Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I rise in opposition to this conference report. Let me explain. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It guts some of our most important environmental programs. It seems that the Republican majority realized what a bad bill it was and in order to win support for it, they put $1.5 billion in much needed funds for veterans' healthcare.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am a pragmatist. I realize that there is no perfect bill. Sometimes we have to settle for some good and some bad. The bill before us, however, is a close call.

The problem is a simple one. You see, for years my Republican colleagues have been shortchanging our veterans. The number of veterans treated at VA facilities increased from 2.7 million to 4.7 million from 1995 to 2004. The Department expects to treat 5.2 million veterans in 2006. Currently, more than 50,000 veterans are waiting in line for at least 6 months for health services from the VA. Medical costs are increasing at nearly double the rate of inflation. Yet, over five years, the Republican budget for primarily veterans' health programs is funded $13.5 billion below the amount needed to maintain services at current levels.

I am pleased that my Republican colleagues have finally seen the light and realized that we cannot ask our men and women in uniform to make the ultimate sacrifice only to come home and have the promise of quality and timely healthcare broken. However, I am angry as hell that they attached this much needed funding to a particularly appalling bill.

You are probably saying, ``Dingell, how appalling could it be when we are finally getting this funding for our veterans?''

Well, let me tell you.

EPA has estimated that there is a $388 billion shortfall between needed clean water and drinking water investments and the current level of spending. What do my Republican colleagues do to address that shortfall, Mr. Speaker? They cut the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund by $200 million from the FY 05 enacted level! That is a 33 percent cut over the past two years. Moreover, the bill cuts water and sewer construction grants by more than 30 percent--a reduction of $107 million from last year. This hardly seems like a reasonable response.

Conservation and land acquisition got a $41 million reduction. This is 25 percent below last year's enacted level. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have the dubious honor of providing the lowest appropriation for land and conservation programs in 20 years.

Funding for construction at our National Parks, Refuges and Forests was cut by ten percent and funding for Forest Service buildings, roads and trails by 14 percent. Stateside grants for conservation and recreation got an amazing two-thirds cut, from $90 million last year to $30 million.

So, you see the conundrum before us.

It is with a heavy heart that I feel that I must stand against not only a bad bill, but also against the process. It is unconscionable that my friends on the other side of the aisle would link this critically important and much needed funding for our Nation's heroes to a bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill extends Federal grant funding for State high risk pools first authorized under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act of 2005. High risk pools provide coverage for those who are otherwise medically uninsurable, for example, individuals with preexisting conditions or catastrophic illnesses such as cancer or multiple sclerosis. Today, 32 States operate high risk pools but these pools are far from an ideal solution. Many pools exclude coverage for certain benefits such as prescription drugs or maternity care. Other pools have waiting lists or closed enrollment. Still others exclude pre-existing conditions from coverage.

Because of these limitations, Congress established parameters around eligibility for Federal grant funding of high risk pools. The intent was to ensure that Federal funding was used to improve access and coverage under these pools. Unfortunately, in the first round of grants, half of the States that received funding used the money solely to lower insurance company assessments that fund high risk pools rather than to actually improve the pools for individual beneficiaries.

I am particularly pleased that H.R. 3204 includes bonus grants for supplemental consumer benefits. This legislation would require States to use up to 50 percent of their grant funds to improve the risk pools for consumers by lowering premiums, reducing waiting lists, or improving benefits.

Many of the bills relating to health insurance coverage and access in this Congress--such as Association Health Plans--are partisan and have little chance of passage. But I am pleased to support this legislation which is the product of a bipartisan effort to improve access to coverage under high risk pools.

Mr. Speaker, in 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reported that as many as 98,000 people are estimated to die annually as a result of medical errors. The IOM recommended several changes, including the creation of a patient safety reporting system that would allow health care service providers to report information about medical errors in a non-punitive environment. This information would be reviewed by a patient safety organization that would then help providers learn from their mistakes without fear of reprisal.

The Committee has been working for many years on legislation to bring forward the building blocks of this system, and in the 108th Congress, we successfully passed bipartisan legislation in the House. Only this Congress, however, did we successfully reach a compromise with our colleagues in the Senate. I am pleased that today we will finally pass the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, with the expectation that it will be enacted into law.

S. 544, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 3205, contains the same language as the House bill approved unanimously by the Committee on Energy and Commerce last week. The goal of H.R. 3205 is to set up an error reporting system for health care providers that brings real improvements in patient safety and the quality of health care. It will also help ensure accountability by raising standards and creating the expectation for continuous quality improvements in patient safety. This bill achieves these goals by creating a helpful and non-punitive atmosphere for health care providers to share information with entities specialized in patient safety and quality improvement. Yet, it continues to allow public access to information that is available today. Patient safety organizations will receive information about medical errors and then evaluate trends, such as infection rates and other quality measures, within provider organizations. This will help providers learn to avoid such errors in the future.

This is excellent and important legislation, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of my friend Tommy Maggio, who, after 32 years of service to this institution, will be retiring at the end of the month.

Thomas P. Maggio was born April 28, 1929 and raised in Washington, DC. Tommy served our Nation in the Navy, from 1951 to 1955. Serving in Norfolk, VA and Green Coast Springs, FL, Tommy was stationed on the USS Whitley, and was part of a marching band. Tommy married his wife Anita in 1963; she too will be retiring, after many years of service in my colleague Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's office.

For many of us, Tommy provides a warm greeting in the morning, as well as wonderful conversation. Every morning when I see him, I call out to Tommy, ``Bonjeourno Thomaso,'' to which he replies ``Bonjeourno, bonjeourno.'' I cannot help but enjoy this warm Italian greeting. Tommy is loved by all of the members he serves. We wish Tommy well and we all deeply appreciate his dedicated and decent service. I will certainly miss him. I wish Tommy and his dear Anita many good years, filled with family, friends and good health. On behalf of my staff, myself and the lovely Deborah, and all my colleagues: Thank you, Tommy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in vigorous opposition to this so- called ``free trade'' agreement. It is a bad agreement- bad for US workers, bad for Central American workers, bad for small farmers, bad for the environment, and bad for our economy.

The proponents of this deal point not to facts, but to predictions. They talk about projected growth and theorize that our Central American neighbors will enjoy increased living standards and a better future.

We don't have to consult a crystal ball to see what effect CAFTA will have on the lives of American and Central American citizens. We have an example before us, it is called NAFTA. CAFTA is a junior version of NAFTA; it is quite literally the ``Son of NAFTA''.

Ask the people of Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Oklahoma, or any other State that saw factories shuttered if they have benefited from NAFTA.

Ask the people of Mexico who have dirtier air, dirtier water, little collective bargaining rights, and are now watching their new factories close and move across the Pacific if they have benefited from NAFTA.

If you can look at the results of NAFTA and think our quality of life has improved; if you think there are more and better jobs post-NAFTA than before; if you think Mexico is on the verge of joining the ranks of the G-8, then CAFTA is the trade agreement for you.

Evaluate carefully the claims which will be made about CAFTA. For example, we have heard that CAFTA will open important markets for U.S. goods. Sound familiar? As we learned from NAFTA, if labor standards are not improved as part of these Agreements, few workers in these markets will be able to afford our goods.

We make cars and trucks in my home State of Michigan. American auto manufacturers are currently putting over $1,400 of health care costs into each American-made car. Yet the average Nicaraguan worker earns only about $2,300 a year. Yes, that's for an entire year.

While the rising health care burden on American manufacturing is an important issue for another day, it illustrates the absurdity of the claims that new markets will be flooded with American products. How many cars or computers can we reasonably expect to sell in these new markets?

Instead of raising the living standards of people in Central America, CAFTA will accelerate a race to the bottom. Instead of creating new, high value jobs in the United States, CAFTA will only replace good jobs with unemployment checks.

I urge all my colleagues not only to read the details of this deal, but also to look around. Look at the closed factories, talk to unemployed manufacturing workers, and remember the promise of NAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I can think of no better distillation of my vote against CAFTA than the old saying, ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' I urge my colleagues not to be fooled again.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3199. This bill does very little other than to make permanent, onerous sections of an onerous law.

Four years ago, Congress passed and the President signed into law the USA PATRIOT Act. Substituted in the dark of night, the Administration's bill was inserted as the final bill and became law with very little Congressional deliberation or consideration. I was appalled by the process we used then and am only slightly more comforted now.

We are considering making 14 of the 16 provisions in the PATRIOT Act permanent, and making the other 2 provisions semi-permanent. Are we going to yield more of our institutional power by granting the permanency of these provisions? We must remain vigilant against terrorism, but we must also remain vigilant against abuses of power that curtail Americans' civil liberties in a time of war.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot during the last four years that we will not yield to the terrorists. That we will fight tyranny with freedom and democracy, and the power of our ideas will prevail. I agree.

Yet, today, we are considering limiting American freedoms by extending these sections of the PATRIOT Act permanently. As a former prosecutor, I understand the need for tools to prosecute those who would do us harm. However, the law that was passed four years ago and the bill we consider today go too far.

We must provide commonsense tools to prosecutors, but we must weigh the important needs to safeguard liberty. We must not make these temporary provisions permanent while we remain at war. What will generations to come think when they have seen we have permanently lowered the bar in protecting their civil liberties?

Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of a very wise saying by one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin. He said ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''

I will vote against this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 25th anniversary of the Workers' Strikes in Poland. In commemorating these strikes, we are remembering the birth of a movement which led to the fall of communism in Poland and, later, Europe.

The strikes began as workers across Poland protested the nearly 80% rise in meat prices. In the northern city of Gdansk, workers protested in response to the dismissal of two workers on the grounds of political agitation. The Lenin Shipyard workers staged a sit-in and demanded the reinstatement of electrician Lech Walesa and crane operator Anna Walentynowich. The workers realized the power of their unity and chose to name their strike bulletin Solidarnosc or Solidarity. Soon after, the first independent trade-union faction emerged and the Solidarity movement was born.

In cooperation with intellectuals, the Gdansk Shipyard strikers created the famed list of 21 demands. The Solidarity Movement boasted members from almost all groups and social classes--all of whom opposed the Moscow-backed regime. This unity was a first in the history of Poland. In December of 1981 the Communist government of Poland implemented martial law in hopes of combating the Solidarity Movement's vast popularity.

Despite the best efforts of the communist government, another strike wave occurred in 1988. The regime decided it must try to share its power with the opposition. The elections of June of 1989 brought the Solidarity Movement to power and Poland was able to set up a non- communist government. The victory of the Poles served as an example to the rest of Europe and is credited with leading to the historic fall of the Berlin wall five months later.

When the Solidarity Party took power in 1989, the basic political transition and the implementation of a market economy posed many challenges. Furthermore, they faced the daunting task of overcoming the social mind-set resulting from years of communist rule. Nonetheless, in January of 1990, the government sought to realize substantial reform goals. The conversion was not easy and the market-economy caused an economic crisis in 1992. However, true to their history, the Poles overcame this obstacle. We should all look to our great ally as a model of determination, resilience and loyalty.

Over 11 million Americans claim Polish ancestry, nearly 900,000 of whom live in my home state of Michigan. Polish-Americans, like me, are proud of our heritage and Poland has shown itself to be a true ally of the U.S., most recently in Iraq. They have supported us in our struggle against global terrorism, in Afghanistan and assumed a leading role in Iraq. Two-hundred Polish troops are currently serving in Bagram, Afghanistan and our alliance with Poland remains one of our vital relationships. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my colleagues join me in recognizing the 25th anniversary of a momentous event in the history of one of our strongest allies and greatest friends. The strikes in Poland will always be remembered for their important role in Polish democratization and, consequently, the end of the Cold War.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment before us for consideration. Although the Gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Rogers, is a capable Member whom I am pleased to call my friend, I believe that this approach to the very serious issue of Great Lakes water diversion is misguided.

Mr. Chairman, the language is this amendment is overly broad, governing more than just water diversion. In fact, it urges that ``management authority'' over the Great Lakes should ``remain vested'' with the eight Great Lakes States and Canada. This put Congress, for the very first time, on record as providing full and broad management to the states.

Now, I have the deepest respect and admiration for the Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm. I have the utmost confidence in her ability to protect Michigan greatest natural resources, the Great Lakes. However, there is so much more are issue here.

For example, this amendment gives our neighbors to the north, Canada, broad authority over all of the Great Lakes, including Lake Michigan, which lies completely within the United States. Second, this language puts at risk any national protection and restoration strategy that many of us from the Great Lakes states have been working on for several years now. One of the biggest issues facing the Great Lakes right now is invasion species. How can we deal with this issue if eight states and another Nation all have different policies, Mr. Chairman? Unfortunately, these pesky little critter do not now to stop at the border between Illinois and Michigan. What about sewage blending or oil and gas drilling? Should we have eight different standard for those also?

This also brings into questions who would be responsible for negotiating treaties and international agreements regarding the Great Lakes if not the federal government. Are we now designating that authority to individuals states? Mr. Chairman, this hardly seems wise or reasonable.

Mr. Chairman, we are in Michigan are blessed with the Great Lakes. We owe our tourism industry largely to the Great Lakes, where people come from around the country to recreate, hunt, fish and relax. This Lakes as a transportation system provided Michigan with the means to turn our great State into a manufacturing powerhouse.

We owe it to our children and grandchildren to ensure that we do our utmost to protect this national treasure. The best way we can do this is by defeating this unwise amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Kolman Krishan, who passed away on July 2, 2005, at the age of 85. Mr. Krishan was a Veteran of World War II, serving from January 1943 until September 1945, primarily in the Panama Canal Zone. Mr. Krishan was born March 3, 1920 in Union Town, Pennsylvania. He moved to Lincoln Park, Michigan in the late 1930s and finally settled in Newport, Michigan with his wife Lois. Mr. Krishan worked for Detroit Edison and leaves behind three children and three grandchildren. His life serves as a prime example of his generation, with commitment to the values of hard work, sacrifice and duty.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is necessary because my friends on the other side know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I rise in strong support of the amendment to restore funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

This is money already authorized by the Congress. Now my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to take it away. Today's debate is laced with irony because to millions of Americans there is simply no debate over how important public broadcasting is to them and their children.

It is an educational and cultural enrichment to our whole society, and it is a success story of which we can be proud. I urge that we adopt the amendment which actually should be $200 million, instead of $100 million, because that is the amount that has been cut over here.

I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment. I commend the authors, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for their amendment.

The amendment should not have been needed. But the House can cure the mistakes of the Appropriations Committee by adopting the amendment by an overwhelming vote. Public broadcasting is a highly valued national investment. It generates extraordinary returns for local communities across our Nation. It preserves the highest quality programming and commitment to public service.

Public broadcasting must remain not only fully funded but insulated from political pressures which are now being placed upon it. Every Democratic Member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce recently signed a letter in support of restoring full funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, including funding for the digital conversion and an upgraded satellite interconnection system.

Some of these vital items remain zeroed out. But I hope we can rectify those matters later. Mr. Chairman, this important amendment values our children, and the in-depth journalism and life-long learning that sustains our democracy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. If we do not, we will be sorry and the Nation will disapprove of our decision.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor to pay tribute to former judiciary chairman Peter Rodino, he was a champion of civil rights and a beacon of justice during his 40 year tenure in Congress and his 16 years as a Seton Hall Professor of Law.

Mr. Rodino was most famous for his handling of the Watergate crisis. All sides--including Democrats, Republicans, and even the national press--hailed Rodino for the fair and just hand he used to guide the impeachment hearings. During this period of crisis, his courage and wisdom provided the foundation of strong leadership that gave Members the confidence to do what was right, even if it meant crossing party lines. The issue became one of preserving the sanctity of the system, rather than preserving the reputation of an individual. Throughout the process, Rodino's commitment to the system never wavered.

The son of Italian immigrants, Peter Rodino came of age in Newark, New Jersey. After leaving high school, Congressman Rodino endured 10 years of menial jobs while studying late into the night for a law degree at New Jersey Law School. In 1938 his patience and dedication was rewarded when he joined a local law firm. He put his newly found career on hiatus when he chose to defend his Nation against injustice in World War II. Mr. Rodino's strong character and determination earned him not only a Bronze star, but also a Knight of Order of Crown from Italy--a token of national gratitude for a soldier's accomplishments. Upon return he decided to run for Congress. Although his first attempt failed, his perseverance and strong work ethic served him well, and he was elected to Congress in 1948.

A strong advocate of racial equality, he was a driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Another accomplishment in the long list of Mr. Rodino's notable achievements was sponsoring the bill that made Columbus Day a national holiday to commemorate the contribution of Italian Americans in the founding of our great Nation. Mr. Rodino also contributed to the legislation that made Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday.

Though Mr. Rodino will be remembered for so much more than the Watergate crisis, it was undoubtedly his greatest moment. Rodino allowed a moderate central group of both Democrats and Republicans to develop the case for impeachment, preventing it from turning it into any type of political ploy. Just last year, Mr. Rodino gave an interview stating that there are lessons to be learned from Watergate, namely the extent of Government corruption. Mr. Rodino understood that it was the duty of Congress to rein in any administration or individual that was not adhering to the principles of justice.

It is with great respect and admiration that I offer my condolences to Mr. Rodino's wife, Joy, and their family. Mr. Rodino is survived by two children, Margaret Stanziale and Peter W. Rodino III, three grandchildren, Carla Prunty, Maria Stanziale and Talia Rodino, and twin great-grandchildren, Annabel and Charlotte Prunty. When asked about her husband, Joy says, ``He was so ahead of his time. He lived civil rights. He lived equality. In his life, he didn't see color, he didn't see sex. He just went for the equality of the person.'' Former Representative Rodino was a man that I was proud to have worked with and honored to call friend.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my colleagues to join me in honoring the late Peter Rodino. He was a pioneer for justice in our country and he will be greatly missed by all who knew him.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1812, the Patient Navigator, Outreach, and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 2005. This legislation establishes a five-year, $25 million demonstration grant program to evaluate the use of ``patient navigators,'' who are individuals trained to assist persons who are at risk for or who have cancer or other chronic diseases. Assistance provided by patient navigators would include coordinating health care services for patients such as enrollment in clinical trials, facilitating community involvement, and coordinating health insurance ombudsman programs to improve health care options. Simply put, this bill reduces barriers to access and improves health care outcomes.

H.R. 1812 ensures year-round outreach to target communities and funds culturally and linguistically competent patient navigators to conduct outreach, build relationships, and educate the public, while encouraging prevention screenings and follow-up treatment. It also ensures that navigators are available to help patients make their way through the health care system--offering a wide variety of services including translating technical medical terminology, making sense of their insurance, making appointments for referral screenings, following-up to make sure the patient keeps that appointment, or even accompanying a patient to a referral appointment.

This bill will support the placement of patient navigators in a variety of health care settings. Eligible entities for patient navigators include community health centers, cancer centers, rural health clinics, academic health centers, and facilities operated by the Indian Health Service.

This bill is supported by many patient advocate organizations, health care providers, and others, including the American Diabetes Association, the American Cancer Society, the National Hispanic Medical Association, the National Rural Health Association, and the National Association of Community Health Centers. I know that the bipartisan support for this bill involved the work of many of my colleagues. I would especially like to thank Representatives Menendez and Solis for their hard work on this legislation. I will support H.R. 1812 and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the University of Michigan women's softball team on Winning the Women's College World Series (WCWS), bringing home the first national championship in the softball program's history. Displaying the hard work and tenacity they acquired through a grueling 72 game season, this team dug deep and rose to victory, defeating the two-time defending champion UCLA Bruins 4-1 in extra innings.

This season Michigan advanced to its eighth WCWS, earned its first No.1 national ranking and won its 10th Big Ten Conference championship and seventh Big Ten Tournament

title. Head coach Carol Hutchins earned the 900th victory of her career in 2005, while junior Jennie Ritter earned the honor of Big Ten Pitcher of the Year and was one of three finalists for USA Softball Collegiate Player of the Year.

Michigan was the first team east of the Mississippi to reach the championship game of the Women's College World Series and the first non-West Coast school to be ranked No.1 midseason.

Proving they are more than just athletes, these inspiring young women balanced classwork and community service with practice and over 15 games per month--all while maintaining strong academic records with six team members earning Academic All Big Ten honors.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and all of my colleagues join me in sending our heartfelt congratulations to coach Carol Hutchins for her coaching and leadership, and to the Women's College World Series Champions, the remarkable Wolverine women: Lorilyn Wilson, Jennifer Kreinbrink, Lauren Talbot, Tiffany Worthy, Stephanie Bercaw, Michelle Teschler, Stephanie Winter, Grace Leutele, Lauren Holland, Jennie Ritter, Samantha Findlay, Alessandra Giampaolo, Nicole Motycka, Rebekah Milian, Tiffany Haas, Michelle Weatherdon, Jessica Merchant, Becky Marx, and Angie Danis.

Mr. Chairman, although not opposed, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 15 minutes in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), for introducing a very important amendment to support the Boy Scouts of America and their jamborees. I also would like to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), for their hard work on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, in 1937, the first jamboree was held at the base of the Washington Monument on the National Mall. Interestingly enough, as a young boy, I attended, not as a Scout, but as an observer, that wonderful event. Since then, there have been 15 national scout jamborees, with the last six being held at Fort A.P. Hill.

These jamborees have given better than 600,000 young Americans the opportunity to celebrate the skills and lessons they have learned in scouting. They have had the opportunity to learn to hike, camp, learn about citizenship, leadership, and service to their community. In short, the Scouts teach our young people important skills and values that will help them throughout their lives and make them more productive and more valuable citizens.

I recently introduced H.R. 1301, which, if passed, would restore the ability of our Armed Forces to directly support Scout troops and to ensure that Scouts will continue to have the use of Fort A.P. Hill and the assistance of our Armed Forces for its jamborees as they have for so many years. I believe this amendment furthers that objective, and I support it strongly for that reason.

I grew up, Mr. Chairman, as a Boy Scout. I became a scoutmaster and I watched proudly as both of my sons became Scouts and my two daughters became Girl Scouts. It is important for Scouts to continue to be able to hold their national jamborees at A.P. Hill and for us to remove impediments to proper contributions by this government to the citizenship of our young people.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Davis amendment, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, with great pleasure, I yield 2 minutes to my dear friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time at this time, so I reserve the balance of my time. If the gentlewoman wants to terminate the debate, I will be supportive of that.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time on this side. If the gentlewoman would like, then, we could yield back time and conclude the debate and have a vote.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the language of this bill, which appropriates $310 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund ``to carry out the purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982'' does not on its face present policy concerns. While the Yucca Mountain repository program faces funding problems, this is not the bill in which to address those issues and this appropriation more than meets the Administration's FY 2006 request.

The language of the committee report, however, is an altogether different matter and strays across the line from appropriating into authorizing. It does so by directing the Department of Energy (DOE) to undertake actions inconsistent with its authority under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Specifically, the report directs DOE to ``begin the movement of spent fuel to centralized interim storage at one or more DOE sites within fiscal year 2006.''

Now, it is elementary that report language does not constitute a statutory mandate. As

the U.S. Supreme court ruled in its 1993 opinion, Lincoln v. Vigil, ``It is a fundamental principle of appropriations law that where Congress merely appropriates lump-sum amounts without statutory restriction, a clear inference may be drawn that it does not intend to impose legally funding restrictions, and indicia in committee reports and other legislative history as to how the funds should, or are expected to, be spent do not establish any legal requirements on the agency.''

Nonetheless, report language that conflicts with an agency's statutory responsibilities warrants a response. The committee report directs DOE to do something the Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not permit--to establish one or more centralized interim storage facilities for commercial spent fuel, to take title to ``some'' commercial spent fuel, and to consider altering the order in which utility fuel is scheduled to be removed from utility sites.

What would adoption of this ``interim storage'' proposal mean?

First, it would mean that some State other than Nevada, which Congress ratified as the sole candidate for licensing a permanent repository, would ``win'' the lottery for hosting an interim storage facility that would open in 2006. The report language helpfully notes that three DOE sites in the States of Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington, could be selected. It notes as well, however, that other Federal sites, including closed military bases, could be picked.

This would not be permitted under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Second, the proposed interim facility would not be subject to licensing by the NRC. It is not clear that the National Environmental Policy Act would even apply. If you think licensing a repository at Yucca Mountain will be a demanding process, as it should be, the uncertainties surrounding an unlicensed interim storage facility should give pause to potentially affected communities.

Third, since the proposal specifies no licensing process and no statutory criteria for site selection, it is likely that pure politics--not seismic conditions, not storage capacity, not even security measures--would guide DOE in its selection of a fast track candidate to begin storing waste in FY 2006. That should send a chill up the spine of any state with a Federally-owned site, since the policy proposed in the report would not provide protections equal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements for storage of spent fuel by utilities.

Fourth, ratepayers should be alarmed by the committee report's interim storage proposal. They have paid over $22 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund since 1983 for the purpose of permanent disposal-- not interim storage--of commercial spent fuel. An interim storage facility could add to costs in the long run, increasing ratepayers' total payments to the Fund.

Fifth, utilities and the nuclear industry should be alarmed by this interim storage proposal. While a few lucky companies' waste might get moved before Yucca Mountain opens, the vast majority are likely to be stuck holding their waste longer. Interim storage is likely to divert DOE's funds and attention, just when the Department needs to focus on submitting a license to the NRC and on getting Yucca Mountain up and running.

I commend Representatives Spratt and Hobson for their colloquy clarifying that the committee report's ``guidance'' to DOE interim storage does not obviate the need for statutory changes to authorize DOE to pursue this misguided policy. Yesterday, I sent DOE Secretary Bodman a letter asking that and other questions, and I believe all Members would be well served to consider the answers before considering such substantial modifications to current law.