John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard). (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for purposes of explaining the motion to recommit, which will be offered at the conclusion of the debate. I hope my colleagues will listen closely to this.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would inform my distinguished friend in the House, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that we have only one speaker remaining who will close for this side.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, is my good friend assuring me he has only one speaker remaining?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, then with a great deal of pride and pleasure I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 650, the ``Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003.'' This bill will make clear that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to require testing for drugs that are administered to children in appropriate cases. This legislation will effectively moot pending litigation. Last year, a Federal district court held that FDA lacked statutory authority to promulgate the pediatric rule. While appeals are pending, this bill will provide a speedy and certain resolution of that question. Mr. Speaker, I do want to express my concerns with a provision in this bill which sunsets FDA's authority on October 1, 2007. Why on earth should a regulatory authority to protect the health of children be time limited? There are reasons, none of them good. This date just happens to coincide with the expiration of a provision of existing law which provides a financially powerful incentive to drug makers to test drugs for children. Whatever the perceived merits of the incentive, it costs consumers a lot of money because it delays generic drug entry into the market for six months beyond what would normally be the case. The rule is being tied to the incentive and that, in my view, is just plain wrong. We should have had an opportunity to debate and offer amendments to improve S. 650, but this bill is being brought to the floor without being reported or otherwise considered by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. This is an unnecessary and unwise bypass of the committee of jurisdiction. The health of America's children is too important for us to avoid careful consideration of matters that affect them. For us to merely adopt the work product of the Senate is to shirk our duty for our children. We can do better, and the fact that we did not do better is unfortunate.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support S. 286, the ``Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act of 2003.'' I would like to commend my colleagues, particularly Representatives Brown and Stupak for working so diligently on this legislation. Birth defects are the leading cause of infant mortality in the United States, accounting for more than 20 percent of all infant deaths. About 150,000 babies are born each year with birth defects; this means frightening news for the parents of one out of every 28 babies. Both genetic and environmental factors can cause birth defects; however, the causes of 60 to 70 percent of all birth defects are unknown. These shocking numbers compel us to take steps to learn more about their causes, to identify factors that may cause or increase the risk of a baby having a birth defect, to educate the public about these potential risks, and to inform women about how to protect themselves and their babies. S. 286 reauthorizes the programs of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct research on and promote the prevention of birth defects and developmental disabilities. This legislation also supports a National spina bifida program to prevent and reduce suffering from the Nation's most common permanently disabling birth defect. All of these measures will enable the CDC to both expand and continue its work in promoting the health of babies, children, and adults by working to identify the causes of birth defects and developmental disabilities. The Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act of 2003 is supported by many organizations, including the March of Dimes and it deserves our support as well.

Mr. DINGELL

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, we have before us a highly partisan project, written in secret and kept from the light of day just like the Cheney task force. The result speaks for itself. And when you lift the lid, like lifting the lid on a garbage can, you get a strong smell of special interest provisions. There are some worthy titles and some worthy items, but they are much submerged in the special interest provisions of this legislation. The conference report does include consensus electric reliability provisions that the Democrats have supported, but the report will probably handcuff the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's ability to prevent future blackouts. It repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 with its consumer and investor protections. It favors certain utilities and other special interests. It preempts State and local authorities on transmission line siting decisions. The conference report shortchanges our rivers and conservationists as well. It tilts the relicensing process in favor of utilities by giving them special rights and procedures not afforded to other parties who have interests in these same uses of special public resources, such as the States, the Indian tribes, the sportsmen, or the conservationists. One of the more troublesome aspects of this report is its direct assault on the Nation's safe drinking water supply. It weakens the Safe Drinking Water Act. It forces State and local taxpayers to pay billions of dollars to clean up the MTBE manufacturers' mess and requires taxpayers, not polluters, to pay for the cleanup of contamination caused by leaking underground storage tanks, even when the responsible party can afford to pay. The bill contains a number of provisions which are not included in either bill and on which there is no legislative record at all, including significant Clean Air Act rollbacks. The conference agreement includes even worse provisions outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. For example, the tax subsidies alone will cost about $23 billion compared with the President's request of $8 billion, but I note there are no complaints from the administration which regularly objects to smaller amounts being spent for education, health care, or for our Nation's veterans. The bill was conceived in a secret, one-sided process; and, as a result, flawed provisions are obvious to all who would observe. I must oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do likewise. This is a bad bill. It is a special interest bill. It does not help the people. It takes care of the special interests, and it is not going to save or emancipate this country with regard to the energy demands that we confront. I urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.