John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 1533, the ``Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002,'' an important piece of legislation. It reauthorizes the National Health Service Corps, the Community Health Centers program, and will establish a limited Community Access Program. S. 1533 is vital to providing health care services to the uninsured and under-insured. Health centers are located in more than 3,400 communities in all 50 states and often are the only available source of care for uninsured and medically under served individuals. We passed H.R. 3450, a very similar bill, two weeks ago, and are back with S. 1533 which incorporates changes to H.R. 3450 needed to assure speedy enactment. The most significant change is an improved Community Access Program, which helps local communities coordinate the use of scarce healthcare dollars. Other changes increase access to community healthcare programs. And the bill now authorizes demonstration projects for chiropractors and pharmacists within the National Health Service Corps, as well as provides a ten percent set-aside for loans and scholarships for disadvantaged individuals. Health centers are effective and efficient providers of care to millions of our country's most vulnerable people. Ensuring access to primary and preventive care, regardless of insurance status or income, is an important component of our efforts here today. I urge adoption of this important legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4757. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time, and I commend her for her leadership and effort in this matter. It has been a privilege and a pleasure for me to work with her as a cosponsor of this legislation. I want to note that this legislation is supported in a bipartisan fashion. On both sides, Members support this. The leadership on both sides of the aisle supports this legislation. And the leadership on both ends of the Capitol supports this legislation. It is supported by the NRA and by gun control groups. I want to commend my good friend, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and also the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their leadership and their support of this legislation. I would note that the legislation is really very simple. It first of all protects the second amendment rights of the people of this country, and that was one of the criteria and tests that my good friends at the NRA, of which I am a very happy and proud member, provided our support for the undertaking. It is legislation, then, which protects the basic rights of the American people to own and use firearms for legitimate and responsible hunting, fishing, conservation and defense purposes. I would note that it is legislation which requires the Federal Government and provides incentives to the States to make the record- keeping system, upon which the instant check is entirely dependent, work and to see so that it does speedily. The practical result of this legislation will be two things: one, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals; and, two, to see to it that law-abiding citizens are better able to purchase firearms in a legitimate and proper fashion without delays occasioned by the failure of the States and the Federal Government to keep proper records. As mentioned by my distinguished friend, the chairman of the committee, there is a long and complete list of disabilities by Federal and State statutes which preclude ownership of persons of firearms. Those include mental disabilities, they include also criminal misbehavior, of family abuse and things of that kind, as well as being a fugitive from justice, a convicted felon or an illegal immigrant. Those are matters which our policy of the United States and the Congress says that people may not then own firearms. This is a way that we use to strain so that firearms may not get through the net into the hands of illegal owners and persons who are precluded by law from owning them. This will be a significant benefit to law enforcement. It also will be a protection to innocent citizens. It will, in like fashion, be a protection of the basic rights of the American people. More needs to be done, but it has to be done in a fashion which is consistent with protection of the basic second amendment rights of the American people. I am proud that the distinguished gentlewoman from New York and I were able to work together to achieve something which could achieve the kind of broad support that H.R. 4757 has. It provides other protections, also, and I would note that it precludes the possibility of taxes being imposed upon law-abiding gun owners for the purposes of owning firearms and achieving that ownership through the instant check. It is a good piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it. I note that it has no opposition of which I am aware, and it is legislation which will enable Americans to feel better about their safety and about, at the same time, the protection of their firearms ownership rights.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 15, the Michigan's Women's Foundation is honoring a phenomenal woman and I would like to take a moment to also pay tribute to her. Mildred Jeffrey is a dear friend and a wonderful example to us all. I thank her for all her hard work and her drive to make the world a better place over the years. Millie, now 90, was born before women could even vote. Throughout her life she has fought successfully for a number of causes which workers in our community, and around the world, have benefited from. Millie began her career with the UAW, another engine of social change. She became Walter P. Reuther's assistant and protege, eventually assuming the role of Director of the UAW's Women's Department. It was through the UAW that Millie traveled the globe organizing exchange programs among international labor women. It goes without saying that Millie's fight led her into the realm of politics. In 1960 she cochaired the Michigan Campaign Committee for John F. Kennedy, she is founder and President of the National Women's Political Caucus and has been involved in numerous local and state campaigns. President Kennedy appointed Millie to the Youth Employment Commission, and President Carter appointed her to the International Year of the Woman Commission. Just two years ago, Millie was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, by President Bill Clinton. Mr. Speaker, the things I have mentioned barely scrape the surface of Millie's extraordinary life. She is a role model for all Americans and I would ask my colleagues to take a moment to salute Mildred Jeffrey.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution now before the Congress. I supported the father of the current President on his resolution and was one of the few Democrats who did. I was right. There was a strong, present imperative by this country and by the nations of the world. It made sense, it was good, and it was something which was accepted and followed by the people of the world. There is no evidence that our allies in Europe support the efforts that are described by the President to be made by the United States. The people and the countries in the area do not support this undertaking; and, overwhelmingly, the American people oppose this kind of effort, an effort intelligently, wisely and necessary to be made to achieve the purposes of everybody, that is, elimination of weapons of mass destruction from within the country of Iraq. Mr. Saddam Hussein has no friends in the world. Everybody fears him and most despise him, but the President has chosen the wrong course. He has given us a request for a blank check. There has been inadequate or no discussion with our allies and friends. There has not been sufficient discussion with the Congress or the people of the United States, and the countries in the area are troubled because they feel that they do not understand what it is the United States intends to do, when, how or why. We are embarking upon a unique and new doctrine. We will engage in a unilateral preemptive strike, if the early pronouncements of the administration are to be believed, and our purpose there is the removal of Saddam Hussein, obviously a desirable change. But, more recently, the President has said our purpose now is to disarm Mr. Hussein and Iraq of their weapons of mass destruction. I am not clear what course it is that the President has in mind, but I am convinced that proceeding into this situation without allies, without bases, without proper and adequate logistic support is an act of great folly. It poses enormous risks to the troops that we would be sending, and it poses enormous risk to this country and to our foreign policy. Not only is it novel and dangerous to talk about preemptive strikes, but it is something which need not be done. A proper exercise of leadership in the U.N. will cause that institution to follow the United States; and I would urge us, as the remaining superpower, to exercise leadership and have enough confidence in ourselves and our capacity to lead to proceed to embark upon that course. I do not see this resolution before us as being a device which stimulates or encourages that. Perhaps the President would exercise that kind of leadership. I see no evidence that such, however, is to be the case. I was here during the time of the missile crisis, and I remember that the President at that time observed that the worst course to be taken was a preemptive war. Our policy succeeded. We forced the missiles out. And when the matter was discussed in the United Nations, our ambassador there, Mr. Stevenson, showed them a photograph of what was transpiring and that the Soviets had moved missiles into Cuba. The world accepted, approved and followed the United States. We have not seen that the people of the world are convinced that we have made the case that Mr. Saddam Hussein would embark immediately or at a time of risk to the United States on the use of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps he would, and I do not trust him, but I would note to my colleagues that there is a sensible way of achieving the following and the support of the people of the world. George Herbert Walker Bush chose it, and I supported him. He went around the world and he assembled not just the countries in the area, not just our allies, but the whole world. And but for the fact that we pulled out too soon, the matter would have been disposed of completely and satisfactorily then. We have not taken the steps that are necessary to assure either that the nations of the world, our friends and allies in Europe or the nations in the area would support this undertaking. I am not a dove, and I am not a hawk. I am a very sensible Polish American, and it is my view that the game here is to win, and we best win by using the resources of the United Nations and the following of the whole world as we assemble a coalition to disarm or dispose of Saddam Hussein. To take some other course is to accept foolish risks, including the risk of failure. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution now before the Congress. I supported the father of the current president on his resolution and was one of the few Democrats who did. I was right. There was a strong, present imperative by this country and by the nations of the world. It made sense, it was good, and it was something which was accepted and followed by the people of the world. There is no evidence that our allies in Europe support the efforts that are described by the President to be made by the United States. The people and the countries in the area do not support this undertaking; and, overwhelmingly, the American people oppose this kind of effort, because it is not made intelligently, wisely and in ways necessary to achieve its purpose. The basic purpose is the elimination of weapons of mass destruction from within the country of Iraq. Mr. Saddam Hussein has no friends in the world. People fear him and most despise him. But the President has chosen the wrong course. He has given us a request for a blank check. There has been inadequate or no discussion with our allies and fiends. There has not been sufficient discussion with the Congress or the people of the Untied States, and the countries in the area are troubled because they feel that they do not understand what it is the United States intends to do, when, how or why. We are embarking on a unique and new doctrine. We propose to engage in a unilateral preemptive strike, if the early pronouncements of the administration are to be believed. Our purpose there is the removal of Saddam Hussein, obviously a desirable change, but again done unilaterally--a great strategic and tactical error. More recently, the President has said that our purpose now is to disarm Mr. Hussein and Iraq of their weapons of mass destruction. I am not clear what course it is that the President has in mind, but I am convinced that proceeding into this situation without allies, without bases, without proper and adequate logistical support is risky, indeed, it is an act of great folly. It poses enormous risks to the troops that we would be sending, and it poses enormous risk to this country, to the success of the undertaking, and to our foreign policy. Not only is it novel and dangerous to talk about preemptive strikes, but it is something which need not be done. A proper exercise of leadership in the U.N. will cause that institution and its members to follow the United States. I would urge us, as the remaining superpower, to exercise leadership and have enough confidence in ourselves, and in our capacity to lead, to embark upon that wiser and more propitious course. I do not see this resolution before us as being a device which stimulates or encourages other nations to follow the United States. Perhaps the President would exercise that kind of leadership. He certainly should. I would support him in that. I see no evidence that such, however, is to be the case. I was here during the time of the missile crisis, and I remember that President Kennedy at that time observed that the worst course to be taken was a preemptive war. His policies succeeded. We forced the missiles out, peace was maintained, and when the matter was discussed in the United Nations, our ambassador there, Mr. Stevenson, showed them a photograph of what was transpiring and that the Soviets had moved missiles into Cuba. The world accepted, approved and followed the United States. We have not seen that the people of the world are convinced that we have made the case that Mr. Saddam Hussein would embark immediately or at some early time to use weapons of mass destruction. I do not trust him, and he might, but losing to him in this matter would make such use of weapons of mass destruction more certain. I would note to my colleagues that there is a sensible way of achieving the following of the world and the support of the nations of the world. President George Herbert Walker Bush chose it, and I supported him. That President went around the world and assembled not just the countries in the Middle East, not just our allies, but the whole world. And but for the fact that we pulled out too soon, the matter would have been disposed of completely and satisfactorily then. We have not taken the steps that are necessary to assure either that the nations of the world, our friends and allies in Europe, or the friendly nations in the Middle East will support this undertaking. I am not a dove, and I am not a hawk. I am very sensible Polish American, and it is my view that the game here is to win. And we best win by using the resources of the United Nations and the following of the whole world as we assemble a coalition to disarm or dispose of Saddam Hussein. To take some other course is to accept foolish risks, including the risk of failure. Let us do it right. If we do, we will win. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I insert into the Record, a letter I sent the President outlining my views and questions to be addressed before we embark on this risky endeavor. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, September 5, 2002. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: In recent weeks there has been much debate, public and private, over the possibility of a United States military campaign against Iraq. I agree with the notion that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who continues to pose a serious threat to the stability of the Middle East. However, as one who voted in favor of authorizing the use of force prior to the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and supported George H. W. Bush through the duration of that conflict, I write to express my deep reservations over launching an attack against Iraq. Without a clear purpose or strategy, I question whether you have established that waging a war at this time would be advantageous to the United States. Mr. President, most of the world agrees that Saddam Hussein is a menace to the region, the international community, and the Iraqi people. Iraq refuses to comply with its obligations regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMD), nor does it observe U.N.-imposed no-flight zones. Saddam Hussein's Iraq has rejected its neighbors calls for reconciliation, repeatedly threatened to attack Kuwait, failed to account for 600 missing Kuwaiti citizens and as recently as last year conducted raids into Saudi Arabian territory. Saddam Hussein's repressive policies have resulted in the deaths of countless Iraqi citizens. While defying the international community, Saddam Hussein has manipulated public opinion by blaming the United States and the United Nations for the intense hardships faced by the people of Iraq. The UN has repeatedly found that the Iraqi government supports massive and systematic human rights abuses, and has demonstrated in act and deed that it would rather manipulate the suffering of innocent civilians for propaganda effect result than take full advantage of humanitarian relief efforts, such as the oil-for-food program. That being said, there is great concern in the United States and around the globe over the possibility of the U.S. launching a unilateral, sustained military operation against Iraq. To date, the United States has not clearly stated its rationale for attacking Iraq, nor have we answered questions pertaining to the possible consequences of opting for military confrontation. This has triggered intense criticism of U.S. policy vis-a-vis Iraq at home and abroad. Without outlining the objectives and rationale for an attack or obtaining the necessary domestic and international support, a U.S. military campaign would be unwise. Accordingly, I firmly believe the Administration must meet the following conditions pertaining to Iraq in order to justify and guarantee the success of a military campaign: (1) The Bush Administration must consult and obtain approval from Congress before launching a sustained attack of Iraq. Congress must be provided with any and all facts justifying the need for military action, and must be offered a clear explanation as to the goals of a military campaign, including an exit strategy. The Administration must also explain to Congress why military action against the Iraqi regime is vital to the security of the United States, and why it is necessary now. The Administration must make a clear and convincing case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction--biological, chemical, or nuclear--and the means to deliver such agents. The Administration must explain why it believes Iraq will employ these kinds of weapons in imminent attacks on other nations. (2) Any sustained military campaign must have the support of the international community. We must first be certain that our nation's traditional allies in Europe and elsewhere support a military operation against Iraq. The Administration must secure the support of our regional allies, and gain access to military bases in those nations bordering Iraq which are vital to the success of a military operation. The United States must have the support of, and/or be able to coordinate with, the armed forces of our regional and other allies necessary to guarantee success militarily and diplomatically. The matter of Iraq must be fully debated by the United Nations. An attack on Iraq must have the support of the U.N., and must be carried out under U.N. auspices. (3) The Administration must formulate and explain its strategy for port-way Iraq. The U.S. must answer questions as to how it will assist in reconstituting a united Iraq, maintain Iraqi territorial integrity, and build a peaceful government and stable society that does not pose a threat to the U.S., our allies, or the region. (4) Congress and the American people must be informed of the anticipated cost of opting for military action, both in lives and dollars. The Administration must fully explain the cost of waging a war in Iraq, economically, militarily, and diplomatically. It must demonstrate that the considerable cost of a military endeavor justify an attack on Iraq. Again, I would caution against unilaterally unleashing U.S. military might on Iraq until a compelling case is made to the American people, Congress, and the international community. Needless to say, we must also have clear objectives in the short and long term, less we risk suffering unintended consequences. Sincerely yours, John D. Dingell, Member of Congress.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3580, the ``Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002.'' This bill, for the first time, creates a user fee program for the pre-market review of medical devices. This is an important step toward providing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with adequate resources to do the job of ensuring that the vast and often complex array of medical device applications the Agency receives each year are reviewed in a timely and competent manner. Important safeguards in this legislation ensure that timeliness of product application review does not come at the cost of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's gold standard for ensuring that those devices are safe and effective for their intended use. It also provides a down payment on an increased level of post-market surveillance and provides a process to increase this critical compliance activity when we next authorize user fees. This Act also addresses standards for reuse of devices that have been approved for a single use. This practice, while widespread, was largely unregulated until recently. Unfortunately, the FDA's attempt to correct the matter was, to put it charitably, controversial and, from the perspective of protecting the consuming public, lacking. The bill before us strikes a balance among competing interests, while strengthening FDA's role with respect to assuring the safety of these products. This bill also establishes a program that for the first time will allow third parties to inspect medical device facilities. The guiding principle for me in going down this road is that the program must supplement--and not supplant--FDA's legal authority, responsibility, and resources for conducting inspections and otherwise ensuring the safety of device facilities. I remain concerned about the proper implementation of this third-party inspection program and will closely watch its development. Finally, the bill contains a number of regulatory reforms. These include electronic labeling, establishment of an office of combination products, provision for modular review of product applications, and important incentives for the industry to study the application of their devices to children. The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act deserves our support. It is a bipartisan product in the best tradition of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Members on both sides of the aisle have worked hard on this bill. In addition to my colleagues Representatives Brown and Waxman, particular credit should go to Representatives Capps, Eshoo, Luther, and Towns who have long sought these reforms. And, of course, Chairman Tauzin and Chairman Bilirakis are to be commended for their efforts and their commitment to a bipartisan product. This bill is good for both consumers and industry, and I urge its support.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Elizabeth Upham-McWebb, known to the world as ``Aunt Bett'' on the dedication of her statue of Little Brown Bear, and to commemorate her on ninety-eight prosperous years. Born and raised in Monroe County, which is part of Michigan's 16th Congressional District, Aunt Bett grew up telling stories and writing with her parents and eight siblings. Aunt Bett has always loved working with children. After attending school, she became an elementary school teacher; she still enjoys teaching Sunday school to Monroe County youth. Aunt Bett's most famous accomplishments include authoring numerous verses and stories for children. The most well-known of these are Little Brown Bear and Little Brown Monkey. These remarkable stories have become favorites among children everywhere. In May 1978, Aunt Bett was awarded a special state tribute. She also received numerous awards for her writing. Her rhymes and stories have been widely published in magazines, books and textbook readers. Aunt Bett has benefited the community of Monroe County in countless ways. For decades she has been entertaining and assisting the reading world with her writing and teaching. In addition, she and her husband donated their playhouse to the Monroe County fair where it continues to serve as an exciting attraction to county children and adults. Aunt Bett has illustrated several safety posters that inform children of important safety rules. The Elizabeth Upham-McWebb ``Little Brown Bear'' Fund is endowed by the Trustees for the Community Foundation of Monroe County and with a major grant from the C.S. and Marion F. McIntyre Foundation to support programs which encourage children to read books. Little Brown Bear has become a celebrity in the Monroe County Community. Monroe County libraries have organized a sign-up for residents who want to take Little Brown Bear along on their travels. This program has been very successful; in fact Little Brown Bear has traveled to countries such as England, Germany, Finland, Korea, Sweden, Thailand and Australia with Monroe County residents. In Germany he received an honorary pilot's license and German visa. Little Brown Bear has compiled an interesting collection of worldwide library cards for the Monroe libraries. A pride and joy of Monroe County, Aunt Bett is admired and loved by all. Today Monroe is honoring Aunt Bett with this 900-pound bronze statue of Little Brown Bear, to be placed outside the Dorsch Memorial Library. The statue is a tribute to Aunt Bett and will remind residents of her legacy for decades to come. A community based event, more than fifty percent of the work on the statue was donated. Built to last centuries, the statue will undoubtedly remain an honorable Monroe County fixture. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to join me in commending Elizabeth Upham-McWebb for her leadership in both her community and her country, as we dedicate this statue and celebrate her 98th birthday.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my distinguished colleagues Representative Chris John and Representative Tauzin for introducing H.R. 4793, 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. Less than one month ago, on September 5th, the Committee on Energy and Commerce unanimously reported this bill out of committee. Since then, we have seen the number of confirmed human cases of West Nile virus in the United States jump dramatically from 638 to 2,206 today. In just these few weeks, we have seen the number of West Nile deaths climb from 31 to 108. Since our committee markup, 275 more people in my home State of Michigan have contracted this deadly virus and 13 more people in Michigan have died. H.R. 4793 authorizes the secretary, acting with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to make grants available, on a matching-funds basis, to political subdivisions of States for the operation of mosquito control programs to prevent and control mosquito-borne diseases. Among other necessary expenses, these grants will help pay for the costs of purchasing or updating equipment and laboratory facilities to cope with this fairly recent, evolving, and unpredictable epidemic. In addition, the ``Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act'' would require that the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) conduct or support research to identify and develop methods of controlling the population of insects that transmit to humans diseases that have significant adverse health consequences. In order to fight the West Nile virus, and to prevent future illness and death, we must equip States with the necessary tools to fight this deadly disease and we must aid our medical community in gathering and analyzing information. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 4793, the ``Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act.'' This bill is an important, and potentially life-saving, piece of legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3450, the ``Health Care Safety Net Improvement Act,'' an important piece of legislation. Its progress has been delayed for nearly a year by a Republican leadership that was willing to jeopardize a bill of vital importance to millions of Americans by attempting to attach an extremely controversial, yet completely non-related, amendment to this bill. Thankfully we now have an opportunity, though long overdue, to pass this legislation. H.R. 3450 will reauthorize the National Health Service Corps (NHSC), the Community Health Centers program, and will establish a Community Access demonstration program (CAP). H.R. 3450 is vital to providing health care services to the uninsured and under-insured. Health centers are located in more than 3,400 communities in all 50 states and often are the only available source of care for uninsured and medically under served individuals. Health centers provide primary health care services to more than 12 million people per year--nearly five million of whom have no health insurance coverage. Currently, there are over 41 million uninsured Americans and untold numbers of under-insured. Due to the slowing economy, this number is increasing rapidly. As a result, demand for health care services has increased drastically, forcing risky delays for important primary and preventive health care services. Health centers are effective and efficient providers of care to millions of our country's most vulnerable people. Ensuring access to primary and preventive care, regardless of insurance status or income, is an important component of H.R. 3450. While health centers provide quality care to the uninsured for nearly one dollar per patient per day, they cannot continue to expand care to the growing number of uninsured who seek their care without a significant increase in their appropriations. This legislation is valuable because it authorizes such appropriations as may be necessary for community health centers for FY 2003 through FY 2006 so that these centers may continue to serve the public and the communities that depend on them for reliable, quality health care services. We should be passing legislation that would double these programs now, but this bill authorizes needed funding to community health centers and we should therefore support its passage. This bill, however, has two noteworthy shortcomings. The Administration has chosen to minimize the CAP program that permits local communities to coordinate the use of scarce healthcare dollars, event though where implemented that program that has been praised by local officials. Secondly, all authorizations for construction of the physical facilities have been struck from the bill, because the Republican leadership has refused to allow vote on a bill that provides the basic labor protections found in the Davis-Bacon Act for all direct Federal construction projects. Such protections would pass if a vote were allowed, and needed construction could begin. Though this bill is far from perfect, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3450, the ``Health Care Safety Net Improvement Act.'' This is an important piece of legislation and its passage is long overdue.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 291, raising public awareness on the disease endometriosis. Endometriosis is a painful, chronic gynecologic disease affecting 10 to 20 percent of American women of childbearing age and causing infertility in an estimated 30 to 40 percent of those afflicted. Studies have shown that the average delay in actual diagnosis of endometriosis is in excess of nine years. It is time we work together to find a cure for this life-altering, devastating disease. H. Con. Res. 291 support efforts to raise public awareness of endometriosis throughout the medical and lay communities. It also recognizes the need for better support of patients with endometriosis, the need for physicians to better understand the disease, the need for more effective treatments, and ultimately, the need for a cure. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 291.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4013, the ``Rare Diseases Act of 2002,'' of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working together to introduce this important legislation and for working on behalf of the 25 million American people who suffer from rare diseases. Rare, or orphan diseases affect fewer than 200,000 individuals in America. Nearly one million people in my home state of Michigan are afflicted with a rare disease. There are more than 6,000 rare diseases. Enactment of the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 provided incentives for drug and biological manufacturers to invest in treatment for rare diseases. While the Orphan Drug Act has achieved dramatic increases in research into, and treatments for rare diseases, more still needs to be done. One positive step includes authorizing, in statute, the Office of Rare Diseases. In addition, H.R. 4013 authorizes regional centers of excellence for rare disease research. This will enable the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to select sites to concentrate on finding cures and treatment methods for rare diseases. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 4013.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill before us today, H.R. 4014, the ``Rare Diseases Orphan Product Development Act of 2002.'' I would like to thank my colleagues, particularly Representatives Waxman, Brown, and Rush, for their work on this legislation. Approximately 25 million Americans suffer from more than 6,000 rare diseases. These diseases include Huntington's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, cystic fibrosis, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Because of the relatively small patient populations associated with rare diseases, pharmaceutical firms are concerned about receiving an adequate return on their investment in developing medications to treat them. In response to this problem, Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act, which allows for market exclusivity for products developed for rare diseases. Additionally, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been able to support small clinical trials through Orphan Products Research Grants. These grants have been effective, leading to the development of more than 23 drugs and four medical devices for rare diseases. The purpose of this legislation is to increase the national investment in the development of diagnostics and treatments for patients suffering from rare diseases. H.R. 4014 continues the Orphan Products Research Grant program for clinical research needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of therapies to treat rare diseases. Specifically, this legislation authorizes such sums as already have been appropriated for fiscal year 2002, and $25 million for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2006. This is good legislation and I urge all of my colleagues to join me and support H.R. 4014.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker--I rise in sorrow to express my sadness at the loss of the Hon. Patsy Mink, a distinguished colleague and great public servant. She was a great lady, a superb legislator, an idealist who loved her country and her fellow Americans. She believed in the Congress and our system of Government, and she worked hard within the institution for its protection and for the betterment of our people. She knew she was here to serve, and to serve those who have the least and need the most. She knew our system is good, but that it could be made better, and she worked to make it so, and to make it better serve those who most need the help of our country to realize their full potential as valuable, productive and happy citizens. Patsy worked for the young, for the health, education, for their nutrition and training. Patsy used her place in Congress to better the lives of the young with legislation which helped them to achieve their real value in our society. Every program to help people with greatest need enacted by this Congress during her career bears the mark of her character, her leadership, and her goodness. Her labors for the poor, downtrodden, the sick are her shining monument. Her compassion, her energy, her dedication and decency are her hallmark, and made her a leader for those who needed her most. She is properly loved, will be long remembered for her goodness and work. She will be missed, and never will be replaced. We love her, we honor her memory and her labors and accomplishments. We pray for her soul, we know God will receive her lovingly. We know He greeted her warmly, with the statement, ``Well done, good and faithful servant. Welcome home. You have earned your place here in Heaven.''

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues here today, I am concerned about the rising cost of malpractice insurance. It is a very real problem for doctors and patients and something we should address. But, I have serious reservations about this bill, H.R. 4600. And the closed rule under which it is being considered is an outrage-- confirming that this bill is a political ploy that will not help doctors and patients. High insurance rates have left doctors with few options. Those who can afford it will pay the increased costs, but those who cannot will either be forced to assume significant personal liability, leave high risk specialities, or leave the profession altogether. But, this legislation doesn't guarantee any reduction or abatement in increases that doctors are facing for their malpractice premiums. Instead, it focuses on drastic reforms of the judicial system that extend beyond malpractice, hurt injured consumers' access to redress, and provide a windfall to insurance companies. What has caused the increase in malpractice premiums is not easily identified. Many factors completely unrelated to jury verdicts and the civil justice system affect insurance rates: pricing of malpractice insurance; practices of accounting for income and expenses while planning for downturns; investment choices. Yet, this legislation addresses none of these issues. In fact, neither of the two Committees of jurisdiction ever explored these issues and their relation to malpractice premiums. Instead, we are voting today on a bill that won't do anything to lower doctors' premiums but will disproportionately hurt women, low-income families, and seniors. The legislation severely restricts non-economic damage awards. Yet, evidence shows no relation between caps and lower malpractice premiums. Four out of the top five most expensive states for medical malpractice premiums cap damages in medical malpractice cases. Michigan doctors pay far above the national average for medical malpractice insurance, in spite of Michigan's $280,000 cap on non-economic damages. Such limits sever only to enrich insurance companies at the expense of the most vulnerable, women, children, the elderly and low income families. The legislation also sets a nearly impossible standard for awarding punitive damages and then limits such damages based on the level of economic loss, again unfairly penalizing those with lower earnings. An egregious act that severely injures or disfigures Ken Lay, former CEO of Enron, could be punished more severely than if that same act had hurt a child, a stay-at-home mother, or an elderly woman in a nursing home. The legislation also goes well beyond the realm of medical malpractice and provides immunity from punitive damages to manufacturers of drugs and devices that are approved or cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as those that are not FDA approved but are ``generally recognized as safe and effective.'' This is like arguing that because someone drives at the speed limit, they can not be negligent or reckless. It is clearly possible to obey the speed limit, yet still act in a negligent or reckless manner. The bill that was brought to the floor purports to address this criticism, but the change is mostly cosmetic. The FDA statue and regulations, like FDA approval, should not be a shield for liability from injury caused by egregious acts. The legislation also sets a stringent federal statute of limitations on state tort cases. In no event shall the time for commencement of a lawsuit exceed three years. Here again, last minute changes were made to the bill that are cosmetic rather than meaningful. The time should toll from discovery, not manifestation. Such a definition only invites more, not less, litigation. This issue is a well settled one with plenty of examples in case law and statute, and would be quite easy to fix correctly. The majority chose otherwise, leaving many injured patients whose claims would fall subject to this bill shut off from recourse. One more item I should mention is the sense of the Congress on holding insurance companies liable for damages when their medical decisions cause harm. This provision is all bark and no bite. Democrats and a handful of moderate Republicans have tried for more than five years to enact a Patients' Bill of Rights that would allow injured patients to hold HMOs accountable under state law. Time and time again, however, such legislation has been blocked by Republicans who ultimately wish to shield insurance companies from liability. This last minutes cosmetic change cannot hide that fact. In sum, instead of help for doctors with their malpractice premiums and fair compensation for injured patients, this bill puts more money in the pockets of insurance companies, and combines broad liability protections for industry with restrictions on patients who are harmed. The rising cost of malpractice insurance is a real problem requiring careful, balanced, and targeted legislation. Sadly, efforts to address this problem have become the vehicle for all manner of anti-patient provisions. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4600.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this bill. The General Accounting Office released a report in 1990 that exposed the historical pattern of neglect of women in health research. As a result of this report, there was a significant increase in government initiatives in women's health research and the creation of women's health offices, advisors, and coordinators in many governmental institutions. But that was just a beginning. We must now work to ensure that these highly beneficial institutions remain funded and operational into the future. Currently, there are only two agencies which have federally authorized women's health offices: the Office of Research on Women's Health in the National Institutes of Health, and the Office for Women's Services in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Since these two agencies are the only women's health offices established under statute, these are the only two women's health offices that are federally authorized and protected by law. The women's health offices, advisors, and coordinators of other government agencies face the possibility that future administrations will not continue to support them, or that future funding will be insufficient to meet their needs. H.R. 1784 would provide permanent authorization for women's health offices in the Department of Health and Human Services, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, the Health Resource and Service Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration. It will ensure that these women's health offices will continue under statute and carry on the important work to improve the health of women through ongoing evaluation in the areas of education, prevention, treatment, research, and delivery of services. I want to note the outstanding leadership on this legislation of my friend and colleague, Representative Carolyn Maloney. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important and beneficial piece of legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to La-Z-Boy, Incorporated, which was founded and remains headquartered in my Congressional District in Monroe, Michigan. La-Z-Boy is celebrating 75 years of bringing comfort, quality and style into homes and offices worldwide through its extensive selection of furniture. The La-Z-Boy story is the story of the American dream. On March 24, 1927, in Monroe, Michigan, two young entrepreneurs and cousins, Edward M. Knabusch and Edwin J. Shoemaker, left the security of their jobs to take a leap of faith and begin manufacturing a unique and innovative product. A porch chair wrapped in fabric was the prototype for the La- Z-Boy recliner, a moniker that has become a worldwide household term. Using money from Edwin's mortgaged family farm and donations from relatives, the cousins built their first factory by hand, brick by brick. After introducing the revolutionary chair that both rocked and reclined, La-Z-Boy sales skyrocketed. La-Z-Boy evolved from a small business to having a place on the New York Stock Exchange. La-Z-Boy has grown immensely in its 75 years of operation. The company has added many new products and features over the years, which have enabled it to remain competitive in the furniture industry since its founding. La-Z-Boy has grown from ``two guys in a garage'' to nearly 19,000 employees worldwide. Today, La-Z-Boy generates annual sales in excess of $2 billion, making it the largest manufacturer of upholstered furniture and the world's leading producer of reclining chairs. La-Z-Boy is a great success and consistently shares its good fortune with the community of Monroe. Its philanthropy is rooted in small town values that prevailed when Mr. Knabusch and Mr. Shoemaker first launched the company. During World War II, La-Z-News kept the community informed about overseas news, and the company rented out garages to build the most comfortable tank seats and crash pads in the country. La-Z-Boy continues being very much involved in the city of Monroe and is a major asset to Michigan's 16th Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to join me in commending the La-Z-Boy corporation and its employees for their leadership in both their industry and in their community, as we celebrate their 75th anniversary.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today my colleagues and I are introducing a bill that will make significant and long-overdue improvements in the programs that provide assistance to low-income Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare provides coverage to all 40 million elderly and disabled beneficiaries, regardless of income, but the cost of uncovered services, premiums, and cost-sharing is a serious burden on those with the lowest incomes. More than 40 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have incomes below 200 percent of poverty (a little more than $17,000 a year). These low- income beneficiaries are nearly twice as likely as higher-income beneficiaries to report their health status as fair or poor, but are less likely to have private supplemental insurance to cover the cost of uncovered services or Medicare cost-sharing. Poor beneficiaries also bear a disproportionate burden in out-of-pocket health care costs, spending more than a third of their incomes on health care compared to only 10 percent for higher-income beneficiaries. Medicaid, through what is known as the ``Medicare Savings Programs,'' fills in Medicare's gaps for low-income beneficiaries, providing supplemental coverage to 17 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of beneficiaries, however, who are eligible for assistance under the Medicare Savings Programs are not enrolled. For example, only half of the beneficiaries below poverty who are eligible for assistance are actually enrolled. Lack of outreach, complex and burdensome enrollment procedures, and restrictive asset requirements keep millions of seniors from receiving the assistance they desperately need. The Medicare Beneficiary Improvement Act of 2002 takes a number of steps to address these problems. First, the legislation improves eligibility requirements for these programs. It raises the income level for eligibility for Medicare Part B premium assistance from 120 percent to 135 percent of poverty. This expansion was originally enacted in 1997 but it expires this year; it is simple common sense to make this provision permanent. The bill also ensures that all seniors who meet supplemental security income (SSI) criteria are automatically eligible for assistance. Currently, automatic eligibility is only required in certain states, meaning that beneficiaries in other states may miss out on critical assistance unless they know enough to apply. The bill also eliminates the restrictive asset test that requires seniors to become completely destitute in order to qualify for assistance. Most low- income Medicare beneficiaries have limited assets to begin with--85 percent of beneficiaries with incomes below the poverty level have fewer than $12,000 in assets--but the asset restrictions are so severe, a beneficiary could not keep a fund of more than $1,500 for burial expenses without being disqualified from assistance. Second, the legislation eliminates barriers to enrollment. The legislation allows Medicare beneficiaries to apply for assistance at local social security offices, encourages states to station eligibility workers at these offices (as well as at other sites frequented by senior citizens and individuals with disabilities), and ensures that beneficiaries can apply for the program using a simplified application form. In addition, this bill will ensure that once an individual is found eligible for assistance, the individual remains continuously eligible and does not need to re-apply annually. Third, the legislation improves assistance with beneficiary out-of- pocket costs. It provides three months of retroactive eligibility for ``qualified Medicare beneficiaries'' (QMBs). All other groups of beneficiaries have this protection currently. In addition, it prohibits estate recovery for QMBs for the cost of their cost-sharing or benefits provided through this program. The fear that Medicaid will recoup such costs from a surviving spouse is often a deterrent for many seniors to apply for such assistance. Finally, the legislation funds a demonstration project to improve information and coordination between federal, state, and local entities to increase enrollment of eligible Medicare beneficiaries. This demonstration would help agencies identify individuals who are potentially eligible for assistance by coordinating various data and sharing it with states for the purposes of locating and enrolling these individuals. In addition, the legislation provides grant money for additional innovative outreach and enrollment projects for the Medicare Savings Programs. All told, this legislation should go a long way in making sure that the Medicare Savings Programs are working as they should to provide assistance with health care cost-sharing and premiums for vulnerable low-income seniors. As Congress addresses Medicare issues this year, we must ensure that in addition to addressing provider payments, we also address these important beneficiary protection issues as well. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Conference Report on the Bankruptcy Reform bill (H.R. 333). The goal of the legislation, to ensure that debt that can be repaid is indeed repaid, is meritorious. However, the devil is in the details and many of these details are particularly devilish. This legislation will neither prevent more bankruptcies from occurring nor protect consumers. But it will sanction the continued predatory and abusive lending practices of the credit card industry, which has pressed hard for this legislation. It is important to note that there is no consumer bankruptcy crisis in America. Despite the rascality perpetrated by the credit card industry, including the solicitation of minors, seniors and pets, personal bankruptcies are not increasing. In fact, even as the average household debt burden has continued to climb over the past few years, bankruptcies have dropped by around fifteen percent. The only bankruptcy crisis we have in America is from companies like Enron and WorldCom. These corporations engaged in fraudulent accounting practices and then filed for bankruptcy to protect themselves from their creditors. These companies destroyed the lives and life savings of not only their employees, but investors everywhere. This conference report would not do anything to protect investors and employees from corporate wrongdoing such as this. It is important to note, however, that this legislation will protect the large banks and other financial institutions that engage in predatory lending practices. This is wrong. Studies show that irresponsible and overly aggressive lending practices were behind the high level of bankruptcies in the mid 1990's. However, the industry has not learned its lesson. Even as the industry continues to experience high profits, it refuses to take responsibility for its poor lending practices and increases its marketing and credit extensions. Two years ago, the credit card industry increased its mail solicitations by about fourteen percent. Additionally, total credit extended, which includes unused credit lines and debt incurred by consumers, has approached three trillion dollars for the first time ever. This outrageous behavior should not be rewarded. Unfortunately, the credit card industry has succeeded in winning enough support for a bill that encourages predatory lending at the expense of our most at risk citizens. Although a few helpful provisions were added to the bill, such as language to ensure that persons who use violence against clinics cannot shield their assets by filing for bankruptcy, on the whole, the bill hurts the poor and middle class. Americans deserve better, especially at a time when the economy has slowed and people's jobs are in jeopardy. As such, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this wrongheaded piece of legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Mr. Sessions, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Burr to introduce this important legislation, the Medicare Outpatient Department Fair Payment Act of 2002. This legislation was introduced in the Senate earlier this year by Senators Bingaman and Snowe. Medicare provides health insurance coverage to more than 40 million seniors and individuals with disabilities; it has provided high-quality care to these individuals for more than 35 years. But, in order to ensure that beneficiaries continue to have access to high quality health care, we must ensure that providers are being adequately reimbursed. We have only to look to the Medicaid program, which has a long standing history of inadequate payment rates, to see how dramatically payment rates can affect beneficiaries access to care. You can't expect to get the quality of a Cadillac if you only have enough money to cover the cost of a Yugo. This legislation that we are introducing today will make sure that hospital outpatient departments are being adequately reimbursed under Medicare. First, it will ensure adequate payments for clinic and emergency room visits. Rural and inner city hospitals provide a high volume of these services and are especially vulnerable to low payments. This bill will address that problem. Second, the bill will extend the payment protections for certain hospitals, such as cancer hospitals and extends these protections to eye and ear hospitals as well to ensure adequate rates for these special facilities. Third, the bill would restore the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to outlier payments for outpatient departments and would ensure the outlier pool is adequate to provide insurance against losses in high-cost cases. Fourth, the bill gives the Secretary additional authority and direction with respect to increasing certain relative payment rates and preventing reductions from pass-through payments and budget neutrality adjustments. These four points are only some of the key provisions in the bill, All told, this legislation will increase funding for hospital outpatient departments by $380 to $480 million over the next five years. This funding will certainly be beneficial to Medicare beneficiaries and others who receive care in these facilities. Hospitals and their related facilities are important to our Michigan communities. They not only provide excellent health care, but serve as an important part of the local economy by providing quality jobs. Payments to many facilities have suffered in recent years as due to state and federal budget cuts. The direct result has been hospital closures and staff layoffs. The legislation we are introducing today will have a double benefit for Michigan--access to quality health care and access to quality jobs. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to pass this legislation and to improve reimbursement rates for hospital outpatient departments under Medicare.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3609. I am pleased to be here to mark an important event. We are on the verge of moving forward with pipeline safety legislation that will enhance the real safety of our Nation's pipelines. I want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), our chairman, and also the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for making this possible. Mr. Speaker, there is a mounting body of evidence that our system of pipeline safety regulation is wholly inadequate. As of now, the Congress has failed to move on meaningful reforms. We do so in this legislation. I want to, again, commend my colleagues for the work, efforts and leadership which they have given, and also, again, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for having worked with us to develop this legislation. The legislation we are considering today is comprised of the unanimously approved Committee on Energy and Commerce bill plus important and valuable additions drawn from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure product. As a result of good faith working together, we have presented the House with a bill which deserves the support of all of my colleagues and which will contribute significantly to the protection of the environment and the protection of the American public. I want to commend our good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his efforts on the technical assistance grants and hazardous pipeline enforcement provisions. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) again deserve significant recognition for their fine efforts on the research provisions which largely reflect the legislation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) that was reported overwhelmingly by the Committee on Science. I also want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his work and cooperation on the provisions relating to the National Transportation Safety Board and the security of liquefied natural gas and other pipeline facilities. Finally, I express my appreciation to those in the environmental community and in organized labor who have worked with me for so many years on these matters. They, along with industry stakeholders who have chosen to play a constructive role in this process, deserve great credit. They all deserve to be thanked. Mr. Speaker, I urge the swift and speedy adoption of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3609. 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 moving forward on pipeline safety legislation that would actually enhance the safety of our Nation's pipelines. I want to commend Chairman Tauzin, along with Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar 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. Things, however, were very different this year in our Committee, and Chairmen Tauzin and Barton deserve the thanks of this body for working as partners with us to develop legislation that moves the ball forward on protecting the public and the environment from the dangers of unsafe pipelines. The Energy and Commerce Committee bill was supported by all stakeholders--including the gas pipeline industry, the oil pipeline industry, labor, and the environmental community. The legislation we are considering today is comprised of the unanimously approved--Energy and Commerce bill plus some very important and useful additions drawn from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee product. 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 I believe that the effort has been successful. I commend Members who have worked with us to address specific matters in the bill. These include Chairman Barton and Representative John--as well as Representative Pallone--for their work on the provision to establish a national 3-digit, one-call number. I also want to commend Ranking Member Boucher for his efforts on the technical assistance grants and hazardous pipeline enforcement provisions. Representatives Hall and Doyle deserve recognition for their efforts on the research provisions that largely reflect Mr. Hall's legislation that was reported overwhelmingly by the Committee on Science. I also want to specifically thank Representative Markey for his work and cooperation on the provisions relating to the National Transportation Safety Board and the security of liquified natural gas and other pipeline facilities. Finally, I 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 in this 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. Chairman, I urge swift adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute and passage of the bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I commend the House for taking up this resolution raising the importance of ovarian cancer research and screening. Despite the severe consequences it poses to women's health, ovarian cancer is still under-recognized and under-researched. According to the American Cancer Society, more than 23,000 new cases of ovarian cancer will be diagnosed this year alone. An estimated 13,900 women will die of ovarian cancer in 2002, accounting for more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system, and ranking as the fifth leading cause of cancer deaths in women. Ovarian cancer is highly treatable when discovered in its earliest, most treatable stages. Unfortunately, it is seldom discovered until it has spread. Only 78 percent of ovarian cancer patients survive one year and just over 50 percent survive five years after diagnosis. Currently, no simple standardized tests exist to detect ovarian cancer the way mammography can reliably check for breast cancer. This is why it is essential that Congress commit itself to research in the early detection of ovarian cancer. The good news is that since 1991, the ovarian cancer incidence rate has been on the decline. The best way to ensure the continuation of these waning numbers is to invest in improved testing and research. With multiple means of early detection on the horizon, it is essential that we address this important issue as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Nurse Reinvestment Act. This bill is a solid down payment in our effort to address severe shortages in the nursing profession. This is not the first nursing shortage we have seen, but I am dedicated to finding a real solution so that it may be our last. Nurses are the unsung heroes in health care, and today they need our help. As is the case with any bill of importance, much of the credit goes to our colleagues who are willing to do the hard work. None has worked harder on behalf of the nursing professions than my friend and colleague, Representative Capps. She has been tireless and today her efforts pay off. I congratulate her on a job well done. Of course, we would not be here without bipartisan support and cooperation. I thank the Chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Representative Bilirakis, Subcommittee Ranking Member Brown, and Chairman Tauzin. The national nursing shortage reached crisis level in 1999 and experts are predicting that by 2008, the nation will be short 450,000 nurses. This shortage of nurses has dramatic detrimental repercussions for American citizens. When there are too few nurses at bedsides, patients are significantly more likely to suffer serious complications, according to one study published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine. So far, my home state of Michigan has fared better than many other states against the national nursing shortage because so many Canadian nurses have crossed the Ambassador Bridge and Detroit-Windsor Tunnel for U.S. nursing jobs. Metro Detroit hospitals import 15 to 20 percent of their nursing staff from Canada. A study by the University of Detroit-Mercy, however, reports that by 2008, Michigan will need 1.4 million registered nurses, but only 656,000 will be available. The bill before us today seeks to rectify these problems and reverse their implications. The Nurse Reinvestment Act establishes nurse scholarships to provide educational scholarships in exchange for commitment to serve in a public or private non-profit health facility determined to have a critical shortage of nurses. H.R. 3487 further establishes nurse retention and patient safety enhancement grants to assist health care facilities to retain nurses and improve patient care delivery through more collaboration between nurses and other health care professionals. H.R. 3487 establishes comprehensive geriatric training grants for nurses, it establishes faculty loan cancellation programs to allow nurses full-time study and rapid completion of advanced degree studies, and it establishes a career ladder grant program to assist individuals in the nursing workforce to obtain more education. Finally, the Nurse Reinvestment Act will help us recruit more nurses through public service announcements and other educational programs. These will inform the public about nursing as a profession and career and will tell potential nurses about the resources available to them if they choose to enter this wonderful profession. I salute the efforts of Representative Capps and my other colleagues that have brought us this far and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have heard the name Alan Greenspan mentioned on several occasions in connection with this. This is what Alan had to say yesterday: ``Even a small increase in the likelihood of large, possibly criminal penalties for egregious misbehavior of CEOs can have profoundly important effects on all aspects of corporate governance because the fulcrum of governance is the chief executive officer.'' What he is saying there is, put them in jail, they will understand. The problem here is that the bill that the House has passed has nothing on criminal penalties but the bill passed yesterday does. The motion to instruct takes care of that problem. I think we ought to adopt the Senate bill because the Senate bill is a good bill. The House bill is nothing. It is pablum. On the 30th of June, the New York Times warned that there is a staggering rush of corporate debacles and that they are raising a disturbing question: Can capitalism survive the capitalists themselves? It should be noted the market has fallen, it should be noted the dollar is weaker, all of which, experts say, is related to the behavior of Global Crossing, Enron, Adelphia, WorldCom and others. We need strong medicine, not a placebo. The Washington Post has pointed out that a distinguished member of this body is punting because apparently my friends on the other side are not real anxious to pass strong bills and strong legislation like the Senate. The House-passed bill purports to set up a lot of things, including a regulatory board, to oversee accountants, but it really does not mean anything because it really does not do anything. The House-passed bill does not require an outright halt of the peddling of lucrative consulting services to audit clients and the conflicts that ensue. The House-passed bill does nothing about the revolving door between auditors and clients. The House-passed bill ducks many important issues such as the conflicts of interest between Wall Street analysts and credit-rating agencies, by relegating them to, guess what? Studies. The bill is replete with studies, but there is no strong Federal policy direction here. Let us look at what the Senate bill does. It improves the timeliness, quality, and transparency of financial reporting. It creates an independent Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to strengthen the regulation of, guess who? The accountants, who certainly need regulation, because there has been more misbehavior there than there has been outside of a red light district. It would ban consulting services that clearly compromise the independence of accountants and auditors. It would enhance the accounting standards process and provide independent funding for the FASB. It would increase accountability of corporate officers and boards of directors. It would require objectivity and independence by securities analysts, and it would enhance SEC resources and authority. It would increase criminal penalties for corporate securities frauds that figured in the recent chain of debacles. Mr. Speaker, it is time we passed strong legislation to stop the misbehavior in the corporate behavior and in the accounting profession that is shaking the faith of the American people and that is raising real questions about the viability of our securities markets and the well-being of capitalism in this country. Vote for the motion to instruct and vote for a strong bill. We have had enough nonsense in this place. On June 30, 2002, the New York Times warned that the ``staggering rush of corporate debacles is raising a disturbing question: can capitalism survive the capitalists themselves?'' Confidence in U.S. capitalism has been dealt a severe blow. U.S. investors and foreign investors are fleeing stocks in droves. From Enron to Global Crossing, Adelphia to WorldCom, and many more examples, companies lied about their performance, the watchdogs slept or were complicit, and investors and employees paid a dear price. To cure this problem, we need strong medicine, not a placebo. On April 24, 2002, a Washington Post editorial entitled ``Mr. Oxley Punts'' lambasted the House bill for taking ``half-steps and side- steps.'' The House-passed bill purports to step up a new regulatory board to oversee and discipline accountants, which everybody agrees is needed, but the bill includes no details on the board's staffing and budget and provides inadequate disciplinary authority. The House-passed bill stops short of requiring an outright halt to the peddling of lucrative consulting services to audit clients and the conflicts that ensue. The House-passed bill also says nothing about the revolving door between auditors and their clients. The House-passed bill ducks many important issues, such as the conflicts of interest among Wall Street analysts and credit rating agencies, by allegating them to studies. The bill is replete with studies rather than the strong Congressional policy direction that is called for. I therefore urge the House to accept the Sarbanes bill. It would: Improve the timeliness, quality, and transparency of financial reporting; create an independent Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to strengthen regulation of, and where appropriate disciplinary actions against, firms that audit public companies; ban the consulting services that clearly compromise auditor independence; enhance the accounting standards setting process and provide independent funding for FASB; increase the accountability of corporate officers and boards of directors; require objectivity and independence by securities analysts; enhance SEC resources and authority; and increase criminal penalities for the corporate and securities frauds that figured in the recent chain of debacles. This morning's Washington Post reports on the front page for all the world to see that ``House Republicans say they will try to delay, and likely dilute, some of the proposed changes.'' Shame on the GOP! And shame on the House if decent Members in this body allow such a travesty to occur. [From the Washington Post, April 24, 2002] Mr. Oxley Punts The House is due to vote today on a package of post-Enron reforms prepared by Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio), chairman of the Financial Services Committee. The bill is a troubling sign of how easily the momentum for reform can be dissipated. Though it purports to deal with many of the audit reforms discussed during dozens of congressional hearings since January, it actually pulls its punches. Democrats will get a chance to offer some better provisions in the House today, but nobody expects them to pass. It will be up to the Senate, if it can ever terminate its interminable debates on energy, to produce a stronger bill. The Oxley bill purports to set up a new regulatory board to oversee and discipline auditors, which everybody agrees is needed. But it would not give this body powers of subpoena, which would undermine its authority; and it would allow auditors to fill some of the board's positions, which could undermine its independence. The details of the new board would be left to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would have to decide among other things how the new body would be funded. Given the SEC's vulnerability to industry lobbying, there is a danger that the result will fall short of what's needed. The Oxley bill takes other half-steps and side-steps. It directs the SEC to prohibit auditors from performing certain types of consulting services for their clients, but it stops short of requiring an outright halt to consulting and the conflicts of interest that ensue. The bill says nothing about the revolving door between auditors and their clients--Enron, for example hired several Arthur Andersen auditors--even though auditors who are angling for jobs from their customers are unlikely to show much independence from them. The bill is also silent on the rotation of audit firms. If an auditor knew that, after a few years, a different outside auditor would scrutinize its efforts, this would create a strong incentive to keep the numbers honest. The Oxley bill does at least boost the SEC's budget substantially, and it has the right mood music. But given the outrage that Congress has expressed about the Enron scandal, that is a weak effort. Just this week, Enron announced that it had discovered a further $14 billion worth of assets in its balance sheet that don't really exist after all, and it confessed that a ``material portion'' of this overstatement was due to accounting irregularities. This kind of confession further undermines investors' trust in financial disclosures. Congress needs to restore that trust with tough legislation. Perhaps the Senate can deliver if the House won't.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Public investment in arts and humanities benefits society in countless ways, including enhancing individual creativity, increasing skills in math, reading, language development and writing, and expanding global relationships and understanding. President Bush has recommended FY 2003 funding for NEA and NEH at $116 million and $126 million, respectively. It is important to note that NEA's amount is $46 million below its 1995 level. However, the payoff from even this meager public investment is still enormous. In addition to the aforementioned benefits of public funding for arts and humanities, a recent study found that arts groups generate at least $134 billion in economic activity each year, 4.85 million full-time equivalent jobs, $89.4 billion in household income, and $24.4 billion in government taxes. Although NEA and NEH are the sole source off arts funding in some communities, in others, grants from NEA and NEH leverage millions of dollars each year in private support for arts projects. Last year in Michigan's 16th District alone, NEA awarded two grants totaling $40,000. One of the grants was awarded to the Sphinx Competition in Dearborn, Michigan, an outstanding program that gives young, primarily African American and Latino students, the opportunity to improve their craft, and perform with their peers and professional musicians. I can think of few programs that are more deserving of NEA funding, or that have been as effective in expanding access to classical music opportunities for minority students. Last year, NEH funding was awarded to 13 organizations in my district, mostly to elementary schools which brought live cultural presentations to the students. These programs consisted of a wide diversity of cultural programs from school assembly musical performances to library storytellers. Without these funds, many of these students would not have had the opportunity to be exposed to these culturally enriching activities. Currently, Americans pay about the cost of a postage stamp to fund these two important programs. Given the important and measurable benefits of exposure to arts and cultural activities, Congress must step up and increase public funding for NEA and NEH.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the entire Detroit Red Wings organization for winning the 2002 Stanley Cup on June 13, 2002, and collecting their 10th Cup by defeating the Eastern Conference Champion Carolina Hurricanes. After 82 games, followed by perhaps the most grueling playoff setup in professional sports, the Red Wings proved once again that talent and experience could triumph over more youthful competition. Marian and Mike Ilitch, the owners of the Red Wings and community leaders in Detroit, have once again returned Lord Stanley's Cup to ``Hockeytown,'' where it rightfully belongs. I would like to thank the Ilitch family for their dedication to the city of Detroit, State of Michigan, and to all Red Wing fans. Red Wing fans are indebted to retiring head coach Scotty Bowman, who has brought the Red Wings to the playoffs 7 times in the last 8 years, won three Stanley Cups in the past 6 years, and who, with this year's victory, has earned his ninth Stanley Cup victory, surpassing his mentor Toe Blake for the most championships in National Hockey League history. This is truly an amazing accomplishment and I wish him well in his retirement. Finally, I express my congratulations to the Red Wing players for their incredible season, and for showing all of us how to perform under great pressure. I applaud the hard work and dedication which made this victory possible, and would offer my personal appreciation on behalf of Michigan's 16th Congressional District, to Captain Steve Yzerman, Brett Hull, Igor Larionov, Brendan Shanahan, Lue Robitaille, Sergei Federov, Darren McCarty, Chris Chelios, Niklas Lidstrom, Dominik Hasek, Kris Draper, Jirri Fischer, Jesse Wallin, Uwe Krupp, Mathieu Dandenault, Pavel Datsyuk, Ladislav Kohn, Kirk Maltby, Boyd Devereaux, Fredrik Olausson, Steve Duchesne, Jason Williams, Maxim Kuznetsov, Manny Legace, Jason Elliott, Sean Avery, Jiri Slegr, and Tomas Holmstrom. With the recent signing of Curtis Joseph and re-signing of Chris Chelios, I look forward to seeing another Stanley Cup Parade in Hockeytown next year!

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the entire Detroit Red Wings organization for winning the 2002 Stanley Cup on June 13, 2002, and collecting their 10th Cup by defeating the Eastern Conference Champion Carolina Hurricanes. After 82 games, followed by perhaps the most grueling playoff setup in professional sports, the Red Wings proved once again that talent and experience could triumph over more youthful competition. Marian and Mike Ilitch, the owners of the Red Wings and community leaders in Detroit, have once again returned Lord Stanley's Cup to ``Hockeytown,'' where it rightfully belongs. I would like to thank the Ilitch family for their dedication to the city of Detroit, State of Michigan, and to all Red Wings fans. Red Wings fans are indebted to retiring head coach Scotty Bowman, who has brought the Red Wings to the playoffs 7 times in the last 8 years, won three Stanley Cups in the past 6 years, and who, with this year's victory, has earned his ninth Stanley Cup victory, surpassing his mentor Joe Blake for the most championships in National Hockey League history. This is truly an amazing accomplishment and I wish him well in his retirement. Finally, I express my congratulations to the Red Wings players for their incredible season, and for showing all of us how to perform under great pressure. I applaud the hard work and dedication which made this victory possible, and would offer my personal appreciation on behalf of Michigan's 16th Congressional District, to Captain Steve Yzerman, Brett Hull, Igor Larionov, Brendan Shanahan, Luc Robitaille, Sergei Federov, Darren McCarty, Chris Chelios, Niklas Lidstrom, Dominik Hasek, Kris Draper, Jiri Fischer, Jesse Wallin, Uwe Krupp, Mathieu Dandenault, Pavel Datsyuk, Ladislav Kohn, Kirk Maltby, Boyd Devereaux, Fredrik Olausson, Steve Duchesne, Jason Williams, Maxim Kuznetsov, Manny Legace, Jason Elliott, Sean Avery, Jiri Slegr, and Tomas Holmstrom. With the recent signing of Curtis Joseph and re-signing of Chris Chelios, I look forward to seeing another Stanley Cup Parade in Hockeytown next year!