John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, like many senior Democrats, I supported George Herbert Walker Bush in going into Iraq the first time. I also served my country in World War II, and I know a little about the military. But I want to talk about this curious process that we are going through today. I want to talk about this resolution. If we look, the Committee on Rules has given us a closed rule. No Democratic amendments are allowed. No real discussion is permitted. And it says so in the report. If my colleagues do not believe me, they should get a copy of it. No Democratic sponsors. Very little Democratic support or consultation on this side with the Members. If we want to have bipartisan support for what we are doing over there, there is a way to do it. It may well be my Republican colleagues do not know it. But a little consultation over here could be useful. I think my colleagues on the Republican side should know what the problem is. It is where we make an affirmation that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime. Have we really been made safer? Let us look at it. We have committed the entirety of our military to serve over there. We have nothing to meet a problem which might exist in Korea or somewhere else where there are atom bombs and weapons of mass destruction now readily available. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. Mr. Kay and Mr. Blix both said none. The President said they are there. Now the President has admitted they are not. And, of course, my Republican colleagues now want to purge themselves of responsibility for what is evidence of some kind of either disingenuous behavior or outright dishonesty in committing us to a war on the theory that there were weapons of mass destruction there. Now we also have our Republican colleagues in the curious position where they say that al Qaeda is operating there, and al Qaeda probably is operating there, and we must ask again if we are safer because al Qaeda operates there. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence at any time previously, and the administration has to admit it, that al Qaeda or any terrorist group was functioning out of Iraq. That is something that has now been manufactured in the teeth of admissions by the administration that that kind of situation does not obtain. I do not want to say whether the administration has deceived the American people intentionally or otherwise. That will be decided by history, and we are going to have to let the Republicans and their administration decide whether it was an exercise of supreme incompetence or whether there was dishonesty or some curious mixture of the above. I do not want to pollute this debate with that kind of discussion. But I do want to point out some things. We are not safer now with the troops that we have all committed over there and the inability to address problems that exist in Korea or elsewhere in the world where people might stir up trouble, or in Iran, immediately next door, or, for that matter, in Pakistan, or in other places where there are dictators who are anxious and willing and able to make trouble. We are not stronger in this country because we have committed, as my good friend from Pennsylvania says, 150-some billion dollars. The number is actually more like $186 billion over there. That is money that will not be available for schools and education and health. It is money that is not going to be able to assist us to deal with threats to the security of this Nation from other causes, from the risks that exist in the other countries that do make trouble. This is the defect of this process. If we want to deal with this thing of our commitment in Iraq, I say to my Republican colleagues, address it in a real bipartisan way. Let us consult. Let us work together. Let us consult together so that we can pull together in the interests of the United States. Because every man and woman in this Chamber wants to bring those young people home safe, with dignity and honor. Every person in this Chamber wants to see to it that we win over there. And every American in this Chamber is committed to seeing to it that we not only bring our people home safe, but to see to it that we win, and that we now do correct the problems of having committed ourselves to what was essentially a very unwise war on the basis of unwise statements which had little or no basis in fact. That is the way we should be addressing this issue. We should not be bringing forward to the House something that looks like a pronouncement from the Republican National Committee that has all of the bipartisanship that one can find in such an undertaking. We should be talking and working together about how we bring Americans together now to address this question. Patriotic Americans are still entitled to speak their thoughts. Patriotic Americans are still entitled to have answers to why we are in this mess. And sensible, intelligent men and women are entitled to ask why we are in this mess. Mr. Speaker, history tells us what we are looking at. The British went in in 1920 to Iraq. They left Iraq after a dozen years of warfare over there. They had lost thousands of British troops' lives, hundreds of millions of pounds, each one of those pounds was worth somewhere between $50 and $100 U.S. dollars today, and they still were not able to win, to get the peace that they wanted, to establish a world in that area where things would go the way honest and decent human beings wanted it. Iraq is a country which is driven by racial and religious differences. We have the Sunnis, the Shi'ias, we have the Kurds, the Turkmens, the Catholics, the Christians, and the Chaldeans over there. None of them like each other and all of them distrust each other intensely. We are losing today about one American every day, one American, dead; but thousands of them maimed and killed in the most gruesome of ways. We need to understand that we have to pull together. This is not the mechanism for that. These people over there and the United States are not more safe because of this. We are not focusing on international problems which threaten us. We are not able to spend the resources which we need because we are spending them over there and cannot now spend them over here on schools and education and health and other things that are important to our people. This is the wrong way to proceed. I say shame.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge, honor and celebrate the 10th Anniversary of Jewish Family Services of Washtenaw County, Michigan. In just 10 years, this organization has grown tremendously and has successfully established itself to provide an array of important social services to the Jewish community in Washtenaw. Jewish Family Services was founded in October of 1993 by the Jewish Federation of Washtenaw County in response to a serious need in our community: refugee resettlement. Largely working with the increasing number of immigrants from the former Soviet Union, Jewish Family Services volunteers engaged in services such as case management, housing and career services, language education, and mental health assistance providing services to numerous individuals and families as they arrived in the United States. Today, Jewish Family Services of Washtenaw County has grown tremendously from when it began with humble roots 10 years ago and the service it provides has touched the lives of over 900 individuals last year alone, including 24 newly arrived resettlement patrons. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in honoring the 10th Anniversary of Jewish Family Services of Washtenaw County, and the volunteers and staff that selflessly dedicate their time to serving others. This organization and its rapid growth and excellent service are an inspiration to the community of Washtenaw County and I commend them on their noble work.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution honoring the life and legacy of the 32nd President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Unlikely to ever happen again, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to the Presidency for four terms. Despite the health challenges of polio, his energy, wisdom, talent, and compassion for the common man lifted our country from the Great Depression and led our military against the Axis Powers of World War II. Following the example of his cousin President Theodore Roosevelt, Roosevelt chose a political-life in service to the public. In 1910, he first entered politics as a State Senator in New York. He went on to serve as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, a Vice-Presidential candidate to James Cox, and then Governor of New York. It was during his governorship that he realized his political career could continue, even with polio. During 1932, with million unemployed, most banks closed, and a world questioning the realities of capitalism, Roosevelt was elected to his first term as President. His determination to resolve devastating economic problems led him to call a Special Session of Congress during the first 100 days of his Presidency. Under his leadership, Congress took up emergency legislation to end the banking crisis and worked towards improving economic problems. Over the next 5 years, Congress passed New Deal legislation. As a country facing large unemployment numbers, this President took bold steps through the Civil Works Administration and the Work Projects Administration to get Americans back to work. Furthermore, these programs led to the improvement of roads and the construction of new schools and libraries. Financial reforms were enacted to prevent future economic collapses. Programs, such as Social Security and unemployment insurance, were created to ensure that all Americans had enough money to survive in times of need. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 brought a minimum wage that guaranteed workers a wage that would keep workers out of poverty. His leadership provided our country with a new way of thinking that gave all citizens basic financial and economic stability. Later, as Hitler's armies marched through Europe and after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, FDR led our country into World War II. As commander-in- chief for most of the war, he was largely responsible for the victory of United States and Allied powers. The accomplishments of Franklin Delano Roosevelt should be remembered by this Congress. His leadership gave hope to many who faced several years of economic hardships. Legislation passed during his Presidency allowed citizens to regain confidence in the national financial infrastructure. His New Deal programs, still leading political issues today, were significant in finding people new jobs and economic security. As commander-in-chief he successfully led our Nation into victory in World War II. Historians continue to rank him with Washington and Lincoln as one the top three President. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support this resolution and this distinguished leader.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, with thanks I accept 2 minutes from my dear friend. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation. Second of all, I congratulate my dear friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for his outstanding leadership in this matter. He has been long interested in this matter and has provided remarkably good leadership in this matter. I also commend my good friend from Michigan (Mr. Upton). He has served in this body with distinction and has provided extraordinary leadership here, also. I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for his new position and for his leadership in shepherding H.R. 3717 through the committee process. This is a bill which is bipartisan; and the committee has worked well in a bipartisan fashion which does great credit to the Members, and particularly the leadership of the committee, for having done so. Our constituents are fed up with the level of sex and violence on television and radio, as well as the lax attitude of the Federal Communications Commission's handling of decency complaints. Clearly, the commission has been asleep at the switch for some time. The bill sets a deadline by which the commission must act on consumer indecency complaints. It raises the penalties for that kind of misbehavior. It makes these matters subject to review in connection with license renewal, or makes it possible for the commission to do what they have now the power to do; and it encourages them so to do by seeing to it that this matter will be raised also at the time of license renewal. The bill raises fines by a significant amount. That is good. It also requires the commission to report annually to the Congress on the handling of these matters, something which will perhaps alert them to the need to proceed with greater vigor. I applaud the fact that the commission has developed a remarkable and acute sense of newly found virtue. This is good, and it is my hope that the commission will remain awake, alert and vigilant, although their history is significantly against that kind of prospect. In any event, I look forward to the bill being enacted into law. I commend my colleagues for the work they have done. I look forward to the prospect that this is going to see to it that free, over-the-air television will be something which we can see to it that our families in this country can have their children watch television without having to worry about the kind of situation that they will confront in terms of decency, profanity and other things which are unseemly and unsuited to the way in which most American parents wish to raise their kids. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I, again, commend my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the others for the outstanding job which they have done in presenting this bill to the House, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, we will receive this bill most kindly in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and we would have some splendid questions for the sponsors of this legislation about jobs and job creation.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, it would be helpful, I believe.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I rise in support of the thesis that we should be considering these matters. This legislation is a very important part of the administration's program. Just think what it does for this Nation. It says that civility liabilities actions in Federal, State courts against food manufacturers, distributors or sellers that are based on a claim that the person's food consumption resulted in weight gain, obesity or a health condition that is associated with weight gain or obesity is terminated. A very important step. Now let me give you the history of what we are talking about here, because the administration has an economic program and it is an important economic program and the American people need to know what it is. First, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors said that the transportation of American jobs abroad or outsourcing is a normal part of trade and he supports it. Second, the administration has come forward with a serious attempt to expand the definition of manufacturing in this country, something which is very important, especially if you are sending manufacturing jobs overseas. And this administration has sent 2.7 million manufacturing jobs overseas. They have also lost 3.3 million jobs in the United States. So there is a serious attempt on the part of this administration to grapple with that problem. They seek to see to it that we can change the definition of manufacturing jobs now so that they cover fast food handling. Just think of what this means in terms of jobs for the American people. Jobs in manufacturing that paid $27 an hour will now pay minimum wages at McDonalds or Wendy's or Burger King or somebody like that. But just think of the number of new jobs that they can create. Now, this bill is going to protect those new manufacturing jobs against the prospect of lawsuits which might, in some way, jeopardize the expansion of the American economy and the creation of new jobs in manufacturing. I think that this tells us many things. First of all, it says they no longer care about autos or steel or aircraft or other important manufacturing concerns and interests that mean jobs, real jobs for the American people, but at least it means that they are paying attention to the fact that we have got to have something done for job creation in this country. It means that they are finally recognizing that we have to protect some portion of the American economy. The fact that they are beginning with fast food, and food should not be a source of condemnation but rather one of praise, because it means that after a long slumber, they have come alert to a significant problem, the fact that they are not competent to come forward with a real solution, which puts Americans back to work in real jobs, which would enable Americans to have jobs, which will enable them to feed their families, to house them properly, to see to it that they are properly educated or go to college is only a beginning. We must hope that with the assistance of this body and the passage of this important legislation that perhaps, just perhaps, we will begin down the road towards doing something about protecting American manufacturing, about protecting American manufacturing jobs and about seeing to it that Americans go back to work. I do not want my colleagues to denigrate the administration. It is not funny. It is sad, and what I want to say to my colleagues is, it is time we do something more than just pass this kind of legislation. Let us address the problem of the sanctions that the Europeans are getting ready to put on American manufacturers and American industry and the American economy. There is a discharge petition down here at the clerk's desk. My colleagues can sign on it if they want. We can begin to address the fact that this administration does not care about manufacturing, that they have lost millions of manufacturing jobs, that they are not able to be truthful about it. Last month, we got 22,000 jobs through. In these jobs, 21,000 of them were government jobs, State and local. They were not manufacturing. They were not jobs that put people to work, and they were not jobs that increase productivity for the economy. They were just jobs in the service industry. If my colleagues look, they will find that there are hundreds of thousands of Americans every month who are falling off the unemployment rolls. If my colleagues look, they will find that there are millions of Americans looking for jobs. They will find that the real unemployment level is around 7.4 million instead of the 5.6 percent that they are talking about. This is a serious problem. It needs to be addressed. This kind of legislation will not do it.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, that is what the administration would tell us, but I would say to my friend, that I am as confused on what the administration's policy is as the administration is and as my good friend is, because they do not seem to know what they are doing, what they are standing for or what they are about. They like jobs going overseas. They think that manufacturing jobs should be flipping hamburgers or handling trays or dealing with mopping the floor in a McDonald's. Those, to this administration, are massive manufacturing jobs. At the same time, they are not giving tax cuts to the people who would buy those hamburgers or who would buy American automobiles or do other things to make the economy really move and go as it should.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I will observe that the creation of jobs is one of the major functions of government and seeing to it that we have the prosperity that is needed, that people can work, they can raise their families well, that they can heighten expectation of this generation and the next generation for the future of this country. I would say that sending jobs to India or China is not a function of which the administration could be proud. I would say that the administration's got to start functioning and focusing on those questions. I would say they are not. I would say this body, with this legislation, is not focusing on those questions either. It is time we get down to the serious business of addressing jobs, manufacturing, opportunities for Americans and stop all of this piddling around with nonsense that accomplishes nothing in the broad public interest.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Dr. Ronald M. Benson as he ends his term as chairman of the Board of Professional Standards of the American Psychoanalytic Association. Born in Detroit, Michigan, Dr. Benson received his medical degree from the University of Michigan Medical School. He also graduated from the Michigan Psychoanalytic Institute and is certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology in both general and child psychiatry. After completing his residency and fellowship, Dr. Benson served as chief of Child Psychiatry and Outpatient Services and Mental Health Clinic at Sheppard Air Force Base, where he received the U.S. Air Force Commendation Medal. Dr. Benson also held several teaching positions at institutions, including the University of Michigan, Michigan Psychoanalytic Institute, and Wayne State University. He published both his own book and videotapes, and wrote chapters in many other books, as well as articles in numerous distinguished scientific journals. Dr. Benson contributes immeasurably to his southeast Michigan community. He served as a consultant to programs such as the Boys' Training School, the Child Psychoanalytic Study Program at the University of Michigan, the Detroit Psychiatric Institute, and the State of Michigan Bureau of Health Services. In addition, Dr. Benson served on several committees within the International Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, and the Michigan Psychoanalytic Institute. Dr. Benson continues to contribute to his field and community through his private practice, which he has run since 1970, and active participation in both the International and the Michigan Psychoanalytic Institutes. Dr. Benson is a highly esteemed doctor in the field of psychiatry. He deserves great recognition for his dedicated service to his community and his country. Southeast Michigan should be proud to have Dr. Benson as a member of our community. I hope Dr. Benson and his family will be both happy and prosperous in the years to come.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today needlessly politicizes a serious issue. Frankly, I am outraged that members of this body are being put in a position to take an abortion vote instead of enacting serious and meaningful laws to prevent and punish violent acts against pregnant women. Violent crimes against pregnant women are of a particularly heinous nature. This is something we can all agree on. However, to bog down this debate with abortion politics is disingenuous to say the least. The bill raises questions about the wisdom of my colleagues who support this bill. Is the goal to address the especially horrendous crime of harming a pregnant woman, or is the goal to generate an abortion- related campaign issue? Supporters of this legislation will come to the floor today and tell us that their intentions are pure, they are not attempting to undermine Roe v. Wade. In fact, one prominent Senator stated, ``They say it undermines abortion rights. It does . . . but that's irrelevant.'' Mr. Speaker, that is not irrelevant. This is a back door attempt to chip away at a woman's right to choose and I wish the supporters of this legislation would just admit it. Now if the goal of this body is to pass meaningful legislation to prevent and punish those who assault pregnant women, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Lofgren substitute. This substitute, based on H.R. 2247, addresses the real issue at hand. The substitute creates a separate Federal criminal offense for assaulting a pregnant woman resulting in injury or termination of a pregnancy. This bill could pass the House by a vote of 434-0, and fly through the Senate, landing on the President's desk within a week for signature. We have tried, Mr. Speaker, for the past two Congresses to pass legislation to protect pregnant women from violence and I have been a willing partner in those efforts. The injection of abortion politics, however, is getting in the way of passing meaningful legislation. It is time to stop playing politics and get something done. We have now reached a point when we are acting irresponsibly. We all know that the underlying bill will go nowhere in the Senate. It is time to do something. Let's save the abortion debate--and the politicking--for a later date. I urge my colleagues to support the Lofgren substitute and oppose this cynical election year tactic. Mr. McCRANE. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the legislation before us, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which is also known as Laci and Conner's Law. Over the past year, Americans have followed the investigation into the deaths of Laci Peterson and her unborn son Conner. Under California law the killing of both mother and unborn child are crimes. However, under Federal law this is not the case. For example, if a criminal attacks a woman on a military base, and kills her unborn child, he can be charged only with the battery against the woman, because Federal law does not recognize the unborn child's loss of life. The mother cannot charge her attacker for the death of the baby she was carrying. Today, the House will seek to remedy this injustice. Laci and Conner's Law will establish that if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of an already-defined Federal crime of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child. Twenty-nine states have laws that protect unborn children, but the Federal government does not. I consider that unacceptable. This legislation will protect both pregnant mothers and their unborn children, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on the President and House Leadership to come together with Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar and complete a robust and comprehensive transportation bill that addresses the economic needs of our country. A little less than five months ago, I, along with a majority of the House, voted for an extension. I did so reluctantly then, and will do so again today. But, we cannot continue down this path of short-term extensions. Short-term extensions shortchange our economy, leaving state and local governments in a difficult situation when planning and assessing highway and transit projects. In fact, these short-term extensions result in an estimated $2.1 billion in project delays and the loss of more than 90,000 jobs. As I said last time, we cannot continue to operate the government through continuing resolution. To do so not only puts our infrastructure in jeopardy, but the well being of our nation. I would hope that those opposing Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar's efforts realize that they are hindering our economy at a time when we need to get things moving again. Mr. Speaker, nearly 3 million private-sector jobs have been lost since January 2001. We should be doing everything in our power to help get this economy back on track. A good robust transportation policy is a good place to start. For every $1 billion invested in federal highway and transit spending, 47,000 jobs are created. These are good paying jobs. Jobs that provide money to families to put food on the table and clothe their children. Yet, the President remarked a robust bill is somehow an entitlement program. It seems to me that he should take a second look at the bill that was proposed and reconsider his position. 1.7 million jobs would be a good start in trying to make up for the losses we have experienced in the last 3 years. In Michigan, a good robust transportation bill would help our state begin an economic recovery due to the heavy loss of manufacturing jobs. It also would ensure that Michigan receives its fair share of transportation dollars. Michigan and other states need action on this bill soon. To prolong this process after this extension will have undesirable consequences on our economy. I support my Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman and Ranking Member in their goals for our nation. They understand the investment we can put into our great nation through a robust bill. I stand by ready to help in any way I can.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to pay tribute to Private First Class Holly McGeogh, Michigan's first female soldier killed in the conflict in Iraq. Private McGeogh was from Taylor, and a constituent of mine. Private McGeogh, who was 19, was one of three soldiers killed in a roadside explosion near Kirkuk. She was assigned to Company A, 4th Forward Support Battalion, 4th Infantry Division, from Fort Hood, Texas. Two years ago, she graduated Truman High School, where she was a cadet in the Junior ROTC for four years. During high school, Private McGeogh won numerous awards and recognition for her service to her school and community. She was dedicated to enlisting in the Army, and to serving her country, which she did with distinction. Before leaving for Iraq she told her family that if she were killed in battle, to remember she died for a reason and a cause she believed in. Those words should be remembered and cherished today and always. Mr. Speaker, Private McGeogh is a hero. She died trying to make this world a safer, kinder, and more humane place, and for that we are all humbled. Our thoughts and our prayers go to her parents, her family, and her friends. I would like you to join me in commending her limitless courage for our country. She has shown the entire nation what it means to be a hero.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend Michael P. Birrell on the occasion of his retirement from the Dearborn Fire Department after 29 dignified years of service. Serving as the Chief of the Department since March 2000, Mr. Birrell has shown tremendous dedication and leadership throughout his long- lasting career. He joined the Department on December 9, 1975 as a probationary firefighter. Promoted to Firefighter 2 in 1980 and Firefighter 3, an engine driver, in 1985, Mr. Birrell's achievements resulted in him becoming Fire Lieutenant in 1990, Captain in 1994, and Battalion Chief in 1995. In addition to serving in the Fire Department, Mr. Birrell finds many ways to channel his supportive energy into the community. He is a Certified Instructor of the Michigan Firefighter Training Council and a National Fire Academy Instructor of Incident Command and Emergency Response to Terrorism. Mr. Birrell graduated from Saint Alphonsus High School in 1968 and attended Henry Ford Community College and Eastern Michigan University. A veteran of the U.S. Army from March of 1970 to January of 1972, Mr. Birrell served with the Military Police and was honorably discharged as Specialist 4. Mr. Birrell and his wife, Elaine, have one daughter, Kathleen, who is a senior at Edsel Ford High School. His stepson, Stuart Debrowsky, is also a Dearborn Firefighter. As Mr. Birrell enters his retirement years, I would like to give him my best wishes for a relaxing and enjoyable future. I would like to thank him for all of his hard work and commitment to the Dearborn Fire Department and Dearborn community. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that my colleagues join me in commending Chief Birrell for leadership in both his Department and community, as we celebrate his 29 years of dedication to the Dearborn Fire Department.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this statement represents my views as well as the views of W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, on S. 877 the Can-Spam Act of 2003 (``the Act''). Our views on Sections one through five of the Act are contained in a separate statement submitted today by Chairman Tauzin. Section 6 of the legislation prohibits a person from allowing commercial e-mail messages in violation of section (5)(a)(1) to be sent by a third party if that person had knowledge of such promotion, expected to receive economic benefit from such promotion, and took no action to prevent the transmission of the e-mail messages or report such messages to the Federal Trade Commission. This section should not be interpreted to preclude any action brought under section 5 arising out of the same conduct. Section 7 of the legislation sets forth enforcement provisions for the Act. Subsection (a) provides for enforcement of the Act by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Subsection (b) provides for enforcement of the Act by certain other Federal functional regulators. Subsection (e) provides the FTC and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may seek injunctive relief or cease and desist orders without the showing of knowledge otherwise required under this Act. Subsection (f) sets forth enforcement of the legislation by the States. Paragraph (1) provides that the attorney general, or other official or agency of the State, may bring civil actions exclusively in Federal district court to enjoin violations of section 5 of the Act or obtain damages on behalf or residents of the State, equal to the greater of actual damages or statutory damages as determined under paragraph (3). Paragraph (2) provides that State attorneys general may seek injunctive relief without the showing of knowledge otherwise required under the Act. Paragraph (3) sets forth statutory damages. Subparagraph (A) provides that for purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii) damages are determined by multiplying the number of violations, with discrete separately addressed unlawful messages each counting as a separate violation, by up to $250. Subparagraph (B) limits the damages a state attorney general may recover for violations of section 5, other than section 5(a)(1) to no greater than $2,000,000. Subparagraph (C) allows the court, in its discretion, to increase the amount of damages awarded under subparagraph (b) to three times the amount set therein if the court finds that the defendant's conduct was willful and knowing or the defendant's unlawful activity includes one or more of the aggravating violations set forth in section 5(b). Subparagraph (D) provides for a reduction of damages. In assessing damages under subparagraph (A), the court may consider factors including whether the defendant has established and implemented, with due care, commercially reasonable practices and procedures designed to prevent violations of section 5. The court may consider whether the violation occurred despite commercially reasonable efforts to maintain compliance with the practices and procedures designed to prevent such violations. Subsection (f) also provides that in the case of a successful action under paragraph (1), the court, in its discretion, may award costs of the action and reasonable attorney's fees to the State. Subsection (g) provides for a limited right of action by bona fide Internet service providers. Paragraph (1) grants to Internet service providers adversely affected by a violation of section 5(a)(1), 5(b), or 5(d) or a pattern or practice that violates paragraph (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 5(a) the right to bring civil action in Federal district court. The term ``Internet access service'' is defined to have the same meaning given that term in section 231(e)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934. Subsection (g)(2) contains a special definition of ``procure'' for purposes of ISP enforcement actions that includes a scienter requirement with regard to whether a person who initiates commercial email on their behalf is engaging or will engage in a pattern or practice that violates this Act. It is the intent, with regard to the falsification violations of Section 5(a)(1), that ``conscious avoidance of actual knowledge'' be construed broadly in a manner consistent with a fundamental purpose of this Act to prohibit and deter falsification techniques in commercial e-mail. Therefore if the procurer has an indication that the initiator is or has engaged in any falsified spamming technique prohibited by Section 5(a)(1) or 18 U.S.C. 1037, the Act is intended to be read so that such a procurer meets the standard of ``conscious avoidance of actual knowledge'' of violations of the Act by an initiator unless the procurer and takes reasonable steps to prevent such violations by the initiator. Actual knowledge or conscious avoidance of actual knowledge could be evidenced, for example, by information obtained by the procurer directly from an initiator, or via a complaint, warning or cease and desist communication received from a recipient, Internet access service, or law enforcement alerting the procurer that an initiator to whom the procurer is providing consideration is violating the law. Conscious avoidance of actual knowledge could also be evidenced, for example, by: (1) Doing little or nothing to determine whether suspect initiators who are marketing partners, resellers, affiliates, agents or contractors of the procurer are violating or have violated Federal or State law; (2) failing to follow the procurer's stated policies or procedures prohibiting illegal e-mail advertising methods by initiators who are marketing partners, resellers, affiliates, agents or contractors; (3) repeatedly allowing initiators who are engaged in illegal e-mail advertising methods to provide false information or to fail to identify themselves when they sign up to conduct e-mail advertising for the procurer's products or services; (4) repeatedly paying initiators whom the procurer has terminated for violating the procurer's e-mail policies prohibiting illegal spamming methods; or (5) allowing initiators who have been terminated for violating the procurer's policies prohibiting illegal e-mail activities repeatedly to sign up for new accounts. The above is not an exhaustive list of ways in which the requisite state of mind can be evidenced. Subparagraphs (f) and (g) allow enforcement actions for violations of certain parts of Section 5 to be brought by States and ISPs only for a ``pattern or practice'' of violations. The Act regulates a wide variety of commercial e-mail practices, some of which are deemed more deplorable than others and subject to higher penalties. Such action may seek to enjoin further violations by defendants, or collect certain limited monetary damages. It is our intention that these cases be based on bona fide violations and not used as tools for anti-competitive behavior among competitors. Additionally, we intend that Internet access service providers provide actual Internet access service to customers. Statutory damages for Internet service providers are at a lower level than those provided to federal and state regulators. Section 8 provides for the effect of the legislation on other law. Section (b) provides for preemption of state laws that expressly regulate the use of e-mail to send commercial messages, including laws that regulate the form or manner of sending commercial e-mail (e.g. labeling requirements). It does not preempt statutes dealing with fraud, falsity, or deception in any portion of a commercial e-mail message or attachment thereto. Thus, State opt-in spam laws, such California S.B. 186 enacted in the fall of 2003, state opt-out spam laws, and state ADV labeling requirements for commercial e-mail would be entirely preempted, except to the limited extent that those laws also prohibited use of falsification techniques or deception such as those prohibited in 18 U.S.C.1037, Section 5(a)(1) and Section 5(a)(2) of this Act. Similarly, State anti-spam laws, such as Virginia's, that expressly regulate or criminalize e-mail falsification techniques would not be preempted. In addition, Section 8(b) is not intended to preempt general purpose State deceptive trade practice laws, or State common law rules, such as State trespass to chattels theories, that have been used in anti-spam litigation. Nor does Section 8(b) preempt State laws relating to acts of fraud or computer crime. However, to the extent any State or local law regulates the manner of sending commercial e-mail, the mere titling of the law as an ``anti-fraud statute'' or the combination of commercial e-mail regulation provisions with actual falsification or computer crime provisions in the same statute is not sufficient to avoid preemption of those regulatory provisions by this Act. Section 9 provides the FTC with authority to establish a do not e- mail registry. The provision requires the FTC to set forth a plan and timetable for establishing a national do not e-mail registry. The FTC is required to report to the Congress on any practical, technical, security, privacy, enforceability or other concerns the FTC may have with such a registry. We expect that the FTC will proceed with due care in this important inquiry. In particular, the FTC should take care not to inadvertently adopt a do not e-mail registry that would facilitate the availability of working e-mail addresses to persons who might use them in violation of this Act. Section 14 requires the FCC to promulgate rules to prevent the sending of unsolicited e-mail messages to wireless customers, without the express consent of such customers.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge, honor and celebrate the City of Dearborn on the occasion of its 75th Anniversary. Incorporated on January 9, 1929, Dearborn's roots as a community date to the mid-19th century. With a balanced mix of commercial, industrial and residential development sewn together by progressive city leaders, excellent schools and a unique sense of civic pride, Dearborn is the epitome of a successful American community. Modern day Dearborn was created by the consolidation of Dearborn and Fordson cities and Dearborn Township. Henry Ford had a significant attachment or interests in all three jurisdictions and was an important advocate of the consolidation. The area that had served principally as the Detroit Arsenal between 1833-1875, was now poised to take on an identity all its own. In the 1920 census, the villages of Dearborn and Springwells (renamed Fordson) had a combined population of less than 5,000 residents. It was between these two villages that Henry Ford built the Ford Rouge Complex, at which more than 85,000 men would one day work simultaneously. Such burgeoning manufacturing combined with the unheard of salary of $5 per day attracted workers literally from throughout the world to the newly formed city of Dearborn. Such cultural diversity, coupled with Ford's benevolence, helped shape the newly formed city of Dearborn into a model of prosperity, civic virtue and individual opportunity. Dearborn has always provided its citizens with exemplary public service. Dearborn's reputation for public safety and education is second to none. Its residents have transcended cultural, ethnic and religious customs to form strong neighborhood associations that further contribute to the quality and diversity of living in Dearborn. Dearborn continues to thrive today as a result of such active involvement and partnership from its corporate and individual residents alike. Today, Dearborn is home to colleges and universities, hospital facilities, appealing and expansive shopping areas and business districts, the Henry Ford: America's Greatest History attraction, the Automotive Hall of Fame as well as countless restaurants and numerous specialty and boutique shops. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in honoring Dearborn on its 75th Anniversary. The city of Dearborn is home to vibrant and stable neighborhoods, significant industrial production, cultural and artistic attractions and commercial business opportunities. Taken collectively, in celebrating Dearborn's 75th anniversary, we are really celebrating all the best that America represents.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we can work well together around here. I am sure that a lot of people are surprised. I want to pay a congratulations and compliment to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the committee, and also to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his labors. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for his leadership in this valiant effort and undertaking, and I want to pay particular tribute to both the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and the wonderful gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for their outstanding leadership, for the courage and for the dedication with which they stood hitched on this difficult issue and these difficult negotiations. Congratulations to all of the above. And also to Mr. Gregg Rothschild, Mr. David Cavicke, Mr. Bryce Dustman, and Peter Filon of the staff; also David Schooler and Shannon Vildostegui for their wonderful work as members of the staff because their efforts have helped make this possible. This is a good bill and it is worthy of our support. There are things that we could have done that would have been a little better, but it is a piece of legislation which is going to solve a concern of the American people, something which is good and is in the public interest. And it is an important first step in restoring consumers' control over their inboxes and stopping some of the evil and rascality that we are seeing in the telecommunications industry. It requires marketers to let people know who they are and where they can be located. It prohibits false and misleading transmission information so that marketers cannot hide their identity. It prohibits marketers from deceiving consumers by using false headers or subject lines. Importantly, it affords the Federal Trade Commission and the States full enforcement authority over these consumer protection provisions. I am particularly pleased that the bill permits law enforcement to go after those who disguise sexual messages and through such deception are able to send sexual material into our homes and into the hands of our children. This is a critical first step against those who profit by sending unwanted and offensive sexual commercial messages. It will stop much wrongdoing. I am also pleased that the House has adopted the Senate provision creating a do-not-spam registry. I expect the FTC to take their charge seriously under this provision and to do all that is necessary to implement such a registry at the earliest possible time. Finally, I am pleased that the House has added a new provision to grant even stronger protections from spam to users of wireless cell phones. The gentleman from Massachusetts deserves the thanks of all of us for that. In connection with this provision, I commend the hard work of our dear friend, the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that I do not expect this bill to solve totally the growing problem of unwanted spam. It must be recognized that the people who engage in this practice are most diligent, most able, and have a huge financial incentive to do it. It is quite possible that we will have to visit the matter again. It is regrettable that it does not contain an important deterrence against spam, citizen suits; but we can address that at a future time. It also has the regrettable practice in it of preempting stronger State laws, something which I do not favor. It is, however, a distinct improvement over the Senate-passed bill, and the hard work that has brought us to agreement on the part of those who have worked on it is something which merits the thanks of the public for work in the public interest. I plan to work to try and expand this in future times and to do the things that are necessary to assure that our people are not abused by these people.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. And I just want the attention of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr). I want to pay tribute to him for the very honorable and splendid way in which he has worked with us to bring this matter to conclusion. Without his labors and those of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we would not be here talking about this matter. And I thank both gentlemen, and I thank also Jonathan Cordone.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, almost 40 years ago, this body enacted Medicare. It was a great triumph for the senior citizens. Perhaps the most beloved program, with the exception of Social Security, was Medicare. It is also one of the most financially responsible and successful programs in the history of this country. Tonight, the fight is not about whether or not we are going to give prescription drugs to our seniors; it is about saving Medicare from my Republican colleagues, who now, finally, have figured a way to destroy it. I want my colleagues to look at the kind of competition that the Republican Party is forcing upon the senior citizens of the United States: 120 or 125 percent of the costs of competing with Medicare is going to be given by the Federal taxpayers and by Medicare to, guess who, the HMOs. The Republicans have been trying to destroy this part for years. They are very close tonight. A flawed process has brought forth a bad bill, which is laid before the House of Representatives in the wee hours of the morning so that the people will not know what is going on. What is at stake here is the existence of the most successful program to provide health care for our senior citizens. Let me just tell my colleagues, the competition is unfair, 120 percent and more they give. They put forward a sham discount card, which will probably be given mostly by the retailers, not by the prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers. The senior citizens will not get much out of that. Now, Medicare is going to be rewarding now the Republicans' friends in the HMOs and the pharmaceutical houses, huge amounts of money to each. No competition whatsoever will take place with regard to prescription pharmaceutical costs. Why? Because the Republican Members absolutely forbid that. No wonder they want to do this at 2 a.m. in the morning. No wonder they want to foreclose the public from knowing. No wonder they would not let the people on this side of the aisle, they would not allow the Democrats into the meeting. Because it was the only way they could bring forward this slippery and dishonest program which is directed at destroying Medicare as we know it. And take the word not of myself on this, but of Mr. Newt Gingrich, of Mr. Armey, and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means on the Republican side. They want to destroy Medicare as we know it. That is what is at stake. We can anticipate that they will allow Medicare to slowly wither away. And the senior citizens who are dependent upon it will no longer have the assurance that a program that they know they can choose their doctor and their hospital will be available to them. They will have to belong to the HMOs or pay more for it, and all in exchange for a proposal which has a huge donut hole which denies senior citizens care after they pay $2,000. It does not add it at that point, it takes it away. This is a sham. It is a bad bill. It is one which takes from the senior citizens. It is one which threatens Medicare. It is an unfair, dangerous piece of legislation conceived in the darkness of night and slipped through over the heads of the senior citizens.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).