John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this wonderful amendment, it just does not work. Although I love my good friends, the authors of it, they are dead wrong. It is going to cost jobs. The UAW says so. It is going to hurt the auto industry. The auto industry says so. It is going to force every American to ride around in a mini-car. It is going to fix it so that SUVs and decent-sized pickup trucks are not going to be available to people. It is going to mean that the auto industry is going to have to produce larger vehicles, such as larger than light-duty trucks, for purposes that ranchers and farmers and businessmen will have need of. And it is going to require unsafe vehicles, or at least less safe vehicles to be available to the American motoring public. The simple answer is, it is going to require almost exclusively the production of mini-cars. The result is going to be a significant loss of safety. The thing that we must understand about this is that the law on CAFE is now working. Automobiles and light pickup trucks and so forth are about twice as efficient as they were before we passed it. That has been an enormous advance of great benefit to the American people, and it has been something which has been of great help and done at great cost to the auto industry. Something else that needs to be known: These cars are not manufactured on the basis of arithmetic averages. They are produced to meet CAFE standards on the basis of geometric or harmonic averages, which means that to produce one decent-sized car in which an individual or a company or a family may successfully and safely drive, the companies must produce many smaller cars. So what are we looking at? We are looking at something which is going to adversely impact the American consumer with this amendment and also something which is going to adversely impact the auto industry. Let me remind my colleagues that one job in seven in this country is an auto job, a supplier or a manufacturer. Look here, see where our people work and what this is going to do. There is no one in this country who is not dependent upon the automobile industry for a livelihood. Mr. Chairman, let us have a responsible, sensible package of automobile fuel efficiency legislation. Let us not grasp at straws, and let us not push forward with legislation which, very frankly, although it sounds good, is wondrously mischievous and is going to not only hurt the country, the consumer, but also the auto industry and the auto workers.

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw my colleagues' attention to the death of Rachel Corrie, an American citizen who was killed recently by an Israeli Army bulldozer. Rachel was a 23-year-old college student, due to graduate this year from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. On March 16, Rachel was crushed to death by a bulldozer as she peacefully protested the demolition of Palestinian homes in Rafah, a Palestinian village in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli government continues to destroy Palestinian homes with impunity in the Occupied Territories and Gaza. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my profound sympathies to Rachel's parents, Craig and Cynthia, their extended families, and to all of Rachel's friends, colleagues and co-workers. My heart and my prayers go out to them in their time of grief and need. Sympathy, however, Mr. Speaker, is not enough. The tragic death of Rachel Corrie is yet another example of the failure of the current Israeli government's policies regarding the Palestinians. Mr. Speaker, the Congress must speak forcefully on this matter. I am calling for a full, fair and impartial investigation into Rachel's tragic death by the United States government. Rachel's family, the Congress and the American people deserve to know what happened to Rachel and why.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this much-needed commonsense legislation. I am the proud and original supporter of this legislation entitled the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act. It will shield gun manufacturers from irresponsible lawsuits and from damages in cases where firearms are used during criminal acts of third parties, and only there. It does not protect them against wrong- doing and negligent entrustment; it does not protect gun manufacturers against negligent manufacture of dangerous firearms, but only where the firearm is sold legitimately and lawfully. The legislation is based on a simple, sound premise. We ought not sue Boeing because somebody took a Boeing jet and crashed it into the World Trade Center. We ought not sue Ford Motor Company because of negligence of a drunk driver. The bill has broad support with 251 cosponsors, including some 46 Democrats. The legislation is supported by organized labor, including local affiliates of the United Auto Workers and the United Mine Workers. It is necessary simply because there are junk lawsuits which are being filed to harass law-abiding businessmen. If successful, such lawsuits would bankrupt U.S. firearms manufacturers and destroy a legitimate, lawfully, and carefully and intensely regulated industry in which the manufacturers and sellers are regulated intensely by ATF and other Federal and State regulatory agencies. Some two dozen lawsuits have been filed in States and municipalities that would be dealt with under this. The courts have spoken with regard to these lawsuits, dismissing them almost entirely. In spite of the fact that the lawsuits filed against the firearms industry have produced no lawful or successful results, cities, counties, and others continue to file them, mostly for harassment purposes. These lawsuits cost not only the firearms industry, but municipalities, hundreds of millions of dollars. This legislation is directed at curtailing that. The bill does not affect the right of a lawsuit to sue for negligence or other wrong-doing.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 289, legislation that I co-authored with the distinguished gentlewoman from Toledo, Ms. Kaptur. This important fish and wildlife conservation measure will expand the boundaries of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge to encompass important lands in Southeastern Michigan and Northern Ohio. It is of immense importance to the people of Southeast Michigan and our neighbors to the South in Ohio. I would like to thank Chairman Gilchrest and Ranking Member Pallone for their leadership and their assistance. I would also like to thank the Chairman of the full Committee, Richard Pombo, and Ranking Member Nick Rahall, for their assistance is shepherding this bill to the floor. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Mr. Speaker, in 2001, thanks to the leadership of the Resources Committee and the support from local grassroots organizations, conservation groups, state and local governments, as well as our Canadian neighbors, we were able to create the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. Our refuge on the Detroit River is already demonstrating how--working as a team--federal, state, and local officials in the United States and Canada, can work with businesses, conservationists and private citizens to preserve our remaining wildlife habitat along the River and improve the quality of life. H.R. 289 builds on that success, expanding the refuge south into Ohio, to protect the Lake Erie shoreline. The lands we are talking about encompass an area of tremendous bio- diversity, with unique geological features and a wide variety of plant life that attracts numerous species of fish, birds, and waterfowl. In the Great Lakes region, there is a tremendous urgency to protect our remaining high-quality habitats before they are lost to further development. We must also do our utmost to rehabilitate and enhance degraded habitat. This is essential to sustain the quality of life enjoyed by the people living along the Detroit River and the Lake Erie corridor. The Western basin of Lake Erie is vitally important to the economic and environmental future of the United States. In the 1970s and 1980s, the ecological health of Lake Erie was a running joke--fisherman derisively renamed Lake Erie ``The Dead Sea.'' Water quality was poor, and fish and wildlife suffered as a result. But in the past two decades, the citizens and governmental institutions of both the United States and Canada have devoted increasing attention and resources to the restoration of the water quality and the fisheries of the Great Lakes, including the Western basin. Numerous grassroots environmental and conservation organizations have worked dutifully to address environmental degradation in the region. I am happy to say that these efforts have been successful, though there is still much more that must be done. The coastal wetlands of Lake Erie support the largest diversity of plant and wildlife species in the Great Lakes. More than 320 species of birds and 43 species of fish have been identified in the aquatic and wetland habitats of the Western basin. The shallow Western basin is home to the largest concentration of marshes in Lake Erie, which makes it a major migratory bird corridor. Seventy percent of the Mississippi Flyway population of black ducks is concentrated in the Lake Erie marshes during fall migration. The important of Lake Erie is manifested in the United States congressional designation of the Ottawa and Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuges. Lake Erie has an international reputation for walleye, perch, and bass fishing, as well as duck hunting. On an economic basis, Lake Erie tourism accounts for an estimated $1.5 billion in retail sales and more than 50,000 jobs. In Michigan, the Refuge will run from the southern boundary of Sterling State Park to the eastern edge of Sandusky Bay, Ohio. The Secretary of Interior is authorized to acquire by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or grant conservation easements with the boundaries of the Refuge. Any and all acquisitions of lands are voluntary, and federal takings are strictly prohibited. I would note that the Secretary shall administer all federally owned lands, waters, and interests within the Refuge in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Thus, the rights of sportsmen and waterfowlers like myself to hunt and fish in accordance with state law will be protected. Mr. Speaker, I again thank the Resources Committee for their assistance. Ms. Kaptur's bill is an important piece of legislation which will be great benefit to the people of Michigan, Ohio, and Ontario, and represents a sound approach to protecting, preserving, and restoring the wildlife habitat of the Great Lakes. I urge its adoption.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I join the millions of our Nation's first responders in opposition to H.R. 1463, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003.'' Right after we defeat this bill, I hope that we set about the task of crafting bipartisan legislation that all members of the House can support. The very people this bill purports to help--nurses, EMTs, police officers, firefighters--find this hastily crafted legislation lacking. Why? Because it fails to address their very significant concerns. Mr. Speaker, we are voting on smallpox vaccine injury legislation today because the Administration's current vaccine program is not working. Only a fraction of the number of first responders that the Administration has said are needed to protect us have volunteered to take the smallpox vaccine. The Administration has recommended that as many as ten million first responders be vaccinated for smallpox so that if we ever are attacked by the use of smallpox we will have a core capacity of health care and emergency personnel vaccinated and able to take appropriate action right away. The latest numbers from CDC indicate that less than 26,000 of them have been vaccinated. Why so few? Because the vaccination carries with it substantial risks, including adverse affects that could cause disability and, in some cases, death. Proponents of H.R. 1463 will make much of what they think that bill does. I ask you to focus on what it lacks. H.R. 1463 does not do enough to ensure adequate screening and education and otherwise prevent adverse events from happening in the first place. In the event that tragedy strikes and someone is injured or killed by the vaccine, H.R. 1463 does not make adequate provision for lost wages. And, what H.R. 1463 lacks is support from the people to whom it is intended to appeal. H.R. 1463 is opposed by the American Public Health Association, the International Union of Police Associations, the American Nurses Association, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union, and the Infectious Disease Society of America. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of accounts of three deaths in the last week or so from cardiac arrest in persons who received the smallpox vaccine. Health care officials cannot positively rule out the smallpox vaccine as the cause or a contributing factor in these deaths. The CDC has taken swift action to revise its guidelines and has indicated that there may be further revisions. These uncertainties about the known, and I hasten to add the unknown, risks of the smallpox vaccine have greatly increased the fear factor among prospective vaccinees. We should be doing all we can to obtain and assess the relevant information on the vaccine and smallpox risks. That cannot be done by using the process by which this bill is before us today. We have had no hearings, no markups, and no opportunity to perfect this bill on the floor with amendments. All we have is the administration's proposal and a take it or leave it procedure. I recommend that we listen to our first responders, vote ``no'' on H.R. 1463, and get busy writing legislation we can all support.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th Anniversary of Fordson High School in Dearborn, Michigan. Dedicated on March 22, 1928, Fordson High School was designed and built on 15 acres to accommodate 2,300 students at a cost of $2 million. Fordson was heralded in the 1920's for being the first million-dollar high school. However, it is the steadfast dedication to education and more specifically, Fordson's national reputation for helping establish immigrants in the United States that has truly set it apart. Mr. Speaker, the City of Dearborn experienced unprecedented growth with the rise of the automotive industry in the 1920s and 1930s. It was during this time that Fordson became the center of a community increasingly noted for the number of immigrants and for its ethnic diversity. Today, the activities of the Arabic and Romanian clubs at the school continue the tradition of community outreach programs. A plethora of diverse languages and cultures have walked the halls of Fordson High School over the past 75 years. In fact, Fordson pioneers a program teaching non-English speaking students in their native language to keep up with their class work until their English skills are proficient. Education has remained a top priority for Fordson producing many distinguished graduates. Local businessman and philanthropist Michael Adray; Walter P. Reuther, former president and founder of the UAW; Chuck Rossi, comedian with Martin and Rossi; name only a few of the noted graduates. Mr. Speaker, as Fordson embarks on its 75th Anniversary, and in honor of their unfaltering dedication to diversity and education within the community, I would ask that all of my colleagues rise and salute this wonderful school.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the St. Mary Catholic Central High School (SMCC) volleyball team for winning the Class C state championship for the first time in the school's history. It is the first state title for any SMCC girls team, and in fact it is the first state crown for any girls team from a Monroe County high school in any Michigan High School Athletic Association-sanctioned competition. It is quite a feat considering their opponent, the North Muskegon Norsemen were ranked third in the state after the regular season. SMCC was unranked most of the year before finally making No. 10 in the last week. During the regular season, the girls were known for their astonishing comebacks. In the State final, the girls were down 9-0 in the first game before they embarked on their amazing comeback that will go down in state volleyball history. The team finished their remarkable season with a 40-10-4 record. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all my colleagues to rise and join me in congratulating the St. Mary Catholic Central girls' volleyball team for their perseverance, hard work and well-deserved championship.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the lengths to which my Republican colleagues will go to in order to help out their fat-cat buddies will never cease to amaze me. We are considering a budget resolution today that is so bad and so draconian that the Republican leadership is having trouble convincing some of their own rank and file to support it. I am outraged, Mr. Chairman, absolutely outraged that at a time when this nation is at war, my Republican colleagues are attempting to cut funding for veterans. Have they no shame? Mr. Speaker, these men and women were willing to risk their lives for this nation and many lost limbs in the process. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would repay these most patriotic of Americans by slashing $15 billion from the Veteran's Administration budget over the next 10 years. Of course, since 96 percent of the VA's discretionary budget goes to pay for the healthcare of those who served this Nation, this means that we are reducing enrollment, reducing hospital days of care and reducing nursing staff. This is how the Republican leadership gives their thanks to our veterans. At recent hearings, I expressed skepticism about the President's ``budget-neutral'' proposal to convert Medicaid to a block grant. Not only would this proposal leave States at risk if Medicaid costs rose, but I warned that it was a prelude to Congressional cuts in the program. The ink was not even dry on the President's proposal before the House Republicans are now requiring $100 billion cut in the program. As State budgets are being squeezed, the notion of reducing Federal spending on Medicaid is an astonishingly bad idea. Although our Republican colleagues appear to have backed off their threat to slash Medicare to the bone, no one should be mistaken that this is the last we will hear of it. For years, Republicans have sought to do away with Medicare and Social Security--most recently under the guise of privatization. Medicare and Social Security remain primary targets for Republican ideologues and tax-cutters, and we must remain ever vigilant to protect these vital programs. Mr. Chairman, this budget also fails to protect the environment. In fact, it cuts FY 04 funding by more than 10 percent. And over the next 10 years, it slashes environmental spending by more than 11 percent. What does this mean? Well, it could mean cuts for clean water, which is a logical choice since the Bush Administration seems hell bent on dismantling the Clean Water Act and selling off our rivers to hydroelectric companies. It likely means cuts for brownfields redevelopment. Of course, my Republican colleagues try to soften this blow by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, which they say will increase federal receipts by $2.1 billion over the next 10 years. I am not certain how my friends on the other side of the aisle intend to do this, since some cooler heads in the Senate stripped the ANWR provision out of their budget yesterday. Just two years ago, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which was lauded by Democrats and Republicans alike. At the time that the bill was signed, the President and Congressional Republicans made a commitment to American families and their children that the programs in that bill would be funded at proper levels so that our public schools would not be placed in financial straight jackets. For two years that promise has gone unfulfilled, and this budget not only continues that dangerous trend, but actually cuts education funding. Mr. Speaker, Congressional Republicans have gone even further in their cuts than the President did in his budget, slashing spending by 8 percent. Let me give you a specific, Mr. Speaker. If this budget passes, more than 22,000 kids in my home state of Michigan will quite literally be left out in the cold. These kids will be left without any after-school services. Let me ask, is this what compassionate conservatism is all about? Mr. Chairman, the cuts don't stop there. This sham of a budget drastically cuts our agriculture programs. Our farmers are the lifeblood of this great Nation. How do we show them our support? Well, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle thank our farmers by slashing agriculture programs by $763 million in FY 04. What this means in real terms is that conservation, nutrition, rural development and producer payment programs would be cut by more than 25 percent over their authorized amounts. These draconian cuts are neither justified nor sustainable. Again, that is not the end of the agriculture cuts. The Republican budget requires that the Agriculture Committee cut nearly $20 billion in direct spending over the next 10 years. This means more cuts to our family farmers by slashing funding to farm loan programs, conservation programs, rural development, forestry and research. All of this leads to a very logical question, Mr. Speaker: why are my Republican colleagues doing this? Why are they gutting programs that help America's working families? Well, Mr. Speaker, they are doing this to accommodate more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Yes, the goal of this budget is to allow the President to push through more of his irresponsible tax cuts. Make no mistake: these tax cuts will not stimulate the economy and will not help middle class Americans. In fact, in my home state of Michigan, about 50 percent of taxpayers would get less than $100 under the President's plan, and 30 percent would get no tax cut at all. Of course, this all leaves open the possibility that local communities will have to raise taxes because my Republican colleagues expect them to bear the burden of homeland security costs. This rascality is just another ploy for my Republican colleagues to help out their fat-cat corporate friends and leave the American people out in the cold. Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I neglected to mention the cost of this current war with Iraq. We don't know how much the war will cost, and we have no idea how much it will cost to rebuild Iraq after the war. The Republican budget does not include one penny to pay for our troops currently overseas or the costs of reconstructing Iraq. Mr. Speaker, is this really the time to be centering the entire budget around tax cuts? I think not. This is a sham and an outrage. Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget provides members with a reasonable and responsible alternative and I would strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. Our budget is centered around a stimulus plan that provides both long term and short term economic growth--creating 1 million new jobs this year alone. The Democratic budget is responsible, balancing the budget by 2010 without unrealistic spending cuts. The Democratic budget gives schools the funding they need to implement No Child Left Behind, and more importantly, the funding they need to properly prepare our kids for the future. The Democratic budget provides $32 billion over the next 10 years for Veterans healthcare. Mr. Speaker, making sure those who were willing to give their lives for this country are taken care of needs to be a priority. It is, quite simply, the right thing to do. At this time of war, the Democratic budget adequately invests in Homeland Security by providing $32 billion more than Republicans over the next 10 years--ensuring $3.5 billion in desperately needed new money for first responders. The Democratic budget also provides an adequate prescription drug benefit so our senior citizens don't have to choose between groceries and filling a prescription. I would ask my colleagues, all of my colleagues, to reject the Republican budget and support the Democratic substitute.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, vote down this iniquitous rule. It is unfair. It is demeaning. It strikes at the heart of the parliamentary practices that are the proud tradition of this body. It also tears at the throat of honorable and open and fair debate. It denies every Member, not just Democrats, the right to offer amendments to the bill. Mr. Speaker, 31 amendments were requested of the Committee on Rules last night; not a one was given. A substitute was given. The chairman of the committee talks of the need to have a fair and open process. Well, we do not have a fair and open process. Therefore, vote down the rule, vote down the previous question. It is an outrage, and it is inconsistent with the tradition and practices of the House. I would point out that in the rules, rule XVI, clause 6 begins, ``When an amendable proposition is under consideration, a motion to amend and a motion to amend that amendment shall be in order.'' It is in the rules. The Committee on Rules should read it. We are not discussing the substance of the legislation. We hope to have a fair chance to do so. We hope to have a fair chance to amend the basic proposition before this body. The Committee on Rules has not given it to us. I went before the Committee last night and I asked, am I wasting my time and am I wasting your time by being here? The answer is, I was. I was not told that I was, but the simple fact of the matter was the decision had already been made. The process had already been carefully cooked so that no opportunity to amend the bill is before this body at this time. We can talk about what it is that is wrong with this legislation and how the amendments would improve it. That is really not important. What is important is that the basic rights of the Members of this body, the basic prerogatives of the institution to perfect legislation before it has been denied by the majority, functioning through the organism of the Committee on Rules. In 14 years as the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, never once did I go before the Committee on Rules to ask for anything other than an open rule so that all Members might have a fair chance to participate in the debate on the legislation and to offer amendments as the need would require, no matter how complex or controversial the legislation was. That is the way this institution should work. This rule demeans this body. It demeans every Member here, and it demeans the Committee on Rules and those who have inflicted this outrage upon this body. I say again, vote this rule down. It is wrong. It is arrogant. It is without justification. I note that it comes up on a day when this is the last item of business of the week and when this is the last item of business that will be done. Let us vote it down, and let us then go about the business of conducting the business of the House in a fashion which is consistent with the traditions of this great democratic institution.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing a sorry spectacle today. Not only are we denied opportunity to properly debate but also to properly amend. And the doctors are being herded along in front of the HMOs and the insurance companies, because those insurance companies and HMOs are the beneficiaries of this legislation, not the doctors. The Republican bill does nothing to limit frivolous lawsuits. It does, however, limit responsible lawsuits. The Republicans would restrict the rights of doctors by protecting HMOs, not by assuring that HMOs are subject to the discipline of the court. Republicans limit awards for meritorious claims. Republicans impose hurdles on aggrieved patients. This is an outrageous piece of legislation. It is brought to the floor under outrageous proceedings. Thirty-one Members have asked for opportunities to offer amendments. They were denied. We are not even given a chance to offer a substitute to this legislation. I can understand how my Republican colleagues are all looking sheepish and why they are thoroughly embarrassed. I would be embarrassed if I were engaged in this kind of practice myself, because, quite honestly, it is shameful, and it is totally inconsistent with the practices, rules and traditions of the House of Representatives. It is, indeed, a blow to the heart of the legislative process and responsible legislating. It is also a bite on the throat of the right to free debate and the right to amend and perfect legislation. One of the important responsibilities of this body is to be able to amend legislation, for the House to work its will, for us to represent our people, for them to hear not only responsible debate, but to know that their will is heard and that their concerns are met, not only by debate, but by proper use of the amendment process. That is denied to us today, and I say to my Republican colleagues, shame on you. You have brought shame upon the House of Representatives. You have embarrassed me. I hope you have embarrassed yourself.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a bad bill. The motion to recommit is forced upon us by the recalcitrance of the Republican leadership which has not permitted us to offer a substitute. This is the package that we could go home and talk with pride of to our people and to our doctors. It weeds out frivolous lawsuits. It does not restrict the rights of legitimate claimants. It establishes an equitable, 3-year statute of limitation that protects children, the aged, the poor. It requires affidavits of merit from qualified medical specialists and attorneys' certificates of merit with mandatory sanctions. It requires mandatory mediation. It also allows health care providers to challenge malpractice premium increases. It provides direct assistance to physicians in crisis areas through Federal grants, and it provides direct assistance to medical centers in danger of closing. It repeals the antitrust exemption for malpractice insurance, and it establishes Federal malpractice insurance and a reinsurance program. This is a program that will work. Under a House in which we had a decent opportunity to debate and amend, Members of this body would understand that this is the package for which they want to vote. They would understand that this is a package which their people wish them to vote for, and I include in that the health care providers. It is a bill, or rather an amendment, which would assure that health care providers would receive the help that they need while, at the same time, not providing unnecessary shelters for HMOs and other undeserving persons who have contrived to leap aboard a vehicle which they think is going out and a situation which permits the doctors to be used as front-men for a bunch of iniquitous rascals who do not deserve relief.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues. Representative Chris John and Representative Tauzin for introducing H.R. 342, the ``Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act,'' and for working so diligently on behalf of the people and states who have been ravaged by the West Nile virus. This legislation hits very close to home for me. My home state of Michigan has been hit hard by this deadly epidemic. To date, we have had 554 confirmed cases of West Nile and 50 deaths. Currently, a staggering 4,071 people in the United States have been found to be infected with the West Nile virus. Unfortunately, we have also had 274 deaths as a result of West Nile infection. H.R. 342 seeks to complement the work that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is already doing to fight mosquito-borne diseases. This legislation will provide an additional incentive for States and localities to plan and better coordinate mosquito control programs. Unfortunately, many localities have not had the resources or capabilities to conduct assessments and prepare plans to comprehensively develop effective mosquito control programs. The additional federal dollars authorized in H.R. 342 will work to assist states and localities with their immediate needs to combat the West Nile virus. In addition to working with the CDC, the ``Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act'' requires the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to conduct and support research into methods to control the population of insects and vermin that transmit dangerous diseases to humans. The West Nile virus has emerged in recent years as a serious threat to public, equine, and animal health. H.R. 342 seeks to combat this unexpected epidemic by providing additional dollars for research, prevention, and educational programs. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this valuable piece of legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 663, the ``Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act.'' This bipartisan bill is the product of collaboration with my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, particularly Chairmen Tauzin and Bilirakis, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Brown. I also note that this legislation builds on the work of my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, including Representatives Johnson, Stark, Thomas, and Rangel. I thank all who have made important contributions to this bill. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act addresses a problem that many of us are familiar with. According to a December 2003 survey by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Kaiser Family Foundation, 42 percent of the public says that they or a family member have experienced a medical error. This bill contains one piece of the puzzle that must be completed in order to reduce medical errors. It would create a voluntary reporting system for the purpose of learning from medical mistakes. Under this voluntary reporting system, health care providers could report information on medical errors to Patient Safety Organizations. These organizations would help providers analyze what went wrong and identify what strategies could prevent future mistakes. It is our intent that providers would take this knowledge and make changes in the health care delivery system to improve care for patients. I also hope that the Secretary of Health and Human Services would use this knowledge to set some basic guidelines that all providers would be required to follow. Patients should be able to expect that providers are adhering to certain safety standards before they seek treatment from a doctor, hospital, or other facility. The best patient safety bill, however, cannot prevent all medical errors. Unfortunately, there will be cases where a medical mistake is made and a patient suffers injury or death as a result. If medical malpractice was involved in these cases, patients and their families should be entitled to seek compensation under a fair and accessible legal system. It would be disingenuous to suggest that the limited legislation before us today could supplant the vital role of legal remedies for medical malpractice. Again, I thank my colleagues for their cooperation in writing this patient safety bill, and I look forward to seeing the improvements that will result when it is implemented.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Michigan AFSCME Council 25 on their 25th Anniversary. Michigan AFSCME Council 25 is one of the most dynamic unions in the Michigan AFL-CIO. The more than 60,000 members of Council 25 are comprised of state and local government workers committed to achieving dignity and improving their working conditions through collective bargaining. Michigan AFSCME Council 25 was formed by a special convention held March of 1978. Five smaller Michigan AFSCME Councils combined forces to form Council 25, which became larger and stronger than the previous councils. The new Council 25 streamlined and enhanced services and realized economies of scale to benefit AFSCME members across Michigan. Today, Mr. Speaker, Michigan AFSCME Council 25 has blossomed into more than 300 local unions, representing more than 600 bargaining units. The local unions have their own constitutions, elect their own officers and administer a wide variety of local affairs. For 25 years, Michigan AFSCME Council 25 has been committed to Michigan's communities, has provided effective political activism and years of advocacy for Michigan's working families. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the numerous employees of state, county and municipal govennnents, school districts, public hospitals and nonprofit agencies to name a few, for their tireless efforts on behalf of workers throughout Michigan. I also want to commend AFSCME Council 25 President, Albert Garrett, who is a good friend and a passionate advocate for the members of Council 25 and all of Michigan's working families. Additionally, Lawrence Roehrig, the Secretary-Treasurer of Council 25 deserves our appreciation for his commitment to community service and the values held dear to working people across this great Nation. On the occasion of their 25th Anniversary, Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in saluting the Michigan AFSCME Council 25.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, today, we are debating the re- authorization of the welfare program. It is a repeat of the debate we had last Congress, when Republican ideology prevented a common-sense reauthorization. I believe that we have a responsibility to help families transition into the workforce and provide essential support to make work play. The Cardin substitute will do that. Regrettably, the Republican bill will not. Two provisions within this re-authorization are in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce: transitional medical assistance (TMA) and abstinence-only education. The Republican versions are inadequate; the Cardin substitute fixes both. First, TMA is a program that provides health insurance coverage for families leaving welfare to go back to work. It is a program that makes good sense. Individuals moving off welfare often wind up in jobs that do not offer health insurance coverage or find that employer-sponsored coverage is too costly on the family's limited budget. TMA allows these families to keep their health insurance coverage in Medicaid so that getting a job doesn't mean losing health coverage. The Republican bill, however, only extends this program for one year; many of us prefer making this common-sense program permanent, as the Cardin substitute provides. In addition, the Republican bill does not include the simplifications that would help families get coverage and keep coverage. These provisions were in the President's budget this year, and are in the Cardin substitute. They should also be in H.R. 4, but they are not. Of added concern, Republicans would cut other parts of the Medicaid program in order to pay for this extension. For some reason, Republicans believe the only way they can afford to help working families is if they cut other parts of safety net programs that truly allow the poor to work. This is illogical and I oppose it. Second, the bill extends the Title V abstinence-only sex education program, but locks states into an inflexible curriculum; it is controversial, and rights to. The Cardin substitute to this bill provides states with the flexibility to offer programs that are best suited to the needs and desires of their citizens and to ensure that Federal funds are spent on effective programs that provide medically accurate information. State flexibility allows each state to use Federal funds to support the abstinence-based comprehensive sex education program it determines will be most effective in protecting its young people's health. Many leading public and private sector health experts, including the National Institutes of Health, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association, recommend school-based comprehensive sex education programs, yet states are unable to fund these types of programs with Federal dollars. The Cardin substitute also contains a requirement that Title V programs provide information that is determined to be ``medically accurate'' by leading medical, psychological, psychiatric, and public health organizations. Some abstinence-only programs are actually harmful to teenagers because they provide incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading information with regard to contraceptives, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases. Depriving teens of medically accurate information will not protect them; it will only make them more vulnerable. The Cardin substitute also requires Title V programs be based on models that have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing teen pregnancies or the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases or HIV/AIDS, and calls for a comparative evaluation of programs so policymakers can determine the relative merits of abstinence-only programs versus comprehensive school-based, age-appropriate, sex education curricula. Advocates of abstinence-only programs oppose any realistic and objective look at those programs, apparently content to waste Federal dollars in the name of ideology. The Cardin substitute maintains state flexibility, helps welfare recipients to find real work, helps families escape poverty, removes the sunset on TMA, and makes important changes in the abstinence education provisions. I support it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, H.R. 395, the ``Do-Not-Call Implementation Act,'' authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to collect fees to fund its national do-not-call registry. Unwanted sales calls have become a nuisance that many consider an invasion of privacy. A national do-not-call registry will allow consumers to limit these unwanted intrusions and once again answer their telephones without aggravation. Consumers, charities, telemarketing companies, local governments and other interested parties, have voiced their complaints and communicated their concerns. In the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, passed in 1994, we gave the FTC the discretion to create a national do-not-call program. Based on that authority, the FTC has considered a wide range of complicated issues and has produced a reasoned result. I urge the appropriations in the Omnibus Appropriations Conference to include full funding of this program now. In fact, I have no objection under these circumstances to inserting H.R. 395 itself into the Conference Report. As the FTC launches the do-not-call registry, we must monitor its progress closely. By any measure, coordinating the efforts of the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and state authorities into one national system will be a challenge. The rewards, however, can be great. As these many parts work together as one, we can achieve a comprehensive program that will empower consumers without unnecessarily burdening industry. This is an important issue to consumers across the nation that should not be delayed any further.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a resolution congratulating Israel for conducting free and fair elections. I, too, rise to offer my congratulations to the people of Israel for their recent free and open elections. That being said, I have concerns with the wording of the resolution. I find it curious that a resolution of congratulations to the Israeli people also contains condemnations of the actions--or inactions--of the Palestinian people. Mr. Speaker, the resolution refers to President Bush's statement of June 24, 2002. But what is the vision of this Administration? Secretary Colin Powell said it is to build, ``a region where Israelis and Arabs can live together in peace, security, and dignity.'' The resolution before us mentions peace and security for Israel, but it says nothing of peace and security for the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories. Where is the balance? Unfortunately, we again have a resolution before the House that is perceived to be one-sided in nature, and which does not present the United States as an honest broker to both sides in this conflict. I will support this resolution, but I wish to make it know that the Congress of the United States should strive to support the goal of peace in the region for all peoples. The United States must act as an even-handed honest broker to all parties in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict if there is ever to be peace in the region.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the House Rules packages being offered today by the majority. Over the previous four Congresses, which have been controlled by the Republican party, the House rules became increasingly hostile to the rights of the minority. This proposal continues that trend. Let there be no misunderstanding--when I speak of the rights of the minority I am speaking of the rights of the 47 percent of all Americans who are represented by Democratic and Independent Members of Congress. It is their rights which are being abused when their Member of Congress is treated unfairly. For example, the right of all Members, and particularly the minority, to file its views on legislation reported by a committee, has been reduced to 2 days. During the 40 years of Democratic control the minority was always permitted 3 days. Similarly, committee ratios have been consistently stacked against the minority. For example, on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, during Democratic control the majority representation of the committee was always within two percentage points of its ratio in the House, and the difference averaged less than one percent. In the past three Congresses, under Republican control, the difference was more than 3 percent. In short, the Republican majority has robbed the Democratic minority of seats they deserve in our committee. In the last Congress, the Republican rules package radically changed the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee by transferring its jurisdiction over securities and insurance to the Committee on Financial Services. This change was done without a single hearing at which Members of the majority or minority were permitted to present their views, or without a single markup at which minority Members could vote or suggest alternatives. Now the Republican majority is doing the same thing with the establishment of a Select Committee on Homeland Security. The majority has not only trampled upon the rights of the minority, but also upon the rights of individual citizens. For example, Republicans eliminated a longstanding rule of the House that permitted individuals who were required to appear before a committee under a subpoena the right to have television cameras turned off. The rule had permitted all other media to cover the hearing, but the rule gave the witness the right to some level of fairness. In this context, I look with interest every year to see what new rules will be adopted in response to the majority's irritation with the minority's invocation of its merger remaining rights. This year there are several interesting changes. Perhaps the most interesting one is the permission to committees to adopt rules allowing the chairman to postpone votes on bills and amendments in committee. When my Republican colleagues took control of the House they complained that proxy voting permitted Members to cast votes on matters without attending the debate that accompanied the matter. It now appears that by permitting votes to be postponed to a time certain, Members will no longer have to attend committee markups while important amendments are being debated. Instead, they will merely have to show up at a specified time to vote. It sounds an awful lot like proxy voting to me. Another rule change stretches out the length of time before the minority may offer motions to instruct conferees by requiring a minimum of 10 legislative days. Again, this rule limits minority rights. While some rule changes are technical in nature, it appears that the other substantive amendments are designed to make it easier for my Republican colleagues to plunge our Nation further into debt. Not satisfied with throwing away the progress made during the Clinton administration, which changed annual budget deficits to surpluses, the Republicans in the last Congress immediately threw the country back into budget deficits while raiding our Social Security and Medicare trust funds. While they seemed to take delight in placing more and more tax cuts on the Floor during the past Congress, it was a lot more painful for them to figure out how to pay for them. So this year they are adopting a host of rules to hide their budget profligacy. No longer will they require Members to vote on raising the statutory limit on the debt. Now their vote on the budget resolution will automatically raise the debt limit. Moreover, the rules continue the so-called ``deeming'' resolution, which allows the House to pretend it has adopted a binding budget resolution when in reality, only one House has acted. The rules would also require the Ways and Means Committee to include so-called ``dynamic scoring'' on amendments to the tax code. While ``dynamic scoring'' has no real definition, it is generally understood to mean a way to pretend that a tax cut increase revenues rather than decreasing them. We heard all of this same nonsense during the Reagan administration and talk about the Laffer curve. Ultimately, we saw only greater deficits. Mr. Speaker, it is time for my Republican colleagues to stop playing games with the House rules. We must respect the rights of Democratic Members of this body, and more importantly, the rights of the 47 percent of Americans who they represent. We must stop using the House rules to make it easier to plunge the Nation into debt, while hiding raids on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. The Republicans' procedural thumb on the scale demeans this institution and reduces its credibility.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Congratulations. (Applause, the Members rising.)

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, while there may be many worthwhile provisions in this bill, I strongly oppose the unnecessary and unwarranted exemption contained in Section 315 for the Department of Defense (DOD) from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, our Nation's oldest conservation law. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides protection for over 850 species of migratory birds, including many that are threatened or endangered. The Act also sets forth U.S. obligations under four separate treaties to protect migratory birds and guide cooperative conservation management with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. The provision which was inserted at the Bush Administration's request will effectively give the Defense Department license to bomb and destroy at will the natural habitats of migratory birds, endangering more than one million birds and curtailing the enjoyment of more than 50 million bird enthusiasts in this country. The provision will also provide an exclusive legal immunity from third-party lawsuits which challenge DOD non-compliance with the Act. I have dealt with the military for years and they constantly seek to get out from under environmental laws. It is despicable that they are now using the threat of September 11 and al Qaeda to get unprecedented environmental immunity. We have fought two World Wars, the Korean War, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf War with this law in place, and there is no demonstrated need to exempt the Department of Defense now. I raised concerns about this provision when H.R. 2456 was being considered and passed by the House. This environmental exemption was rushed through without significant public scrutiny. No hearings were held on the specifics of the proposal. Only one hearing was held in the House Armed Services Committee on the general issue and only the DOD and Federal government agencies were allowed to testify. Other stakeholders, such as state and local governments, industry representatives, tribal governments, and citizen groups did not have a full opportunity to participate in hearings on the bill. This provision falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources and that is where the reviews and debate of this issue should have taken place. Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of the Interior already has the authority under current law to issue permits for actions that might kill, harm or injure migratory birds in the course of government activities. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and DOD have been developing regulations pursuant to Executive Order 13186 to resolve migratory bird disputes. And, in March 2002, a U.S. court recognized for the first time the DOD must comply with MBTA and ordered the military to apply for the administrative remedy already available. The DOD has chosen to fight this court ruling in the case of Center for Biological Diversity vs Robert B. Pirie, Jr., Acting Secretary of the Navy; Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia). The members of this body should also be aware of the ridiculous arguments that the DOD was making in court to support its efforts to exempt itself. In the above-mentioned case, the DOD claimed: . . . plaintiffs have suffered insufficient injury because the more birds that the defendants (DoD) kill, the more enjoyment Mr. Frew (a plaintiff) will get from seeing the ones that remain: ``bird watchers get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one.'' Let me also quote Judge Sullivan's finding with respect to DoD's argument (on page 17 of his opinion): Suffice it to say, there is absolutely no support in the law for the view that environmentalists should get enjoyment out of the destruction of natural resources because that destruction makes the remaining resources more scarce and therefore valuable. The Court hopes that the federal government will refrain from making or adopting such frivolous arguments in the future. I also oppose the bill's provisions concerning the Price-Anderson Act, which are incomplete, insufficient, and fail to protect the public interest. First, let me make clear that I am a strong supporter of the Act's reauthorization, and believe the best course at this late date would be for the other body to approve H.R. 2983, the Price-Anderson reauthorization passed by the House last November on suspension. Second, it is highly regrettable that this issue has been allowed to languish and, as a consequence, the Act lapsed in August. It is equally regrettable, however, that when my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee chose to address the Department of Energy (DOE) contractor issue in this bill, they did not take the logical step of including reforms from H.R. 2983 to make contractors accountable for irresponsible actions that harm the public. Under current law, DOE contractors are completely indemnified for accidents involving nuclear materials, even if the accident resulted from willful misconduct or gross negligence. This means that the taxpayer actually is required to reimburse a contractor for the cost of public harm caused by its own misconduct. No other government contractor enjoys the right to unconditional indemnification, even those engaged in nuclear or other hazardous work for the defense agencies. When the House passed its version of Price- Anderson reauthorization, that bill included a bipartisan provision which prohibited indemnification of contractors for ``conduct which constitutes intentional misconduct.'' The DOE claims that despite the current law's safety disincentive, it is necessary to secure contractors' services. I cannot imagine why the Department should even wish to hire a contractor who is not willing to be held accountable for its intentional misconduct. Finally, it is my understanding that several contractors have signed contracts with DOE since the Act lapsed in August, under alternate statutory authority which can continue to fill the gap until Congress has an opportunity to address this issue thoroughly next year. In other words, there is no emergency that needs to be addressed in this bill, and in any event no reason for Congress to continue the unjustifiable policy of unconditionally indemnifying DOE contractors for intentional misconduct. Mr. Speaker, in adopting the Migratory Bird Treaty Act exemption for DOD one of our Nation's most important environmental laws has been undermined. And by providing total indemnification for DOE contractors, even when they engage in intentional misconduct, we reduce public safety. Therefore, I rise in opposition to this conference report.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support the provision in this bill that extends the welfare program and the related Temporary Medical Assistance (TMA) program through the end of March. TMA allows families leaving welfare for work to keep their Medicaid insurance coverage. My only question is why my Republican colleagues would extend such an important program for one quarter when it would make much more sense to extend it for one year, two years, or more. Similarly, I support the effort in this bill to prevent payment cuts to physicians in Medicare. However, I regret that the bill does not accomplish nearly enough. We do need to help physicians under Medicare, but we also need to help other providers. Hospitals, home health agencies, and nursing homes are in a similar situation. I hear from my constituents on these issues nearly every day. We cannot turn a blind eye to their problems because, like physicians, their role in caring for Medicare beneficiaries is critical. This bill also neglects to provide States with any Medicaid fiscal relief, which is urgently needed to prevent hundreds of thousands of working Americans from losing their health insurance coverage. States are already cutting back on coverage--and as a result, pregnant women and children, senior citizens in nursing homes, working disabled, and women with breast or cervical cancer all across the country may soon find themselves without health insurance. Ultimately, I will support this bill, because doing something is better than doing nothing. Yet it seems callous for the House Republican Leadership to let Congress leave without addressing these critical issues. We should be preventing millions of Americans from losing their health insurance and protecting the Medicare program for America's seniors.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for yielding. I rise today to pay tribute to Terry Morris, who is retiring after 33 years of distinguished service to this House of Representatives. He has served as an assistant tally clerk and has fulfilled the duties of chief tally clerk for the past 16 years and more with great distinction. He is one of those who quietly and in an unassuming fashion makes this House of Representatives work. In a body which is characterized by high levels of partisanship and by strong feelings, I would note that he has not only served with distinction but with fairness, and he has served well. He is known for his professional and friendly personality and for the fact that he has carried out his responsibilities with dignity, with respect for the institution, and with good faith towards all of the Members of this body. He has been an officer of this House for 33 years. He has seen history made. He has worked on many difficult and complex issues with fairness and impartiality. His service has spanned the careers of five Democratic Speakers and two Republican Speakers of this House. I speak not only on my own behalf but on behalf of his many friends in this institution when I commend him for his work and for his effort. All of us here offer our best wishes and gratitude to him for his service and to his wife, Barbara. We wish them great happiness and the best of all things as they embark on a new chapter in their lives. All of us say to Terry Morris, not only thank you, but well done, Terry. We are grateful for what you have done for us.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3609. The Senate passed this bill yesterday by unanimous consent. The text is based upon bipartisan, bicameral agreements reached during the conference consideration of H.R. 4, the energy bill. I am truly pleased to be here to mark a very important event: for the first time in a decade, we are on the verge of enacting pipeline safety legislation that would actually enhance the safety of our Nation's pipelines. I want to commend Chairman Tauzin, Chairman Young, Ranking Member Oberstar, and our Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle for making this possible. There is a mounting body of evidence that our system of pipeline safety regulation is wholly inadequate. Unfortunately, until now, Congress has failed to move on any meaningful reforms. During the last Congress, the House considered legislation that was more about public relations than public safety. Because that legislation did little more than restate existing law and provide cover for maintaining the deadly status quo, Mr. Oberstar and I--along with many of our colleagues-- successfully opposed enactment of that legislation. The legislation we are considering today is largely based on the legislation that passed the House overwhelmingly in July, while incorporating many of the provisions of previously passed Senate legislation. It is the result of a good faith, sincere effort to do what is doable for the sake of safety, rather than hold out for everything that every stakeholder ever wanted. I know it is not a perfect product, but it is a distinct improvement over the Senate legislation and current law. Let me just detail a few of the improvements. H.R. 3609, as amended, requires that a pipeline facility be inspected within ten years or less and re-inspected at least once every seven years. Facilities may be inspected more frequently and the Secretary is required to determine under what circumstances more frequent inspections are required. I certainly hope Secretary Mineta requires more frequent inspections, but currently, there are no time limits or rules for inspection of gas pipelines in high consequence areas, so this is a major improvement over currently law. The bill before us also adopts the more stringent House inspection provisions, spelling out very specifically the minimum requirements of an operators integrity management plan. It requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish specific criteria for judging the adequacy of an operator's plan and establishes a specific process for the Secretary to review and assess the adequacy of an operator's inspection plans and amendments to the plan, requiring the Secretary to order revisions to inadequate plans. Also, while it allows some inspections to be conducted by direct assessment, the legislation requires the Secretary to define ``direct assessment'' by rules rather than leave the term undefined. Because the Department of Transportation (DOT) has a terrible history of compliance with Congressional directives, the language provides a ``fail-safe'' to ensure pipelines get inspected by placing the obligation to conduct inspections directly on the pipeline operator if the Secretary fails to undertake a rulemaking. The bill before us also includes the language on operator qualifications based upon the House-passed legislation. As with the inspection language, the House provision on operator qualifications is much more stringent and detailed. It requires the development of standards and criteria, the verification of operators' plans, and it contains a mechanism to ensure that operators develop and implement qualification plans even if the DOT never completes a rulemaking procedure. And, it begins to move toward licensing of pipeline operators by establishing a pilot program on licensing of pipeline computer control room operators. This bill authorizes far more money for pipeline safety than the original Senate language. It authorizes new technical assistance grants to communities and a new research program. Most importantly, this legislation contains the House language assuring that most of the money authorized by this legislation will be spent on the regulation of pipelines, not on less important matters. Other improvements to current law include new authority to issue Safety Orders, allowing the Secretary to take quick, meaningful action when there is a potentially unsafe condition; the establishment of a toll-free national three-digit ``call before you dig'' or ``one-call'' phone system; increased emphasis on environmental protection; and more enforcement tools to make it easier for both DOT and the Department of Justice to go after bad actors. This is a good piece of legislation and I again want to express my appreciation to those in the environmental community and organized labor who have worked with me over the years on these matters. They, along with the industry stakeholders who have chosen to play a constructive role net his process, deserve to be recognized for helping us make it possible to go forward with the support of every Member of our Committee and hopefully today with support of the entire House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of strengthening our Nation's security, but in intense opposition to this bill before us. It will create an unwieldy and possibly unworkable department of 170,000 federal workers, and spend 4.5 billion dollars doing so. Without a doubt, every Member of this body supports increasing America's security. However, I am troubled by the unseemly and unhelpful rush by the President and this body to hastily legislate on this matter in the closing days of this Congress. I would note that the bill we are debating is the result of a deal reached late yesterday. In fact, this bill was introduced early this morning. Why not let the public know what we are doing before we do it? I served in Congress when we created both the Department of Transportation in 1966 and the Department of Energy in 1977. Congress held extensive hearings. There was testimony from experts in the fields. There were lengthy discussions before we created these Departments. However, even with extensive deliberation in Congress, folding diverse government agencies into one organization resulted in bureaucratic chaos that lasted for many years. Likewise, the rush to create the Transportation Security Administration after September 11, 2001, has resulted in great confusion. TSA was created to take over security screening at our Nation's airports--a straightforward task that has not yet been accomplished. I think it would be in our Nation's best interest that the President ensures that the relatively small TSA is properly functioning before tackling a massive restructuring of the government. I am also very concerned that this new Department will develop and operate in a culture of secrecy without adequate and proper public accountability or Congressional oversight. The changes made to the Freedom of Information Act are overly broad and restrictive. By including Section 214 as part of the backroom agreement, this body is ignoring the bipartisan compromise that was reached in the Senate and included in both the Senate Government Affairs Committee bill and the substitute offered by Senators Graham and Miller in favor of the flawed House provision. Finally, I note that today we are talking about bureaucratic reorganization while the White House has opposed Democratic funding initiatives to enhance port security, equip local fire fighters and first responders with tools to effectively respond to another terrorist attack, and to improve security at nuclear weapons facilities. In addition, in key critical infrastructure areas where millions of Americans may be at risk, the Bush Administration has dropped the ball. For example, at present, there are no federal standards in place to require chemical plants to assess their vulnerabilities and take steps to reduce them. The Attorney General of the United States has failed to conduct or even initiate an evaluation of the state of chemical facility security (including the security of transportation regulated substances) as required by federal law (P.L. 106-40). Bureaucratic reorganization, even on a grand scale like this bill, is no substitute for real action with respect to chemical plant security and adequate funding for critical security needs. In sum, I have serious concerns about the management and effectiveness of this new Department. The lessons learned from past governmental reorganizations is that simply rearranging the bureaucratic boxes usually does not get the intended result--oftentimes it gets you more confusion, more expense, more people and less work. This reorganization may actually make the country more vulnerable during the lengthy transition period--not less--particularly if it becomes the substitute for needed action and funding.