfund. If you conclude that a comprehensive Superfund reform bill is not achievable this year, perhaps we can achieve some success yet. With a little futher work, we feel that we can reach agreement on issues relating to federal facilities, clarification of lender liability, grants to local government to assist in redeveloping brownfields, and providing liability relief to bona fide prospective purchasers of property. The Commerce Committee's recent achievement of a comprehensive safe drinking water reauthorization bill makes clear that we can achieve consensus, even on highly contentious issues surrounding protection of human health and the environment. We look forward to continuing to work with you in that spirit. Sincerely, John D. Dingell, Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce. Thomas J. Manton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials. James L. Oberstar, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Robert A. Borski, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation and urge its passage by the House. The bill has come a long way since title I was originally proposed last July as H.R. 2131. It was controversial legislation then which would have, amongst other things, repealed the Trust Indenture Act and key protections under the Williams Act and Federal margin provisions, negated anti-fraud protections and suitability obligations on broker dealers to institutional investors, and decimated securities regulation and enforcement at the State level. That bill, thank heaven, is not this bill. With that, I wish to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], for their outstanding efforts in reforming that legislation into something we could rejoice in and pass today. I want to again commend Mr. Fields, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bliley, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, for working with Members on this side of the aisle, the Securities and Exchange Commission, State securities regulators, and the securities industry to write the balanced legislation that we consider today. I will express my personal thanks to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] for his important leadership on and contributions to this bill. Others will be describing the floor amendment in great detail. There are a few points I would like to make. In his November 30, 1995, testimony before our committee, a great and decent man and an outstanding regulator, Chairman Levitt, stated that: ``State securities regulators play an essential role in the regulation of the U.S. securities industry. State regulators are often the first line of defense against developing problems. They are the `local cops' on the beat who can quickly detect and respond to violations of law.'' I strongly agree with those sentiments. Nothing that we do in this legislation should undercut the authority and ability of States to detect and take action against securities fraud and sales practice abuses. I will continue to work on this issue in conference with the Senate. While I support the bill's grant of exemptive authority to the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, I want it clearly understood that this bill does not grant the SEC the authority to grant exemptions from the antifraud provisions of either act. In determining the public interest, Congress has expressed the public interest through the express provisions of law that it has enacted. The SEC may not administratively repeal these provisions by use of the new exemptive authority. I support responsible efforts to reform and modernize the securities laws consistent with the maintenance of investor protections and the transparency, integrity, and fairness of the U.S. securities markets. Our capital markets run on investor confidence, and that confidence will disappear, and the liquidity and efficiency of our markets will be seriously impaired, if investors believe that we are turning the hen- house sentry posts over to the foxes or abolishing half the sentry posts at a time of increases poaching. For example, yesterday's Wall Street Journal [Investigators Tie Brokers To Bribes, Monday, June 17, 1996, at C1] reported that dozens of stockbrokers around the country are suspected of taking hidden payments from promoters to sell stocks to their customers. The March 1996 report of the SEC-SRO-State Joint Regulatory Sales Practice Sweep found that: one-fifth of the examinations resulted in enforcement referrals and an additional one- fourth of the examinations resulted in the issuance of letters of caution of deficiency letters; almost one-half of the branches that engage in some type of cold calling evidence cold-calling violations or deficiencies; supervisors in many of the branches examined conduct inadequate or no routine review of registered representatives' customer service transactions to detect sales practice abuses; and many of the branches examined utilized only minimum hiring procedures and some of these are willing to employ registered reps with a history of disciplinary actions or customer complaints. SEC resources are also an important part of this enforcement equation. Title III of the floor amendment includes the text of the SEC reauthorization bill that passed the House unanimously in march of this year. As I understand it, the inclusion of this title is intended to facilitate good faith negotiations between the House, Senate, and OMB to resolve longstanding questions about SEC fees. Although the administration supports other provisions of H.R. 3005, it has expressed serious concerns with reauthorization provisions that would reduce or eliminate the use of increased securities registration and transaction fees for general-fund purposes. I intend to continue to work with the administration to address their concerns with this provision, and hope my colleagues on the Majority side will join in the effort to get a cooperative resolution of this issue. Also I wanted to just observe that this House is going to seriously miss my friend from Texas, Mr. Fields, when he goes. He has been a distinguished Member of this body, a fine chairman of this subcommittee, a valuable friend of mine, a responsible and decent Member of this body, and I am pleased that he is not yet leaving us. I do want the Record to show the high regard in which I hold the fine gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, well, it is deja vu all over again, or, more likely, Reaganomics part II: Increase spending, lower taxes, and hope the big budget deficit goes down. But it does not. Under the Republican plan, and I hope my Republican colleagues will listen to this, the budget deficit increases by $23 billion the first year and by $17 billion in the second year. After 4 years of declining budget deficits under the leadership of President Clinton, the Republicans have decided to change course. I studied this well 3 years ago and listened to my Republican colleagues complain about the awful things that might happen under the Clinton budget plan. In fact, Speaker Gingrich said it would actually increase the budget deficit. Well, the Republican budget deficit is going to increase under this proposal. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. They are fiscally irresponsible. I would point out that this is a fiscally irresponsible budget. I urge my colleagues to vote no on it, and I quote a great former President of the United States, Gerry Ford, in describing situations like this, who said, ``Things are more like they are now than they have ever been.''

Mr. DINGELL

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

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The distinguished gentleman from California has referred to me in a most kindly fashion. He has also alluded to the fact that the deal has already been cut. I would note that this is interesting from the standpoint of the business at hand. He has also said some other things. He has tried to blame the Democrats in the Senate for the action of the Republican Presidential nominee, the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Dole, who is the majority leader over there until this afternoon, I am told, at which time he will be leaving. But it will be noted that this good majority leader has not, during the time that the gentleman from California complains, appointed the conferees. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Stark].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Once again our friends and colleagues on the Republican side have spent days and weeks behind closed doors. Our colleagues have been negotiating with themselves. They have been excluding Members on this side of the aisle. They have been excluding the President. They have been using their usual highly partisan style, strategy and technique. They have stuck a controversial and objectionable medical savings account provision in their bill to serve the Dole for President campaign and to assist special interest friends in the health insurance industry. Mr. Speaker, our motion to instruct is simple: It tells the House conferees, ``Do not reinvent the wheel.'' We have before us a good bill which came from the Senate. It was totally noncontroversial. It properly rejected a broad medical savings account provision as unwise and fiscally irresponsible. The instruction tells House conferees that with the exception of one provision on which further analysis may be needed, simply recede to the Senate. On that one provision, an important bipartisan amendment to provide mental health parity offered by our friends and colleagues, Mr. Domenici and Mr. Wellstone, it instructs the conferees to study the issue and to consider whether the provision would raise health insurance premiums. If the provision is found to raise premiums, the motion tells the conferees to do their best to adjust it to provide for the maximum possible mental health coverage without raising premiums and within the scope of the conference. Make no mistake, my colleagues: The conference committee is about to be appointed, but it is one which already has its decisions made. All the important decisions are in place. Once more, the extremist Republican majority has told the American people and the President of the United States, ``It's our way or the highway.'' The Congress has an opportunity this year to enact a noncontroversial, a bipartisan, a consenus health insurance reform bill, a small one but an important one, a bill that would make health insurance more widely available to the American people. Some 28 million people will benefit from the enactment of this legislation. It is a bill which would assure portability, guaranteed access and renewal. It would limit preexisting condition exclusions, and set up purchasing pools for small business. This is a bill which was so broadly supported that it passed the Senate of the United States 100 to nothing. The Republican majority is not content, however, to stop here with a good bill. They could not resist playing politics with the health and security of the American people. And in spite of the President's good faith offer to negotiate a carefully constructed pilot program on MSA's, they just could not resist sending a bill that will have to be vetoed. The beneficiaries of this will be the health insurance industry, and then only a part of it. The people who will suffer from this choice are the American people. Some 28 million Americans will not get the benefits of this legislation. My Republican colleagues locked the doors. They locked out the American people. They ignored the will of the other body, which voted against MSA's, and they crowbarred this curious provision into the bill. As they have done over and over again in this Congress, they bent the rules and, quite frankly, they are in the process of making a mockery of the conference structure of the two bodies. Mr. Speaker, who is going to pay in the end for this partisanship? It is going to be the American people, 28 million of whom will be denied the benefits of significant improvements in health insurance and major reform. Let us have a real conference with genuine bipartisan dialog and negotiation. Bring the President into the process in good faith, not by distorting the process by making the agreement beforehand and then telling the President to fly off. A Presidential signature is going to be difficult. Let us get the Presidential signature. Let us enact the legislation. Let us support the motion to instruct.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to rise today to mark 50 years of dedication by the Sgt. Stanley F. Romanowski Post 6896 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The ideals embodied in the Post membership stand as a model of public service. In exemplary fashion, the Romanowski Post has served its members and the community at large. I am proud to be associated, as a member, with an organization whose fierce camaraderie is only outshone by its firm commitment to serving Dearborn, the 4th VFW district, and Wayne County, MI. To list all of the ways Post 6896 serves the community would be near to impossible, yet it is important to recognize a few of the programs which the Post has established: the Post Blood Bank, serving both members and the public; spaghetti dinners supporting muscular dystrophy research; and the Christmas Needy Basket Program providing food for families enduring hard times. These are just three examples of the selfless charity central to Romanowski's mission. The additions of the Ladies Auxiliary and the Dads Post have increased the number of people who have the opportunity to participate in a positive way in Post activities while also expanding the resources available to be dedicated to charitable pursuits. The numerous clubs and leagues which operate within the post have helped to create a supportive and congenial atmosphere. On May 12, 1946, when the Post was humbly instituted in the gymnasium of the Munger Intermediate School, its members could not have foreseen the success that was ahead. Romanowski has been the largest Post in the Department. It has long held the Drill Team title of Department Champions (first captured in 1965), and twice hosted the VFW National Convention. Throughout the years, the Post has gained a well-deserved reputation for hospitality and generosity. Mr. Speaker, it is with honor and personal pride that I congratulate my home Post for 50 years of dedicated service in southeast Michigan.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a sham. None of this is going to get to the consumer. Every bit of it is going to go to the big oil companies. The proof of it is that when our colleagues and our people go to the pumps the day after this passed, the money is not going to be there. The average citizen is going to get 52 cents a week, two pennies, two quarters. That is all he is going to get our of this. The oil company is going to get $4 billion a year. That seems to me unfair. Nobody who has appeared before us and nobody on that side of the aisle, where my Republican colleagues have been holding forth the virtue of this, has been able to point where the money is going to go. The money is going to go to the oil companies. That is where it is going to go. No witness on behalf of the oil companies or anybody else who came to the committee could tell us anything else than that the money was going to go to the big oil companies. If my colleagues really want to do something for the people of this country, and I think it would probably be suitable, we can give the average citizen $40, $40 a week in differences, by simply doing something that really is going to help the ordinary citizens; that is, by passing the minimum wage legislation that we have been trying to get. I do not want to leave this around here too long because my Republican colleagues, when they see money that belongs to ordinary people, want to take it away from them and give it to the oil companies. But having said that, just make note, this money that we are giving back is going to go only one place. It is going to go to the oil companies, and they are going to thank you for it. It is going to show up in their annual statements, it is going to show up in their quarterly reports, it is going to show up in their 10-Ks and 10-Qs. They are going to enjoy it immensely, and they are going to thank the Republicans for it. The people that are being deceived today are not going to thank the Republicans, because all they are going to get is 52 cents a week, but the oil companies are going to get $4 billion a year. That is quite a noteworthy difference. It is something which reflects poorly on this House, both as to its integrity and as to its intelligence.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this outrageous gag rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote down the previous question. When historians write the results of today's discussions, they are going to write that in a shameful and a shameless fashion, this Congress tried to gull the American people into a belief that some way or another they are going to get 4.3 cents a gallon back on gasoline. Nothing is further from the truth. The big oil companies are already rubbing their hands and licking their chops, because they are going to get that 4.3 cents per gallon, and it ain't ever going to get to the people of the United States. And if you go home and tell your people so, you are not going to be telling the truth. Now, beyond that, I wanted to point out that this is a gag rule. Now, I love my dear friend, Mr. Solomon. He is a fine gentleman and a fine Member of this body. But I call him ``Closed-rule-Solomon'' and have done so for some time. I know it is offensive to him in the supreme to have to offer rules which make it possible for Members like me to have a decent opportunity to amend the legislation such as we have before us. What this bill does is it is going to give 4.3 cents per gallon to the big oil companies, and they are going to enjoy it mightily. That comes down, my dear friends and colleagues, to $4 billion that you are giving to oil companies, that really do not need it. Their balance sheets are healthy in the extreme and their stock is going up daily. Members in this body, because of this closed rule, will have no opportunity to vote on amendments that will put this 4.3 cents per gallon gas tax into the pockets of their consumers. The only thing that is going to happen is the oil companies are going to get that money, and the deficit is going to go up by $4 billion. Fiscal responsibility? No. Oil companies would say so, yes, but the average citizen will say so, no. Indeed, oil prices are going to go down because the Iraqis are now entering the world markets because of the understandings in the U.N. the other day. Now, there is simply no mechanism in this legislation whatsoever for ensuring that the tax reduction actually reaches the consumer at the pump. In short, this bill and this rule will do nothing for the typical American consumer. That is why I urge a no vote on the rule, and why I urge a no vote on the previous question. If you have read the papers, you have seen that time after time, spokesmen for everybody, including the big oil companies and economists and government people, have said this money is going to the oil companies, it is not going to the ordinary citizen. Beyond that, when our committee had hearings a couple weeks ago, Dr. Phillip Verleger, a respected energy expert at Charles River Associates and a witness selected by the Republicans, was quoted widely in the press as saying consumers will not see any of this repeal reflected in the pump prices. Mr. Charles DiBona, an old and respected and valuable friend of mine, a fine and honorable gentleman, who heads the American Petroleum Institute, had a little more optimism on it. He thought consumers might see some of this money back, but he never said when. I asked Mr. DiBona whether he thought the oil industry would support an amendment that would ensure that consumers would get this 4.3 cents per gallon back. He demurred, because he understood full well that his clients and his people and the American Petroleum Institute were going to fatten themselves to the tune of $4 billion at a 4.3 cent per gallon clip at the expense of the American consumers. We are giving by this legislation and by this closed rule $4 billion to the oil companies. Nothing, nothing, nothing of this is coming back to the American people. I asked the Committee on Rules, chaired by my dear friend, ``Closed- rule-Solomon,'' to make it in order to ensure amendments offered by myself, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], to assure that the money would come back to the consumers. That was not permitted by the Committee on Rules, which was doing its proper work, because it is taking care not only of Republican policy, but of their good friends amongst the oil companies, by seeing to it that the oil companies get the money, and not the consumers.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the MOMS Act, the Minimum Obstetrical Medical Security Act of 1996. The legislation would guarantee that insurers provide coverage for new mothers and their newborn children to remain in the hospital for a minimum of 48 hours after a normal delivery and 96 hours after a Caesarean section, unless the attending provider and the mother together decide that this is not the best course of action. This bill responds to the concerns of pregnant women and their physicians in my district who have become increasingly concerned about the risks involved for mothers and their children when they are sent home from the hospital too soon. This is happening more and more frequently because insurance companies are deciding that an early hospital discharge is in their best interest--even if both the doctor and the new mother believe that the longer stay is medically appropriate. Length of stay for new mothers and their babies ought not to be based on the financial concerns of an insurer, but on the health and welfare of the new mother and her new baby. Studies have shown that early release of infants can result in feeding problems, respiratory difficulties, mental retardation, brain damage, and infections of the ears, eyes, and navel cords. Premature hospital discharge also puts mothers at risk for hemorrhaging, infected episiotomies, urinary tract infections, and exhaustion. The American Medical Association has urged hospitals and insurance companies to allow the discharge of mothers and infants to be determined by the clinical judgment of attending physicians, not by economic considerations. Over 80,000 physicians in the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatricians have endorsed legislative measures addressing these same concerns. This bill would prevent insurance company policies that result in the premature hospital discharge of mothers and their newborns. The increasing reluctance of some insurance plans to adequately cover obstetric hospital stays in accordance with current medical society guidelines has, and will continue to have, serious implications for the health and well-being of many mothers and newborns. The bill does not preempt responsible State legislation that either meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of this bill or guidelines established by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, or other medical professional associations. I commend this legislation to my colleagues and urge its passage. Section-by-Section Analysis Section 1. Short Title: The act is named the ``Minimum Obstetrical Medical Security Act of 1996'', or MOMS Act. Section 2. Findings: The findings section states that: (1) the length of post-delivery inpatient care should be based on unique characteristics of each mother and her newborn child, and (2) the decision to discharge a mother and newborn from the hospital should be made by the attending provides in consultation with the mother. Section 3. Required Coverage for Minimum Hospital Stay Following Birth: This section requires health plans that provide maternity benefits, including benefits for childbirth, to provide coverage to mothers and their newborns for at least 48 hours of inpatient stay following a normal vaginal delivery and at least 96 hours following a caesarean section without requiring the attending provider to obtain authorization from the health plan. Health plans are not required to provide coverage for the 48 or 96 hour period if two conditions are met: (1) the attending provides, in consultation with the mother, decides to discharge the mother earlier, and (2) the health plan provides coverage for post- delivery follow-up care. Section 4. Post-Delivery Follow-up Care: Where a mother and newborn are discharged from the hospital prior to 48 hours following a normal vaginal delivery or 96 hours following a caesarean section, health plans are required to provide post- delivery follow-up care not more than 72 hours following the discharge. Such care is to be provided by a registered nurse, physician, osteopathic physician, nurse practitioner, nurse midwife, or physician assistant experienced in maternal and child health. Care may be provided at home, hospital, doctor's office, birthing center, intermediate care facility, federally qualified health center, State health department maternity clinic, or other setting determined appropriate by the attending provider and the mother, mothers must be given the option of receiving care in the home. Section 5. Prohibitions: Health plans are prohibited from: (1) denying enrollment, renewal, or continued coverage to mothers and newborns on compliance with this Act; (2) providing monetary payments or rebates to mothers to encourage them to request fewer than 48/96 hours of stay; (3) penalizing doctors because they comply with the Act; or (4) providing incentives to doctors to induce them to provide treatment in a manner inconsistent with the Act. Section 6. Notice: Insurers and employer-sponsored plans are required to notify plan participants and policy holders of the coverage required by this Act. Section 7. Applicability: This section, which works in conjunction with Section 8 on ``Enforcement,'' clarifies that States have primary responsibility for enforcing the requirements of this Act with respect to insurers and HMO's-- as they do under current law--that the Secretary of Labor has sole responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of the Act are met by employer-sponsored ERISA plans, and that nothing in this Act should be construed to affect or modify the preemption provisions of ERISA. Section 8. Enforcement: This section specifies that States enforce the requirements of the Act with respect to insurers and HMOs, and they may apply whatever penalties for non- compliance they wish. Employer-sponsored plans may be subject to civil enforcement penalties contained in sections 502, 504, 506, and 510 of ERISA. If a State fails to ``substantially'' enforce the requirements of the Act, the Secretary of HHS will enforce the requirements with respect to insurers and HMOs using penalties similar to the sanctions provided under ERISA. This construct is necessary to ensure enforcement. Section 9. Definitions: This section defines the terms ``attending provider,'' ``beneficiary,'' ``employee health benefit plan,'' ``group purchaser,'' ``health plan,'' ``health plan issuer,'' ``participant,'' and ``secretary.'' Section 10. Preemption: The Act does not preempt State laws that (1) provide greater protection to patients and policyholders; (2) require health plans to provide coverage for at least 48/96 hours; (3) require health plans to provide coverage in accordance with guidelines established by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, or other appropriate professional medical associations; or (4) leave decisions about length of stay entirely to the doctor in consultation with the mother. With regard to follow-up care, the Act does not preempt State laws providing greater protection to patients and policyholders or providing an option of timely follow-up care in the home. Section 11. Effective Date: The Act is effective on the first day of the plan year or contract year beginning on or after January 1, 1997.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today the House leadership brought to the floor a resolution to establish and fund a select subcommittee to investigate the United States role in Iranian arms transfers to Bosnia and Croatia. This is an excellent example of the type of government spending that the current majority is fond of railing against. It was public knowledge early in 1994 that Iran was sending arms into Bosnia, and the Republican majority raised no objections. In fact, it was also in 1994 that Congress passed the Defense Authorization Act mandating that the President stop enforcing the arms embargo against Bosnia, making this current Republican effort clearly a cynical political undertaking. The President's Intelligence Oversight Board has investigated the matter, and concluded that the administration has broken no laws. In addition, three separate investigations of United States policy in Bosnia are currently underway. The new subcommittee would be conducting a fourth investigation at the cost of $1 million, making it the most expensive subcommittee in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, it seems apparent the House leadership is attempting to establish a new subcommittee to dim the President's foreign policy achievements. They are ignoring their own calls to end frivolous government spending by attempting to establish an unneeded subcommittee. If new House leadership feels so strongly that another investigation into this matter is warranted, at the taxpayers expense, then the International Relations Committee is fully capable of conducting such an inquiry with existing funds. This is a cynical political exercise because it wastes $1 million of the taxpayers' money.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I begin by expressing my great affection for the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and also the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman of the Committee on Commerce. They are fine Members and dear friends of mine and I have enormous respect and affection for both of them. Mr. Speaker, I was, as this body knows, the individual who was in on addressing the problem of product liability early on. Our committee began the effort by moving out the first piece of legislation that ever came out of a congressional committee on this. It is my view that product liability lawsuits have been much abused, and that serious and adverse economic consequences have struck the American economy, the American worker, and American businessman because of that, and I intend to vote to override the President's veto. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I do it with a sense of heaviness in my heart. Without any ill will towards my good friend from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], I want to make it plain that I think that was a very bad speech. This is not an issue which we should make a partisan issue. It is a broad question of the public good. Are we going to correct an abuse which is here? The hard fact is that the handling of this bill has given the American public, I think, and the Members of this body, a clear impression that what is happening here is essentially a partisan exercise on the part of our Republican colleagues. Members on this side of the aisle were very much excluded from the discussions in the so- called conference which took place. There was no real conference in the traditional sense. Members had no opportunity to participate. There was no opportunity afforded the White House or the administration downtown to discuss concerns which they had with regard to the bill. That is a very bad way to proceed. It was not an open House which functioned. It was not an open committee or an open conference which functioned. Rather, it was a very much closed and secretive undertaking. There were a couple of pro forma meetings which were, at best, opportunities for perhaps Bull Run speeches or perhaps for Members to say what they were going to do. The real work was done behind closed doors at which Members, like myself, who wanted to participate and who could have participated and who would have participated in the bringing together of the divergent views which exist on the subject of product liability in a way that we could anticipate that this bill would then be signed into law, were excluded. I think we are looking here, then, at a situation where the way this matter has been handled has been to assure not that a bill can be signed and not that a major economic and social problem is addressed, but simply so that we can have here an exercise in fingerpointing, something which is going to do two things: First, further alienate Members within this body on this subject, and, second, to assure that this bill is going to fall to a veto which has been given. A residue of great ill will is going to be left in this body which is going to adversely impact future efforts to address the problem of product liability. I view those events as a great calamity. I think American industry does need relief from the kind of situation they confront, and I would point to the long hearings which we held in which we heard from industry, from individuals affected, even from the trial attorneys. Those pointed up the need for change, but regrettably the process in which we are now engaged is going to assure that there is going to be no significant change. A veto is going to be upheld, vast fingerpointing will occur, ill will will remain and grow, and the problem of product liability litigation will not be resolved. The final result of this is going to be that a great opportunity to do broad good for the American public, for the American economy, is going to be lost today. My friend and colleague, Mr. Bliley, talks about how this is an attempt on the part of the President to procure campaign contributions. I would point out that we all will be charged with receiving campaign contributions and I would point out this: There will be abundant campaign contributions befalling my Republican colleagues because of their views on this, probably larger campaign contributions than will fall on a Democrat who supports the President's veto. I do not think that we ought to attribute, either to our colleagues or to the President of the United States or anybody else, the crass motive of proceeding solely on the basis of campaign contributions. I think we ought to give credit to each other for proceeding on the basis of the board public interest and doing good and carrying out our oath of office as we see that oath and that duty to compel us. I reject the idea that we should then proceed in that fashion. I think that that is the way in which we do greatest credit to ourselves and to argue this question on the basis that somebody is doing something on the basis of a campaign contribution demeans the individual who is charged, but it demeans also the individual who makes the charge. I would urge my colleague, if we are going to address this question here, let us address it from the standpoint of the broad public interest. But let us when we do so understand that we have some duty to bring all Members into the discussions, something which was not done here and something which has impaired in a severe way our opportunity to resolve a matter of very important concern to all Americans.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, in the last 18 months, Democrats like Sam Gibbons and myself have found our voices in taking on the reactionary and extremist behavior we have seen coming to the fore in this institution. Some may think Sam is retiring at a time when his voice is vital to the rejuvenation of our party. Let me tell you a little bit about the history Sam Gibbons has created during his tenure as a Florida Congressman. Since 1965, Sam Gibbons has been a tireless advocate for the Nation's elderly. We both voted for Medicare during its inception in 1965 and have continued to fight for its funding especially today when the Republicans want to cut it to fund their wealthy tax break. I remember when Sam was floor manager during Lyndon Johnson's Great Society legislation which included programs like Head Start and the Job Corps. As the chairman and now ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee I had the honor of working closely with Sam as his committee oversaw the Medicare trust fund and Commerce oversaw Medicaid and part of Medicare. I have watched Sam Gibbons grow from a Florida freshman to a virtual institution and a recognized leader in his party. This Congress will not be the same without you. It will have been 34 years since I last knew this institution without Sam Gibbons and I am saddened to return to that time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the State of Louisiana is going to increase the budget deficit in the following fiscal year, the next fiscal year, and the year after that by $300 million each year, and God knows how much more after that.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleagues that this is a good clean bill and that there is no pork and no outrage here. But nothing is further from the truth. Some of my colleagues on the other side are going to be looking rather sheepish and hang-dog, and they properly should. The Republicans here are creating an indefensible giveaway of $645 million to Louisiana and New Hampshire in the forthcoming conference report on the CR. The $45 million will go to New Hampshire, $600 million will go to Louisiana. The pork is to reward two safe Republican States for abusing Federal taxpayers by using loopholes and accounting gimmicks to increase Federal matching payments they receive under Medicaid while depressing their own State spending. In other words, Federal spending goes up here, State spending goes down. These are scams which were popular in the 1980's during the Bush administration. They increased the Federal Government spending on Medicaid alone to a tune of $10 billion. Guess who the biggest abusers were? Louisiana and New Hampshire. They still are the two biggest abusers. In 1993 we cleaned the situation up after extensive hearings in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We passed a bipartisan measure to eliminate these abuses and to protect the Federal Treasury and at the same time to take and give consideration to the problems that the States had. We gave them 2 years to wean themselves from their addiction to these Federal payments and to get away from the Federal trough. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues seem to be operating under the philosophy that no bad deed should ever go unrewarded. The CR is going to reward these States with more time at the Federal trough to the tune of about $645 million. Louisiana, by the way, will spend these moneys not for health, but they will continue to spend them for things like roads, highways, bridges, and the prison system. Incidentally, there are other States now who are living under the constraints of the 1993 law; that is, all 48 of the other States. It is interesting to note, however, that since this process commenced of Louisiana and New Hampshire seeking additional moneys to continue an abuse which was roundly decried as long ago as 1993, six other States are now asking that they be permitted to belly up to the trough so that they can get their share of the slop. For 48 other States whose Members of Congress are represented here, I ask if they can explain how it is and why it is that the Congress voted for a special Federal bailout for two States who simply failed to manage their budgets properly at the expense of their own State and at the expense of the rest of the Nation. I also ask my colleagues to be prepared to explain to the people of their States why it is after 2 years was given to these two States to clean up their act, they are given an additional time. I know that one Presidential candidate came back not long back from New Hampshire and that very shortly thereafter disappeared in the language of the Senate bill. I wonder if this ought to appear on the FEC report of that particular candidate. This happens to be a genuine outrage. It is a continued raid upon funds which are needed for important public purposes or for the purpose of reduction of the budget deficit and for the purpose of balancing the budget. These are funds which are being taken away from other essential and important uses, such as student loans, such as school lunches, such as education, such as research into health problems, such as improving the quality of life, to law enforcement, to protection of the environment, and they are going to two States which have roundly abused the system for years and which, under this legislation, are going to get the permission of the Congress to continue to abuse the public interests and public monies for special purposes, in a fashion that no other State is being permitted to do. But note, my dear friends and colleagues, this is but the first crack in the dike because now already six other States are saying, ``Well, if you are going to let Louisiana, if you are going to let New Hampshire, have access to these funds without responsibility, how about letting us do that?'' So, I would tell my colleagues, prepare for a phone call from their constituents, prepare for a phone call from their Governor, prepare for the call from their State to let them share in this pork also.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], my dear friend.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska who has helped me greatly with the concerns that I have had on this bill.

Mr. DINGELL. I would like to direct the gentleman's attention to the term compatible use. Under section 3 of the bill, concerns have been raised that the definition of ``compatible use'' will alter the intent and administration of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962. Will the gentleman please enlighten the House as to his intent with regard to the definition of ``compatible use?''

Mr. DINGELL. Is it correct to read this ``open-until-closed'' provision as applying only to lands brought into the National Wildlife Refuge System after this legislation is enacted?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I join all of my colleagues today in commemoration of April 24, 1996, the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide which occurred under such tragic circumstances 81 years ago, and it is my purpose to join with my colleagues to insist that such inhumanity never be repeated again. Mr. Speaker, today we are recalling the loss of 1\1/2\ million Armenians who were killed and a half million more who were driven from Turkey. No person of any decency can do other than oppose this sort of inhumanity, and all join in a statement of hope for a world free of genocide and ethnic conflict. I have the great privilege to represent a large and active Armenian population, many of whom have parents and grandparents who were amongst the persecuted religious, political, and intellectual leaders in the turn of the century Armenia. Today's Michigan community of Armenians follow the great tradition of doing much to further the commercial, political, and intellectual growth of Michigan and of the country. It is my hope that today's effort to honor the victims and the survivors of this genocide will educate all of us, will educate our neighbors country men and all of the world's people so that peace remains a priority of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, this is the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide. We look back to honor those who have died, but we also look forward and say, ``Never again.''