John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate Stephanie Hunt of Pittsfield Township, Michigan. Mrs. Hunt was recently crowned Mrs. United States 2007. Though winning the title of Mrs. United States is an intrinsically praiseworthy event, Mrs. Hunt's coronation is especially significant for two reasons. Not only is she the first woman from Michigan to win in the pageant's 2l-year history, but she is also the first African American to ever win the title. It is for these reasons that I want to call attention to this woman's remarkable accomplishments. As a spokesperson for and executive committee member of the National Organization for Rare Diseases, Mrs. Hunt has been a tireless advocate for patients suffering from rare diseases. She is especially interested in raising awareness of Rubenstein-Taybi syndrome, a rare developmental disorder that afflicts her four-year-old son, Donnie. Winning the title of Mrs. United States has given Mrs. Hunt the opportunity to bring this and other diseases to national prominence. Madam Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in commending Mrs. Hunt not only for winning Mrs. United States, but also for her advocacy on behalf of the 25 million Americans suffering from rare disorders. She serves as a role model for married women across the nation, ``encouraging them to strive for their dreams throughout each season of life.''

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution before us. Recently, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management granted BP's Whiting refinery in Indiana broad exceptions under the Clean Water Act. These exemptions will allow BP to increase the amount of discharge of ammonia by 54 percent and its discharge of total suspended solids by 35 percent. This means that an additional 1,584 pounds of ammonia and 4,925 pounds of total suspended solids could be dumped into Lake Michigan. This is simply unacceptable and I thank my colleagues from Illinois and Michigan for bringing the resolution to the floor with the utmost speed. I am dismayed, Madam Speaker. Dismayed that the State of Indiana issued the permits and further dismayed EPA allowed the State to do so. Algae blooms, Madam Speaker, are serious business. Algae blooms, which can be caused by ammonia and total suspended solids, overtake native ecosystems by taking nutrients away from the surrounding plant life and also feed harmful bacteria which remove oxygen, killing aquatic life. This leads to poor water quality and beach closings. Instead of taking action to increase algae blooms, we should be taking action to decease them. According to BP, the company intends to install a diffuser to create a ``mixing zone''--mixing zones are areas where clean water gets mixed with polluted water to further dilute the concentration of pollutants. In 2000, EPA instituted a rule requiring the elimination of existing mixing zones for persistent and bioaccumulative pollution in all the Great Lakes States. The rule required the phase-out of current mixing zones by 2010 and does not allow any new zones to be created. The expansion of the BP facility is not scheduled to be finished until 2011. The exemptions essentially roll back the clock for sound environmental policy. Madam Speaker, those of us from the region have a unique appreciation for the Great Lakes, as we are quite literally surrounded by them. The lakes are a blessing to us. We owe our tourism industry to the Great Lakes--where people come from around the country to recreate, hunt, fish and relax. The lakes as a transportation system provided Michigan and the surrounding States with the means to turn our region into a manufacturing powerhouse. At a time when Congress is finally taking a long-overdue look into a broad restoration and conservation plan for the Great Lakes, the State of Indiana is allowing more pollution into the lakes. And EPA--the lead Agency in Great Lakes Regional Collaboration--is allowing it. This, Madam Speaker, is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. Instead, restoring and protecting the Great Lakes must be a priority. I urge all of my colleagues to support the resolution and again thank my friends, the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Michigan, for bringing it up.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2798, the ``Overseas Private Investment Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2007''. Since its establishment in 1971, OPIC has offered investment financing and political risk insurance to American businesses and lenders, which are willing to direct private capital to developing countries. While OPIC has proven to be a valuable tool for U.S. foreign and commercial policy, it is in need of some improvement. I am pleased that H.R. 2798 establishes requirements that projects be approved only in countries that are making progress toward adopting international labor and environmental standards. H.R. 2798 also embraces the necessity of promoting peace and stability in the international system by prohibiting OPIC from participating in projects in countries that are sponsors of terrorism, possess or have programs to develop nuclear weapons, or commit genocide. I would object, however, to one provision in this bill. H.R. 2798 requires OPIC to implement a climate change mitigation action plan, which would include increased support for projects that use and develop clean energy technologies. The bill further stipulates that OPIC submit a report on this plan, as well as annual environmental impact assessments of the projects that it supports, to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. I respectfully suggest that these reports also be submitted to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, not only because of the committee's jurisdiction and expertise in policy matters related to energy and foreign commerce, but also because this would augment Congressional oversight of OPIC in order to ensure that its plans for environmentally responsible development receive careful and thorough consideration. It is my sincere hope that the Committee on Foreign Affairs will work with the Committee on Energy and Commerce to address this concern when H.R. 2798 is considered again during conference. I would urge that the House approve H.R. 2798 and thank my colleagues on the Committee on Foreign Affairs for their work on this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I have always said that the working men and women of Michigan are my top priority. I believe that every working family deserves access to a quality education, strong healthcare, jobs that are safe for its workers and secure retirement plans. Today the House will consider the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill, H.R. 3043, which will fund programs families need and rely on. I rise in support of this legislation because I believe it will provide our families with healthy and secure environment in which to raise their children. By 2014, nearly half of nation's growing occupations will require higher education. If we want to help families succeed and help children prepare for work in the global marketplace, then we must help them earn a college degree. H.R. 3043 will provide the Department of Education with $61.7 billion, which is $4.2 billion or 7.4 percent above 2007 funding. In addition, this legislation will provide $2 billion, a 14.6 percent increase above 2007, in funding for Pell Grants to raise the maximum Pell grant by $390 to $4,700, benefiting over 5.5 million students. This legislation will also help prepare our students for college by providing $2 billion for No Child Left Behind, an 8.4 percent increase above 2007. Specifically, $1.9 billion will go towards Title I grants, which benefit nearly 55,000 disadvantaged students in preschool, elementary and secondary levels. This funding will also provide reading and math instruction for 161,000 low-income students. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grants will receive $174.5 million, ending the previous Congress's habit of declining Federal contributions for special education. We also must focus on preparing workers, many of whom who have been displaced due to layoffs or company closings, for second career opportunities. H.R. 3043 will increase funding for the Department of Labor, including a $227.4 million increase for employment, training and worker protection programs. This funding will greatly help our great state of Michigan because $1.2 billion will be used to provide state grants that training and supportive services, such as rapid-response assistance to help workers affected by mass layoffs and plant closures. H.R. 3043 will also provide for the health and well-being of our families. Currently over 44 million Americans do not have health insurance; by 2013, the number of uninsured Americans will grow by 11 million. Universal health care has always been one of my top priorities, and I believe this legislation reflects a strong commitment to improving health care in our country. Democrats took the first step towards helping the uninsured by passing a $207 million increase in funding for community health centers in the FY2007 Continuing Resolution, benefiting an additional 1.2 million people. The legislation before us today will provide an additional $200 million for community health centers. This bill also includes $50 million to assist states in providing affordable insurance for almost 200,000 people who are considered medically high risk and are not able to obtain health insurance in the commercial market. Lastly, H.R. 3043 will provide $45 million for health insurance counseling to assist 45 million Medicare beneficiaries to understand and fully utilize the benefits to which they are entitled. This legislation will go farther than just providing health care to the uninsured; it will also provide much needed funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and emergency responders who served during 9/11. While the administration proposed reducing funding for the Federal government's public health activities by $159 million, this bill will provide a $255 million increase for a total of $6.5 billion. This funding will be dedicated to programs that focus on childhood immunization, state and local public health emergency preparedness, and efforts to combat chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease and emerging infectious diseases. In the aftermath of 9/11, many first responders were exposed to dust and other harmful debris at the World Trade Center site. H.R. 3043 provides $50 million to improve the health monitoring and treatment of the World Trade Center emergency responders. It will also require that the Administration develop a comprehensive plan for how they will address the current health needs of these first responders. The Labor-HHS Appropriations bill will also help families keep warm. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) has helped over 500,000 families in Michigan heat their homes during Michigan's tough winters. This year it will see a critical increase of $500 million, 23.2 percent above 2008, to provide energy assistance to nearly 1 million more low-income seniors and families. The Community Services Block Grant, which provides funding to States to expand services such as housing, home weatherization, parenting education, adult literacy classes, and emergency food assistance will see a $30 million increase to $660 million. In order to help improve processing time for Social Security disability claims and hearings, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will receive $9.7 billion, $401 million above 2007. Over the years, disability claims and hearings have increased, creating a backlog in casework. This funding will help to reduce the backlog and allow the SSA to continue providing monthly cash benefits to nearly 55 million Americans each year. Our Founding Fathers trusted Congress with the task of funding the Federal government through the annual appropriations process. While this process is never easy, it is one of the most important duties we have to the American people. Not only has President Bush threatened to veto this legislation, but he also proposed cutting funding for these programs $7.6 billion below last year. This bill invests in families and their health, the workforce and their job training, and students and their education. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and show the American people Congress is dedicated to improving their quality of life.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, at what page and what section is the amendment offered by my good friend from California?

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, the amendment is simple. It's about protecting Social Security. It is about the fox guarding the hen roost. The fox is the new appointee who has been made Deputy Commissioner of Social Security, but who is unconfirmed by the United States Senate. The hen roost is Social Security and the care and concern of millions of Americans, retirees, orphans, widows, persons who are disabled. What we want to do is to see to it that those people who are in charge of Social Security and guard Social Security are friends to the system and not enemies. Social Security is one of the most extraordinary devices in the history of this country. It is one of the cheapest and the best ways of collecting money, and one of the fairest and the best ways of disbursing it and seeing to it that our senior citizens are protected by their government and that their pensions and that their retirement is made dignified and worthwhile. The President appointed a fellow by the name of Biggs by a recess appointment, and he was made Deputy Commissioner of Social Security. His name is Andrew Biggs. He has had his appointment opposed by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the chairman said this, ``because his support for the failed idea of privatization would reopen a settled debate about the future of Social Security reform.'' The amendment simply says no money may be spent on his salary until he has been confirmed; a simple, sensible, decent and proper protection for our retirees. Mr. Biggs has written dozens of articles in favor of privatization. He has compared Social Security to Enron and claimed that it was on the verge of imminent bankruptcy. He has argued that private accounts are the only solution to fund Social Security over the long term. He has worked to promote the agenda of privatization of Social Security time after time. Listen to some of the words which he has said: ``Social Security reform featuring personal retirement accounts doesn't send just one liberal sacred cow to the slaughterhouse; it sends the whole herd.'' This was a 1999 paper made by Mr. Andrew Biggs in which his thesis is that the dismantling of Social Security would lead to the dismantlement of all New Deal era programs. What we are doing by adopting this amendment is putting Mr. Biggs before the Senate Finance Committee for hearings to inquire, is he in favor of Social Security? Does he want to privatize it? Does he want to abolish it? This amendment will protect Social Security. It will protect retirees. It will see to it that we do not have the fox guarding the hen roost. It will see to it that the hopes and the dreams and the expectations of our senior citizens and those who look forward to Social Security as protection in their retirement years can be assured that there will be a protection for them and that their Social Security benefits will be there when they retire. It also is to assure that within the structure of Social Security there would not be an avowed and announced enemy of Social Security, of the program which protects our senior citizens. This is a fight which has been before the Congress many times. It's been before the Senate. It has been before the House. The American people have made it plain; they want Social Security protected. They have made it equally plain that they don't want people in charge of Social Security who want to destroy the program or who want to send it, as he has said, to the slaughterhouse. I think that this is an amendment which you can safely vote for, secure in the knowledge that you are protecting the concerns of your Social Security recipients and of others who believe that Social Security is one of the great and wonderful programs in the history of this country. And you can, in so doing, see to it that this individual is inquired of properly of his attitude with regard to Social Security, and that we can address the question of how Social Security should be protected. Certainly not by the insertion into the structure of the organization which runs it by a man who has consistently displayed hostility to it. I urge the adoption of the amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. In so doing, you are voting to remove an enemy from Social Security from a responsible position where he can do a great hurt. And you are assuring that you are protecting Social Security for our constituents, for our people, and for our Social Security retirees.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend Jerry Fitzgerald, on the occasion of his retirement from Oakwood Healthcare System after 41 dignified years of service. A Native Detroiter, Jerry received a Bachelor of Science Degree from the University of Detroit and went on to attain a Master's Degree in Hospital Administration from the University of Michigan. He is also an American College of Healthcare Executives, ACHE, Fellow, as well as an adjunct instructor for the University of Michigan's Program in Health Care Administration. Jerry began his work at Oakwood Hospital & Medical Center as the Assistant Director in 1966. In 1980, he was named the President and CEO and held that position until his sage leadership led to the successful union with the People's Community Hospital Authority to form the doubly large Oakwood Healthcare System. The new system immediately established itself as the premier healthcare provider in southeastern and western Wayne County. Under Jerry's guidance Oakwood has earned the reputation as one of the top 100 cardiac hospitals in the Nation for 7 out of the past 8 years, serving over one million residents. Jerry's vision for exceptional service and excellent healthcare has fueled a myriad of initiatives and improvements, all of which have established Oakwood's outstanding status. His vision and efforts have been met with extensive gratitude and support from the community, as he is the recipient of the American College of Healthcare Executives Senior Healthcare Leadership Regent's Award, the Sy Gottlieb Award from the Greater Detroit Area Health Council, the Universal Partnership Award from the American Arab Chamber of Commerce and the Lawrence A. Hill Award of Excellence from the University of Michigan. Although this marks the closing of one chapter in Jerry's career, it does not signal the end of Jerry's commitment to the community, as he currently serves as the chairman of the Michigan Health & Hospital Association, MHA, Board of Trustees and is actively involved in American Hospital Association. He holds several board membership positions throughout the Greater Detroit Area including the Detroit Regional Chamber, the Detroit Economic Club, the Dearborn Community Fund Board, the Downriver Community Advisory Board, Michigan Colleges Foundation Board of Trustees, the University of Detroit Mercy College of Health Professions Advisory, and the Detroit Sacred Heart Major Seminary Foundation. Jerry's years of service have been essential in shaping the healthcare system of the Greater Detroit Area and southeast Michigan. I ask that my colleagues rise and join me in wishing Jerry all the best in a happy, long and active retirement.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2900) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise and extend the user-fee programs for prescription drugs and for medical devices, to enhance the postmarket authorities of the Food and Drug Administration with respect to the safety of drugs, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. DINGELL. I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 2900, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. This is significant legislation, and in the best traditions of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, it is bipartisan. I want to thank and commend my Republican colleagues for their assistance in bringing this bill to the floor, and I want to commend all of the members of the committee for their hard work, which was done in an extraordinarily friendly and proper fashion on the legislation. I rise to inform my colleagues that the bill text before the House today contains three useful changes in the bill that was reported by the committee. There is a section on citizen petitions that is designed to prevent or minimize delays to the introduction of generic drugs. In addition to good public policy, it also reduces Federal expenditures and completely offsets the costs of H.R. 2900 so that the bill we consider today meets applicable budget pay-as-you-go standards. The other changes are two clarifications. One, that the Secretary is not authorized to order changes in the marketing plans or product sponsors; and two, that PDUFA fees can be used to carry out the bill's postmarket safety activities under the risk evaluation and mitigation strategies authorized by the bill, known as REMS. H.R. 2900 has nine distinct titles. Title I reauthorizes the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, a very successful piece of legislation. It significantly boosts resources to have new drugs or biological products reviewed through a thorough yet timely and careful manner, and gives greater attention and resources to postmarket drug safety activities. Title II reauthorizes the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act, providing increased user fee resources for review of medical devices. The fee structure is broadened to both stabilize revenue and decrease the cost of application fees. Title III is the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act of 2007. This will foster development of medical devices for use by children. It fills an important gap in therapies for one of our most vulnerable and important patient groups who are, after all, the future of the country. I commend my colleagues, Mr. Markey and Mr. Rogers, for their fine efforts in this title. Titles IV and V address the need for drugs that are tested and labeled for use by children. Title IV reauthorizes the Pediatric Research Equity Act. This title will provide FDA permanent authority to test and label drugs for pediatric patients. Title V reauthorizes the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, providing incentive for testing and labeling drugs for pediatric patients. Together, these two pediatric drug programs provide for the method to achieve an important common purpose, better therapies for our children. I want to recognize the efforts of our dear friend, Representative Eshoo, on both of these titles. Titles VI, VII, VIII and IX represent the drug safety component of the bill. Title VI establishes the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration. This will foster public-private partnerships for the purposes of advancing FDA's mission to modernize product development, accelerate innovation, and enhance product safety. Our good friends and colleagues, Mr. Engel and Ms. Giffords, are to be commended for their work on this title. Title VII addresses concerns about conflicts of interest amongst those who serve on the expert advisory panels that play a crucial role in FDA's work. Title VII establishes a clinical trials registry and database. This title will expand the amount of information available to patients, scientists and other stakeholders regarding clinical tests. Finally, title IX represents a major enhancement of the safety in the drug program of this country through an active postmarket surveillance program with the goal of reducing the likelihood of another Vioxx situation and the reported aftereffects which went unheard. Congressmen Markey and Waxman made important contributions in this matter. I wish also to thank my friend, the committee's ranking member, Mr. Barton, and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Mr. Deal. They worked with us throughout this process and brought forth good suggestions that make this a better bill. For that I commend them, and for their hard work I thank them. Finally, I wish to recognize the outstanding work of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Mr. Pallone. His firm and steady hand and hard work brought forth a strong bill out of the subcommittee, and the House should applaud his extraordinary leadership. Mr. Speaker, this legislation strikes proper balance between new drug safety regulations and measures and ensuring consumers have the access to innovative prescription pharmaceuticals without undue delay. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2900 and ask for a favorable vote on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield the remainder of my time on this matter to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the subcommittee chairman, and that he be permitted to control the time. He will do a splendid job.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have always believed students must have the opportunity to earn degrees based on their academic accomplishments rather than on their economic situation. Today's economy demands a highly educated work force, which is why Congress must ensure we are providing educational access to every qualified student that wants to attend college. H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, will do just that by making the single largest investment in college financial aid since the 1944 GI Bill. I have heard from many of my constituents that the daunting costs of a college education are preventing them from achieving a college degree. They are not alone. Nearly 200,000 students are holding off on going to college or forgoing college completely because they can't afford it. In the last 5 years tuition at 4-year public colleges has grown by 35 percent, forcing both students and their families to take on increasing amounts of debt to pay for college. At a time when Michigan's economy and workforce is struggling, a college education should not be a luxury that is unreachable for middle-class families. When the Democrats took the majority this year, we committed to making college more affordable and accessible. H.R. 2669 will do this by cutting the interest rate from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over the next 5 years. Each year 6.8 million students take out need-based loans and accrue thousands of dollars of debt while completing their college degree. This legislation will cut in half the interest rates on their loans, saving the average student--with $13,800 in need-based student loan debt--$4,400 over the life of the loan. H.R. 2669 will also increase the maximum value of the Pell Grant scholarship by $500 over the next 5 years, ultimately reaching a maximum scholarship level of $5,200. As the Federal Government's single largest source of grant aid for college students, this proposed increase will directly benefit over 5 million low- and moderate-income students. More importantly, this legislation will prevent student borrowers from facing unmanageable levels of Federal student debt by guaranteeing borrowers will never have to spend more than 15 percent of their yearly discretionary income on loan repayments and by allowing borrowers who enter public service to have their loans forgiven after 10 years. This is critically important because students today are graduating from college with more debt than ever before. Many people may be asking how this will help those who are struggling in Michigan. In our great State of Michigan, over 143,000 students take out need-based loans each year. The average student has $13,256 in need-based student loan debt. H.R. 2669 will provide interest rate cuts that win save each Michigan student $4,240 over the life of their student loan. This legislation will also provide $513 million in increased loan and Pell Grant aid to students and families in Michigan over the next five years--benefiting over 200,000 students. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation not only because it will increase college affordability, but because it will help our workforce. Our economy depends on aggressive investment in our workforce if we want to continue to be competitive in a global economy. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation, showing American families that Congress is committed to investing in higher education.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 556, the ``Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007''. As our Nation pursues the laudable dual goals of free and fair flows of capital and trade in the global economy, it must remain ever vigilant of its own security. Understanding this, H.R. 556 amends existing law to strengthen the process by which the Federal Government performs national security-related reviews of foreign investments in the United States. First and foremost, this bill establishes in statute the membership of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS. H.R. 556 broadens the factors that CFIUS must consider during reviews of proposed foreign investments in the United States. This includes the bill's express intent that critical energy infrastructure-related aspects of national security not be ignored in the CFIUS review process. I am particularly pleased with this provision, as well as the establishment in the bill of adding both the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Commerce as permanent members of CFIUS. In short, the Committee on Energy and Commerce appreciates the emphasis laid by the bill on issues that fall squarely within our jurisdiction. Lastly, I note my support for the bill's requirement that the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury investigate why that Department has not complied with reporting requirements related to potential industrial espionage or coordinated strategies by foreign parties with respect to U.S. critical technology, as is required under current law. This underscores my strong belief that Congressional oversight is a necessary component in assuring that the laws are properly and thoroughly carried out by the Federal Government. I do have concerns regarding what I believe are several shortcomings in H.R. 556, when compared to the bill originally passed by the House in February of this year. I am troubled that there is no provision to designate vice chairmen of CFIUS--which, in the bill originally passed by the House, would have been comprised of the Secretaries of Commerce and Homeland Security--and instead replaces it with ``lead agencies,'' to which the responsibility for performing national security reviews would now mainly be delegated. This has the lamentable consequence of hindering the thorough participation of the Department of Commerce in the CFIUS review process, something for which my colleagues on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Energy and Commerce advocated during their hearing on CFIUS reform in July 2006. Additionally, H.R. 556 now contains weaker provisions related to the collection of evidence in national security reviews, the approval of such reviews, as well as reporting requirements to the Congress about them. For example, while H.R. 556 originally directed CFIUS to submit reports to the Congress on all actions related to covered transactions, the bill now only provides for reports to be submitted to the Congress upon request. Also, I am alarmed that H.R. 556 no longer protects the Federal Government from liability for losses incurred by parties during CFIUS reviews. Such an omission may dissuade the Government from prosecuting thorough reviews for fear of being sued for remuneration by parties to CFIUS-covered transactions. Although I have chided the bill for what I perceive to be its most apparent weaknesses, I have always maintained that the desire for perfect legislation should not impede the progress of good legislation. I believe H.R. 556 is good legislation that will contribute to the improvement of the CFIUS. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 556.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana concerning the fairness doctrine. I am opposed to this amendment. The amendment concerns an important communications policy issue that is properly addressed in the authorizing committee. This is a classic example, of which I have seen many, of an attempt to legislate on a spending bill. The fairness doctrine is an important, complex issue. It concerns many of the core policy values that Congress assigns to local broadcasters. It concerns the First Amendment, and localism in the media. It is, in short, an issue that should first be considered by the authorizing committee. For that reason alone, I oppose the amendment. Even if the amendment were not procedurally defective, the amendment is entirely unnecessary. I understand from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman's office that the FCC has no plans to even debate the issue, much less take action. In other words, there will be no action at the FCC on the fairness doctrine. It is therefore unclear why the gentleman--who must know this fact-- is even offering the amendment. I hope my colleagues consider that question as they vote on the amendment. I will vote against it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the legislation. I want to commend and congratulate and thank my two good friends, Chairman Dicks and Obey for their extraordinary leadership. They have produced the finest Interior Appropriations bill I have seen in years, and we owe our two colleagues a great debt of gratitude. First of all, there is a large increase in the Fish and Wildlife Service to address problems like staffing of refuges of which 221 of the 547 have no staff whatsoever. It will provide $56 million which will give our refuges the staff necessary to keep this wonderful system the national treasure it is. It is also a wonderful piece of legislation by giving $223 million more to the Park Service, a desperately needed situation. The Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund is funded at $1.1 billion over the President's request, desperately needed in a time when our Nation is seeing our waters get dirtier and less safe and less enjoyable for our people. The bill reverses years of budget neglect, and provides much-needed increases for public health programs administered by EPA. It increases funding for Superfund toxic waste cleanups, something which is a massive problem to our people, both in terms of safety and the environment. It brings forward brownfield revitalization efforts and addresses the problem of leaking underground storage tanks and will protect the health and environment of the American people. I want to tell my good friend how grateful we are and thank him for what he has done. I would also like to express my support for Eddie Bernice Johnson's amendment to prevent EPA from finalizing a proposed change in existing rules limiting toxic air pollution. This is a great bill and I salute the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for his extraordinary ability, remarkable hard work, and great service.

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

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman for his kind words.

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

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman for those kinds words, and I want to utter in return the great respect and affection I have for the distinguished gentleman and for the outstanding work he does here. I am proud he is my friend.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my dear friend for yielding. This is a great loss to the country. Our friend, Guy Vander Jagt, was a distinguished Member of this body, a great public servant, and a friend of most of us here.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I want to thank, Mr. Speaker, my dear friend, the chairman of the committee, for yielding this time to me, and express my great affection and respect for Mr. Conyers. I also want to thank my dear friend, Mr. Smith, for the kind words that he made about me, and I want to express my affection and respect for him. I want to say that this is a good piece of legislation. It has taken a while, but I'm happy to have worked with many of our colleagues, including the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, who has been a fine leader on this matter. Improving the National Instant Check System is a matter of important national business, and I would urge my colleagues to take a look at the rather curious alliance which brings this matter forward. Not only is the NRA, but the gun control folks are in support of it. Members on both sides of the aisle, both here and in the Senate, are strongly supporting it. The bill will require the National Instant Check System to work. It will provide incentives to the States and penalties for those who do not cooperate in terms of making the system work. This system has the capability of seeing to it that criminals are denied firearms while, at the same time, assuring that we protect the rights of law abiding citizens. The bill makes the system better for everyone, and assures that there will be better law enforcement and better protection of the rights of all citizens, both under the second amendment and personal security. The bill also addresses the problems of mishandling of this matter by the Veterans Administration, by making corrections which will make it possible for veterans who have not a disability of mental character or otherwise, to own firearms within the ordinary structure of the law. It is a good piece of legislation. I want to commend my distinguished friend, Congresswoman McCarthy from New York for her leadership and the outstanding work which she has done. I will tell my colleagues that this is an important matter. I'm delighted to see that we're able to come together, Democrats and Republicans, friends of firearms and hunters and sportsmen, and also those who are concerned about public safety, and who desire to see to it that we have proper protection of persons against criminal misuse of firearms. We have given this body a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, we've heard many concerns from gun owners, especially my fellow veterans, who are concerned that a person who seeks treatment for a mental problem might be reported to NICS as a ``mental defective.'' I want to lay those concerns to rest right now. First of all, federal law, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits gun ownership by people who are ``adjudicated'' as mentally defective. ``Adjudication'' implies a decision by a court or similar body--not just a doctor's notes on a patient's charts. Even the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives make that clear. They define an ``adjudication'' as a decision by a ``court, board, commission or other lawful authority.'' They have never treated doctors as a ``lawful authority'' for this purpose; clearly what they had in mind were legally empowered bodies such as judges, or the county mental health boards that are in place in some states to make decisions at hearings with respect to mental illness. Second, we in no way intend that this bill should override federal or state medical privacy laws or the basic role of a doctor. The confidentiality between a doctor and patient is sacred and we do not intend to breach it here. We make that clear in section 102 of this bill, where we require the Attorney General to work with the medical and mental health community to develop privacy regulations. Finally, this is a particular concern for the Veterans' Administration, which examines thousands of veterans every year. Even if we wanted them to, it would be an unreasonable demand on that hard- working agency to expect them to comb every patient's file for any possible finding that the person might be dangerous. I want to be clear that that is not our intent. It is important that we understand these points because no person should ever be deterred from seeking mental health treatment out of a concern that he might lose his Second Amendment rights due to some record of voluntary treatment being provided for the instant check system.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Booker T. Dozier, of Inkster, Michigan, on the occasion of his 90th birthday. Mr. Dozier is a pillar of the Inkster community, where he has lived for over 50 years. Time and again, Inkster has turned to Mr. Dozier for guidance, organization and leadership. In 1993 he led the effort to create Inkster's Memorial Day parade, culminating in a successful annual event which continues today. His organizational skills were put to use again when he was called on by the Mayor of Inkster to spearhead a successful effort to raise $100,000 for young man in need of a heart transplant. There are also many different organizations which have benefited from Mr. Dozier's guidance. He has been involved with the Inkster Summerfest Festival Committee; the Because Inkster Cares Committee; the Optimist Club; the Inkster Dance Club; and the Inkster Goodfellows, who work to ensure that there will be ``no child without a Christmas.'' Mr. Dozier also served as the Chairman of the Inkster Commission on Aging for over 20 years and has been a member of the Wayne County Board of Directors for Meals on Wheels for the elderly. Booker T. Dozier has consistently served his community. His efforts to improve Inkster have not gone unnoticed, as one of the most well known and used facilities within the city is the Booker T. Dozier Recreation Center. I thank Mr. Dozier for all of his efforts to better his community and I congratulate him on the milestone of his 90th birthday.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 464, I call up the Senate bill (S. 5) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on the bill under consideration.