John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2002. This is a companion measure with my esteemed colleague, Senator Mikulski, who introduced an identical bill in the Senate yesterday. In 1992, Senator Mikulski and I introduced the original Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA). The primary objective of this law is to ensure that mammography is safe and reliable and that breast cancer is detected in its earliest, most treatable stages. The act was reauthorized in 1998 and now it is time for us to reauthorize it again. We have a breast cancer epidemic in this country. An estimated 203,500 new invasive cases of breast cancer are expected to occur among women in the United States this year alone. Every 3 minutes a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, and every 13 minutes a woman dies from this disease. This year in my home State of Michigan, about 6,500 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and the disease will kill 1,600. Breast cancer is a progressive and systemic disease, in which our ability to treat and cure a small tumor is much greater than our ability to treat and cure a large tumor. For this reason, it is vital that we ensure the safety, accuracy, and accessibility of mammograms for all women. Our top health institutions, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Cancer Institute, and the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, recommend screening mammography every one to two years for women ages 40 and over. MQSA is a federal law that establishes a number of requirements aimed at strengthening and ensuring high quality standards for all mammography facilities. The MQSA program requires all mammography facilities in the United States to meet stringent quality standards, be accredited by a Food and Drug Administration-approved accreditation body, and be inspected annually. The 2002 reauthorization legislation continues all existing requirements. It is simply not enough to have mammography screening facilities; we must demand and ensure that these facilities are responsible, reliable, and precise. MQSA requires that the FDA establish quality standards for mammography equipment, personnel, and practices. These standards apply to the following people at the facility: the technologist who takes the mammogram, the radiologist who studies the mammogram, and the medical physicist who tests the mammography equipment. All of these people must have special training and education, and must meet continuing education and experience requirements. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important and beneficial bill which will help to ensure that women receive improved, accurate, and complete information with regard to their mammography screening. High quality mammography, while not a perfect tool, is currently the best available tool for the early detection of breast cancer and MQSA provides our best assurance of that quality.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a bald political move by my Republican colleagues. Just a month and a half ago, on April 18, this body voted to make last year's tax cut permanent. Though I voted against it, it passed by a vote of 229-198. Why are we taking a piecemeal approach and voting on it again? I would ask the Republican Leadership the same thing I asked when we voted on H. Con. Res. 312, on February 6. For those of you who don't remember, that was a bill that ``expressed the sense of Congress that the tax cut should not be repealed.'' Have we no real work to do? Just over a year ago, this body voted on the President's tax cut. This tax cut, you'll remember, benefited only the wealthiest Americans. In order to cook the books and give tax breaks to their fat-cat buddies, my Republican colleagues put a 10-year sunset on that tax cut. That brings us up to April 18, when this body voted to make the President's irresponsible tax cut permanent. Yet here we are, we have no prescription drug benefit for our seniors, there are people earning a measly $5.15 an hour and we still don't have a patient protection bill. We do, however, have the time to debate and discuss whether or not we should make each aspect of that foolish tax cut permanent--even though we have already done so. Mr. Speaker, I keep hoping that one day my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will cease to amaze me. But they never do. There is not a problem or crisis that they cannot address with a simple tax cut. And I would note that it is all the more appealing to my Republican colleagues if it benefits the wealthy. I will not waste time here talking about the fact that we cannot pay for this tax cut, that further tax cuts will only serve to put us deeper in debt, and that we have other priorities that need to be dealt with. I have said it all before. I would simply ask my colleagues to vote against this redundant farce. Take this opportunity to send a message that there really are other things we should be doing. Vote no on this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, in the Detroit Metropolitan area alone, which has been home to our country's industrial strength for over 100 years, brownfields cover tens of thousands of acres of land once occupied by mighty manufacturing facilities and thriving communities. Last December, Congress passed H.R. 2869, the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act which originated from the Committee on Energy and Commerce and provided a $200 million authorization each year for 5 years for the Environmental Protection Agency's successful brownfields loan and grant program. That bill became Public Law 107-118 with President Bush's signature on January 11, 2002. The bill under consideration today, H.R. 2941, provides increased access for local entities to brownfield redevelopment funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It does so by de- linking section 108 loan guarantees from HUD's Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grants. Mr. Speaker, while the goal of this legislation is worthy, and one I support, its failure to include the definition of the term ``brownfields'' contained in Public Law 107-118 is a serious deficiency that could lead to mischief with public revenues. I note that the environmental community has also raised concerns about the absence of an appropriate definition in a letter to Members of Congress dated April 26, 2002. The brownfield definition in Public Law 107-118 was designed to ensure that grants and loans using public funds did not go to seriously contaminated sites that fall within the purview of other cleanup authorities such as the Superfund program, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and others where the polluters could be held responsible for the cleanup. The absence of a statutory definition of the term ``brownfields'' in H.R. 2941 creates a potential for overlapping federal programs in conflict with one another, or at best a lack of coordination in the use of federal funds. The remedy is an easy one and should be noncontroversial since the Congress and President Bush have already agreed on a definition of ``brownfields'' in Public Law 107-118. While the Committee report accompanying H.R. 2941 urges HUD to continue to defer to federally directed and funded remedial cleanup activities of the Environmental Protection Agency, and other applicable Federal Agencies, I believe that a statutory definition of the term ``brownfields'' is necessary to avoid conflict between competing federal agency programs and potential misuse of taxpayer funds. Today I will support this legislation with the expectation that any bill emerging from a conference between the House and Senate will contain a definition of the term ``brownfields'' consistent with Public Law 107-118. American Public Health Association; Friends of the Earth; Natural Resources Defense Council; Physicians for Social Responsibility Sierra Club; US PIRG, April 26, 2002. Re H.R. 2491, Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act. Hon. Michael Oxley, U.S. House of Representatives, Hon. John LaFalce, U.S. House of Representatives. Dear Representatives: We are writing on behalf of our more than one million members to urge the House of Representatives to ensure that H.R. 2941 contains a definition of the term ``brownfields'' that is consistent with existing law. H.R. 2941 could threaten public health and weaken the polluter- pays principle at heavily contaminated toxic waste sites if its definition of ``brownfields'' does not track the definition contained in Public Law 107-118, the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001 (``Brownfields Act''). Therefore, we urge the House of Representatives to ensure that H.R. 2941 incorporates by reference the definition of brownfields contained in section (39) of the Brownfields Act. Codifying this definition would prevent current or future administrations from arbitrarily weakening existing protections. Members of the Senate and House negotiated for years over an appropriate definition of the term ``brownfields.'' This issue was vital for two reasons. First, an overly broad definition could allow federal agencies to use taxpayer funds to pay for cleanups even when there was a viable polluter associated with a site. This would weaken the polluter-pays principle, which is the foundation of federal cleanup programs. This principle ensures that polluters, rather than taxpayers, pay to clean up their contamination. It provides an incentive to reduce the use of and responsibly manage toxic chemicals, thereby decreasing the chance of creating future toxic waste sites. Second, a broad definition could allow federal agencies to use taxpayer funds at heavily contaminates sites to pay for remediation under state voluntary cleanup programs. Data on state voluntary cleanup programs demonstrate that such programs have inconsistent cleanup standards, public participation requirements, technical expertise and oversight authorities. These failings can threaten public health, particularly at sites containing high levels of contamination. Congress agreed on a definition of the term ``brownfields'' in the Brownfields Act, which President Bush signed into law on January 11, 2002. The Brownfields Act initially broadly defines the term, but then excludes many heavily contaminated toxic waste sites from the definition. This ensures that cleanup officials can continue to use the polluter-pays principle to enforce federal laws that incorporate tough cleanup standards. The law permits an expansion of this definition--on a site-by-site basis--where doing so would not endanger public health. H.R. 2941's definition of ``brownfields'' contains none of these protections. Instead, it contains a very broad definition of the term ``brownfields'' that would allow federal agencies to use taxpayer funds to pay for remediation under state voluntary cleanup programs at heavily contaminated sites. H.R. 2941 could also allow federal agencies to use taxpayer funds to cleanup sites that have viable businesses that caused the contamination. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (``BEDI'') could provide significant taxpayer funding for activities that could threaten public health and weaken application of the polluter-pays principle. While BEDI contains only about $25 million, state and local government use BEDI funds to access hundreds of million of dollars in low-interest loans under the federal Community Development Block Grant Program (``CDBG''). The CDBG and BEDI programs allow funded entities to use the federal taxpayer funds on remedial activities. (See www.hud.gov/bedifact.cfm.) In fact, HUD's webpage states ``[t]he most common use of CBDG funds for brownfields has been for remediation, followed by site assessment and redevelopment.'' This means taxpayers could pay for cleanups, rather the parties responsible for the contamination. Incorporating the definition from the Brownfield Act into H.R. 2941 should be non-controversial. The House, Senate, and administration all agreed on a definition of the term ``brownfields'' in 2002. Representatives of HUD have stated that the agency does not fund cleanups at heavily contaminated sites and that HUD supports the polluter-pays principle. Staff for members on the House Financial Services Committee concurred with the HUD representatives. Members of the environmental community urged the staff to modify the definition of brownfields consistent with this shared understanding. Unfortunately, some staff opposed codifying this understanding because they claimed that it would increase red tape. However, codifying agency practice should not increase regulatory burden. Expediting the cleanup of brownfields is a priority for our groups and should be a priority for federal and state governments. However, government should not create avenues for development that could endanger public health or reduce incentives for polluters to manage their toxic wastes responsibly. We urge the House of Representatives to help ensure that people can safely use new residential, commercial and other developments, and that polluting industries do not create new toxic waste sites. Sincerely, Don Hoppert, Director of Federal Affairs, American Public Health Association. Sara Zdeb, Legislative Representative, Friends of the Earth. Alys Campaigne, Legislative Director, Natural Resources Defense Council. Debbie Sease, Legislative Director, Sierra Club. Susan West Marmagas, MPH, Director, Environment and Health Program, Physicians for Social Responsibility. Grant Cope, Staff Attorney, US PIRG.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide a further explanation of various provisions of H.R. 3448, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2002. Title I Title I of the Act addresses planning, preparation, prevention, and response to acts of bioterrorism and other public health emergencies. As such, many of the programs will have a dual use. They will benefit the fight against terrorism and at the same time support our basic public health infrastructure. The bill will provide needed resources needed by first responders such as hospitals, health care personnel, public health systems, and others. The basic structure for providing these resources is through grants to eligible entities. One grant program will provide funds to eligible entities including states, political subdivisions of states or consortia of two or more such subdivisions. Another grant program will provide resources to eligible entities consisting of hospitals, clinics, health centers, or primary care facilities and various combinations of states or political subdivisions of states. The conference agreement is a compromise between distinctly different approaches in the Senate and House bills, plus a need to coordinate with the Administration's existing grant programs so that resources that will flow to states and first responders in FY 2002 and FY 2003 are not delayed, diminished, or denied. In basic terms, the grants are based on a bioterrorism preparedness and response plan that is supposed to include public input and that include criteria for evaluation of the performance of entities that receive funds to assure that they meet benchmarks in the plan. In sum, the bill is designed to provide flexibility and accountability with respect to the use of funds. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) also has flexibility in designating priorities for use of grant funds. Currently the priority is on bioterrorism or acute outbreaks of infectious disease, then other public health threats and emergencies. The priorities provide accountability and the Secretary's ability to modify these priorities allows flexibility in matching scarce resources to needs that vary around the country. A hallmark of the agreement is its emphasis on planning and coordination among various federal agencies and in turn federal coordination with state of local entities. Another key feature throughout is the use of advisory committees and other means of utilizing public and private sector expertise. One of the most important federal agencies with responsibility for fighting bioterrorism is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The agreement acknowledges CDC's essential role in defending against and combating public health threats. It will provide resources for secure and modern facilities, and expanded and improved capabilities related to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies. In addition to grants, the agreement authorizes a variety of specific activities. These include education of health care personnel with respect to recognition and identification of potential bioweapons, for care of victims, and to recognize the special needs of children and other vulnerable populations. The bill also authorizes resources for the purpose of education and training in any category of health professions for which there is a shortage that the Secretary determines should be alleviated in order to prepare or respond to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies. The bill also directs research on antimicrobial resistance and other issues with respect to priority pathogens. The bill provides for limited Medicare and Medicaid waivers in appropriate circumstances, basically when providers respond to an emergency. Another key feature of Title I is the Strategic National Stockpile. This consists of drugs, devices, vaccines, and other products the Secretary determines to be appropriate and practicable, taking into account other sources, to provide for the emergency health security of the United States. Specific reference to the needs of children and other vulnerable populations is included. The bill also accelerates research and approval of priority countermeasures, establishes a process for evaluation of new and emerging technologies regarding bioterrorist attack, and strengthens programs to address health issues associated with nuclear facilities. Title II Title II of the Act addresses select agents or hazardous biomaterials and the rules applicable to person with access to them. This provision addresses an area of great concern by increasing accountability for the storage and use of deadly materials and with respect to who has access to them. Title II requires that all persons, including state and local governmental entities and universities, that have access to select agents and toxins, undergo a screening review to determine if they are restricted persons under the PATRIOT USA Act or are suspected of being a terrorist, being affiliated with a terrorist organization, or are a foreign agent of a country attempting to covertly obtain information. The screening process is not expected to encompass the complex investigation that would occur prior to issuance of a security clearance, but to be similar to the check for prospective gun owners in its use of electronic databases. It will be carried out by the Department of Justice and limited to using appropriate electronic databases available to the government for this purpose to determine if the persons or individuals being screened are listed in those databases. This would guarantee both a timely response so that research is not delayed and prevent the use of non-credible, nonsubstantiated information. The Conference Report states, however, that other databases or ``files'' may be used by the Attorney General ``to clarify or confirm information obtained during the electronic database search.'' The Privacy Act establishes the requirement that agencies maintain records on individuals with ``such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness: and to ``make reasonable efforts'' before the dissemination of information about individuals to assure that such records are accurate, complete, timely, and relevant for agency purposes.'' 5 U.S.C. 552a. It is not the purpose of this provision to permit the Attorney General to do extensive individual investigations or use non-credible, unsubstantiated information that may be contained in those other ``files'' to deny persons or individuals access to select agents. Title 11 requires the same screening for non-federal entities, including corporations, public and private universities, and all state and local entities, including public health departments, that may possess select agents. It is expected that both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture will use common sense in determining the level of screening it will require for universities, drug manufacturers, or others to avoid unnecessary paperwork and delays. Title 11 also contains exemptions from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act for the registration documents, the national database compiling the information in the database, and the location (including the name of the registrant) and identification of select agents if contained in inspection reports or notifications of theft, loss, and releases outside of the bio-containment area of a facility. The purpose of these provisions is to protect site-specific information about these agents from being publicly available. It is not expected, however, that federal agencies will use the exemption to keep information that has public health implications from relevant nonfederal parties and the public, particularly if it is already publicly known. For example, there has been extensive media attention to the possible use of anthrax from the U.S. Army's laboratory at Fort Dettrick, Maryland, in the attack last fall. It has been known for many years that anthrax spores were located at Fort Dettrick. It is also known that the remaining smallpox virus in the United States is held by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Releases of select agents from these and other facilities may have significant public health implications. An alert public may be the best method by which exposure to a select agent can be determined. Responses should not be delayed by federal agencies interpreting these FOIA exemptions too broadly. Title III Title III of the Act deals primarily with food safety, particularly with respect to imported food. The Act has increased the ability of authorities to obtain greater assurances that food that is shipped into this country does not become an instrumentality of terrorism due to tampering. Four provisions, in particular, warrant further comment. Prior Notice of Food Importation Section 307 requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations that establish a period of time in which prior notice of food importations must be provided to HHS. This period of time cannot exceed five days and must be sufficient in length for the Secretary to receive, review, and appropriately respond to such notices. The Secretary may consider many different factors in establishing this period of time, however, the Secretary's responsibility to the American people, as mandated by Congress herein, to ``receive, review, and appropriately respond'' to these notices is absolute. Since the Secretary will be held accountable for the proper discharge of this important new responsibility, the rule should duly consider this obligation and establish an ample period of time under which that obligation can be discharged. ``Credible Evidence or Information Indicating'' Throughout this subtitle, the ``credible evidence or information indicating'' standard is used for various purposes. This standard should be interpreted broadly. The use of the conjunction ``or'' indicates that either credible evidence, or alternatively, information is sufficient to satisfy this standard. Accordingly, the standard could be read as ``credible information or evidence indicating a threat''. Moreover, any credible evidence or information only has to ``indicate,'' not prove, that a threat exists. For example, if upon investigation, examination or inspection, FDA only has information that indicates a shipment of food presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences, it may invoke its administrative detention authority. FDA is never required to have traditional ``credible evidence'' to trigger this standard. Explanation of Temporary Hold Under this bill, the Secretary must possess credible evidence or information indicating that a specific shipment or article of food presents a serious health threat to exercise his full detention authority. The bill, however, establishes a broader, less stringent standard for the Secretary to exercise a more limited temporary hold authority. Under the temporary hold provision, the Secretary need only have credible evidence or information indicating that an article of food, not a specific article of food, presents a serious health threat. If, for example, the FDA is in possession of credible evidence or information indicating that a category of food or food from a certain geographical region presents such a threat, the Secretary may use this authority to temporarily hold shipments or articles of food (up to 24 hours) based on that information. This will enable the Secretary to appropriately dispatch FDA resources to gather credible evidence or information (based upon FDA inspection, examination or investigation) about specific shipments or articles of food. Once FDA has such evidence or information, the Secretary may then detain any such shipments or articles of food under the detention authority (up to 30 days). The temporary hold authority is intended to function as an investigative tool that enables FDA to use its detention authority more effectively. Accordingly, the circumstances under which temporary hold authority can be invoked are broader than those under which detention authority can be invoked. Registration of Foreign Facilities Section 305 requires foreign facilities to register with the Secretary of Health and Human Services if they manufacture, process, pack, or hold food that is exported to the United States without further processing or packaging, The provision clarifies that the addition of labeling, or other similar activities of a de minimis nature, may not be considered to be ``further processing or packaging'' for purposes of this section. This language was included to ensure that all facilities from the point of exportation back to the true foreign processor or packer would be required to register. Many Conferees were concerned that activities conducted immediately prior to exportation could be considered processing or packaging, even if such activities did not alter or affect the food. If that occurred, then that facility would be the only foreign facility in the chain of custody to register. The ``other similar activities of a de minimis nature'' language was added to address these concerns. Title IV Title IV adds a new Section 1433 to the Safe Drinking Water Act that requires community water systems to conduct and complete vulnerability assessments and prepare or revise emergency response plans. These new requirements become requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The conference agreement requires that a written copy of the vulnerability assessment be submitted to the Administrator. This will ensure that the vulnerability assessments meet the requirements of Section 1433 and that EPA will have the necessary information to determine whether action needs to be taken using the authority of Section 1431 or other relevant authorities to ensure that significant vulnerabilities are addressed to protect the public. The conference agreement takes a number of measures to protect the copies of the vulnerability assessments submitted to the EPA from unauthorized disclosure. The Administrator, however, may use and disclose the assessment, or information derived therefrom, to any individual, whether a private citizen or government employee, as designated by the Administrator, for the purposes of Section 1445, to take any action under the authority of Section 1431 or for use in any administrative or judicial proceeding to impose a penalty for failure to comply with Section 1433. In addition, the Administrator is expected to review the vulnerability assessments when providing financial assistance for basic security enhancements or to address significant threats to public health and the supply of drinking water. The agency continues to have available and may use its inspection and enforcement authorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act with respect to community water systems. The bill also amends Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act to provide new authority to the Administrator to take actions to assure the safety of the public and protect supplies of drinking water in circumstances of a threatened or potential terrorist attack or other intentional act at a community water system. Administrator Whitman has informed the Congress by letter dated April 22, 2002, that the EPA has already begun working with states and local utilities to assess the vulnerability of the Nation's public water systems to attack or other intentional acts. Further, the Administrator has stated that the new language amending Section 1431 ``provides EPA with adequate authority to respond in situations involving significant vulnerability.'' The term ``potential terrorist attack'' should be interpreted in the context of the President's announcements that the United States is engaged in a war against terrorism and faces ``continuing and immediate threats of further attacks.'' Senior government officials have repeatedly warned that critical infrastructure facilities should remain on a high state of alert due to the possibility of a terrorist attack. Critical infrastructure protection is an issue of importance to economic and national security. Presidential Decision Directive 63 released in May 1998 identified water supply as one of the 12 areas critical to the functioning of the country. Where the Administrator receives information that critical community water system infrastructures, such as a utility pumping system or chemical storage tanks, are vulnerable to potential terrorist attack that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment, he or she may use the authority provided by Section 1431 to protect the health and safety of the public or prevent the disruption of drinking water supplies. Title V The Conference was able to resolve all outstanding issues regarding the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). Reauthorizing PDUFA at this time was necessary to prevent a possible exodus of doctors and other very experienced medical officers at the FDA in anticipation of layoffs that will now be avoided. The Office of Drug Safety, an FDA function long neglected, was given $76 million in new user fee monies and at least $10 million in new appropriated monies to monitor adverse events and post market studies associated with the expedited approval process for drugs and biologics. Also, for fast track drugs, doctors are to be notified if mandated post market studies are not completed in a timely manner.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, when the Joint Statement of Managers was filed last night, it inadvertently omitted some important language concerning a Performance Goals Letter for the authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). Chairman Tauzin and Ranking Minority Member Dingell hereby submit the following additional statement which they view as authoritative legislative history on the provision in question. Performance Goals Letter Authorization of PDUFA is accompanied by a letter entitled ``PDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures.'' The goals letter is unique to PDUFA. It does not have force of law, but nonetheless the Agency views it as a statement of their obligations, and they issue a yearly report on their performance in meeting the goals specified in the letter. Title IX of the goals letter is entitled ``Independent Consultants for Biotechnology Clinical Trial Protocols.'' Contained in this title, as negotiated by the agency, is a paragraph ``D. Denial of Requests.'' As forwarded to the Congress, this paragraph previously read: ``Except in the most unusual circumstances (for example, it is clearly premature) FDA will honor the request and engage the services of an independent consultant, of FDA's choosing, as soon as practicable. If the Agency denies the request, it will provide a written rationale to the requester within 14 days of receipt.'' Upon agreement of the Conferees, this paragraph shall now read ``D. Denial of Requests: FDA will grant the request unless the Agency determines that engagement of an expert consultant would not serve a useful purpose (for example, it is clearly premature). FDA will engage the services of an independent consultant, of FDA's choosing, as soon as practicable. If the Agency denies the request, it will provide a written rationale to the requester within 14 days of receipt.'' The requirement of the Agency to provide a written rationale for the refusal to engage an independent consultant is not intended to burden the Agency but rather to assist the applicant in understanding the reason for Agency action. The goals letter also, for the first time, includes a title on ``Pre- and Peri-NDA/BLA Risk Management Plan Activities'' (Title VIII). The Managers view this title as a strong addition to the PDUFA regimen. Under this title, user fee monies will be available for postmarket surveillance for up to three years for drug and biological products. The Managers strongly support this Title, and upon agreement of the Managers, the title will not include the following additional language at the end Section D of Title VIII: ``FDA will allocate $76,319,879 in user fees over 5 years to the activities covered in this section. FDA will track the specific amounts of user fees spent on these activities and will include in its annual report to Congress an accounting of this spending.'' John D. Dingell, Ranking Member. Mr. Speaker, I commend this conference report to the House, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise first to commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), for the distinguished work he has done not only on producing a good bill but on producing a good bipartisan bill. This is a good piece of legislation. Many have worked on it and I can recommend it to the House without reservation. We bring them an excellent legislation to the floor, a matter of great national importance. This is going to improve our preparedness against terrorism. All of us know why the legislation is needed, and now. The bill, which was sponsored by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and I and a number of our colleagues, passed the House originally by 418 to 2. The Senate bill, an excellent piece of legislation, sponsored by Senators Kennedy and Frist, passed by unanimous consent. It is, as I mentioned, an excellent bill. The conference report we have now before us is a superb product, thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and Senators Kennedy and Frist, as well as all of the conferees who worked very hard on this legislation, and the staff, which deserves great commendation for their labor. The Act authorizes funds for planning, preparation, and response and activity across the board to deal with those questions, with special emphasis on the State and local level, an area where there is needed and necessary concern. It is hoped that this bill will then make it possible for those who will be provided in this bill and their funding to move directly to the front lines where they are needed, and that will include assistance in shoring up our frayed public health network and our first responders, who are largely officers of the local and State governments. The bill has important new protections for the food supply of the Nation, an area of particular and long-standing concern. We provide new inspection resources for imported food, but these will only be a down payment on what is ultimately going to be necessary. Other new authorities are included in the report, registration and detention provisions of the legislation which will help the Secretary to manage imports more efficiently and effectively in the public interest and in the interest of consumers. There are many other excellent provisions, including improvement in drinking water supply safety, tighter controls on dangerous biological agents. These are important steps and they must be taken now. Finally, we reauthorize the Prescription Drug User Fee Act which has led to faster FDA approvals of prescription drug applications, and we increase funding for drug safety efforts. I repeat, this is a good bill. It is an excellent start as our Nation works to improve its abilities to defend against an assault by enemies using biologic agents and other kinds of agents to create danger, hazard and death for our American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for him to control on behalf of the minority.

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Richard D. Nichols on the occasion of his retirement from the Henry Ford Health System. Dr. Nichols began his career with the Henry Ford Health System on July 1, 1967, when he became a member of the Otolaryngology. He received both his undergraduate degree and medical degree from the University of Michigan. Dr. Nichols completed his internship and General Surgery residency at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital in Ann Arbor and graduated from his Otolaryngology residency from the University of Michigan in 1967. In 1971 Dr. Nichols was named Chairman of Otolaryngology, one of the youngest physicians to chair a clinical department at Henry Ford Hospital. He has continued to be a pioneer in his field. Dr. Nichols performed the first cochlear implants at Henry Ford Hospital. Dr. Nichols has a wide variety of clinical interests, but is best known for his expertise in salivary gland disease and tumors of the head and neck. He has excelled in his department, but Dr. Nichols' leadership extended to the administration of both the medical staff and hospital. He also played a major role in establishing the first medical staff compensation committee, serving as chairman for many years. Mr. Speaker, not only has Dr. Nichols had a deep impact within the Henry Ford Health System, but he has also been recognized for his contributions to teaching. He was instrumental in creating the first regular specialty rotation at Henry Ford Hospital for students from the University of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, as Dr. Nichols leaves the Henry Ford Health System, and in honor of his many professional achievements, I would ask that all my colleagues rise and salute his service to the people of Southeast Michigan.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 309, recognizing the importance of good cervical health and of detecting cervical cancer during its earliest stages. According to the National HPV & Cervical Cancer Campaign, each year approximately 12,900 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer, with 4,400 dying from this dreadful disease. Mr. Speaker, I rise not to cite statistics, important though they are, but rather to talk about how cervical cancer affected my life. I lost my mother to this dreaded disease. I can remember the great strength and courage my beloved mother showed even though she was in great pain as she battled for her life. When she passed away, medical breakthroughs to detect cervical cancer were still far in the future. However, as science progressed we were able to identify that the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) causes this disease and, better yet, able to create tests for early detection. If detected early enough, most women have a good chance of defeating this disease, and living long productive lives. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this resolution. I urge our health care facilities to help raise public awareness about the importance of early cervical cancer screening. In addition, I urge all citizens to learn about cervical cancer, and the importance of early detection.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the reauthorization of the welfare program. I believe that we have a responsibility to help families transition into the work force and provide essential support to make work pay. The Democratic substitute will do that. Regrettably, the Republican bill will not. I focus these remarks on two provisions within this re-authorization that were considered by the Committee on Energy and Commerce: transitional medical assistance (TMA) and abstinence-only education. 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 Democratic substitute provides. 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. The second provision extends the Title V abstinence-only sex education program, but locks states in to an inflexible curriculum; it is controversial, and rightly so. The Democratic 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 recommend school-based comprehensive sex education programs, yet states are unable to fund these types of programs with federal dollars. The Democratic 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 to the very problems that such information is supposed to prevent. The 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. The Democratic 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and I rise in opposition to the previous question. Mr. Speaker, this is a fine example of high-handed arrogance by the Republican leadership and the Committee on Rules. What is wrong with having a vote to address the problems which exist with regard to a piece of legislation which does not permit the House to require the regular order and to see to it we have a chance to discuss all of the questions which relate to important environmental matters? I have been dealing with the military for years. They constantly seek to get out from under environmental laws; and the military bases in this Nation are some of the most skunked up, defiled, and dirty places, contaminated with hazardous waste, radioactivity and other things. They seek yet another opportunity to escape the requirements of law that say we are all going to together protect our environment against the kind of high-handed arrogance that the military engages in. There is provision in each of the laws which were challenged originally to permit the military to seek relief and to get it. And there is a regular process around here which would permit the military to have the ordinary hearings and find out what relief they need. No action of that kind was taken in the committees of jurisdiction; and the Committee on Armed Services, with its usual arrogance, saw to it that there was no opportunity for the environmentalists to be heard, no opportunity for Members to be heard, no opportunity to complete a record to justify whether or not this is appropriate. Clearly, when they are behaving in this kind of a sneaky and dishonest fashion, it is quite appropriate for the House to give them a rap on the knuckles and say, we think you ought to allow this matter to be debated. We think you at least ought to give an opportunity for an amendment to be considered to strike this. They seek an exemption from the Migratory Bird Act. I would note that this Nation has fought World War I, World War II, and a number of other wars with that law on the books, and a number of police and military actions with the others. I say vote down the rule and vote down the previous question. Two weeks ago the Department of Defense (DoD) sent a legislative proposal to the Committee on Armed Services seeking broad exemptions from six of our Nation's most important environmental laws--the Clean Air Act, Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Armed Services ultimately did not seek to undo the important environmental provisions contained in four of the six laws. Unfortunately, the Migratory Bird Act and the Endangered species Act did not fare so well. Mr. Rahall and I, with several of our colleagues, offered an amendment to strike those broad and unwarranted exemptions. But the Republican leadership will not allow a vote today to undo the damage. That is why I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. We absolutely support the need to maintain military readiness in the interests of national security. That is why when we wrote the laws we inserted specific provisions to ensure there was no conflict between protecting our national security and complying with our environmental laws. This is the case with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1981, one of our oldest conservation statutes. The Secretary of Interior has the authority to determine the circumstances under which migratory birds can be taken, killed or possessed and issue regulations permitting such activities. The United States has fought in two World Wars, the Korean War, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf War with the 1918 Act in place. I fail to see why our current war against terrorism would now call for its elimination. The members of this body should also be aware of the ridiculous arguments that the DoD is making in court to support its efforts to exempt itself. In the FDM case, 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. With regard to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the military again seeks to have exemptions for which no other Federal Agencies are eligible. ESA requires that land where threatened or endangered species live be designated critical habitat. The military does not want to comply with this law like every other federal agency and every other American citizen does. As the author of ESA, I can assure you that exemptions are available for reasons of national security. In fact, Section 7 of ESA allows agencies to get waivers from the Fish and Wildlife Service. Ironically, the Pentagon wants a blanket waiver even though they have never sought a Section 7 exemption. Needless to say, DoD proposals have gone through a most curious legislative process so far. The relevant Committees with expertise have been bypassed. No hearings have been held on these significant exemptions. And now we don't have a chance to vote on the House Floor. A stealth process has been employed to circumvent the Committee of jurisdiction, to deny the public the opportunity to testify, and to undermine two of our most important environmental laws. Defeat the previous question so we have the opportunity to reverse this environmental outrage.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of misunderstanding today. I have heard a lot of Members making some rather terrifying speeches. I have heard a lot of important statements, and some of them have been factual. I would ask that you listen to me because I want to tell you what is going on. First of all, this is not about putting nuclear waste anywhere. Second of all, it is not about moving nuclear waste anywhere or moving it down any particular road. It is just about a step in a process to move forward to decide ultimately where and how we are going to put all this nuclear waste. Are there problems with it at this stage? Of course. Somebody said 293. There may be that. There may be more. But we spent $7 billion to characterize Yucca Mountain as a site. Nothing is going to happen when we pass this bill except that about 2 years down the road the NRC is going to commence a licensing process to license a permanent storage repository to receive the nuclear waste. That will be an open process. Everybody will be permitted to have their say. Members of Congress here who are complaining, all of their constituents, any industry, you name it, can all have their say in that process. It is going to be a thoroughly open process. Now, there are going to be environmental problems whatever course we take. We can leave this nuclear waste where it is. It is in pools. It is in neighborhoods in your districts and mine. We can leave it there, and it is going to create a lot of nuclear problems. We can set up some other alternatives such as dry cask storage, and that is going to make nuclear problems, and they are going to remain in your neighborhoods and in my neighborhood. Now, I am not an advocate of putting this anywhere. I am not an advocate of putting it in Yucca Mountain or not putting it in Yucca Mountain. I am simply an advocate of this Congress functioning responsibly, to come to a decision on a major problem which we have, a major energy problem, a major environmental problem, a major land use problem, a major concern to the people of this country. We are producing nuclear waste at nuclear power plants and we are producing it in connection with our defense activities. That nuclear waste is going to go somewhere. Right now it is scattered around the country in all kinds of places, and it is a hazard to your constituents and mine. We have got to have some resolution to this problem of nuclear waste storage, and it has got to be reasonable, intelligent, and we have got to come to the best solution we can. I mentioned we have already spent $7 billion to characterize this site, and we will have to spend a lot more. I do not know what the licensing process is going to cost, but it is going to be plenty. As I mentioned, it is going to be open. Ultimately, we have to address the problem. Whatever we do is going to create environmental difficulties. It will be the responsibility of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and of this Congress and of NRC, of the executive department of government, of EPA and all of the other agencies, to see that the process is conducted in a way which is safe, which creates a minimum of hazard, to see that the transportation is done as safely as it can be done with as little risk as possible to the community and the people through which it passes. It will also be our responsibility to see to it that all of the questions which remain to be answered are answered. That will be a part of the licensing process, which is going to go on for something like 4 to 6 years after we conclude this. The probabilities are that the decision will not be made until some time around 2010 or perhaps even later. I think it makes good sense that this body should exercise ordinary responsibility. We have a duty to the people to resolve this question. We are setting about taking another step towards the conclusion of an open process to arrive at a decision, followed by the licensing process which will take place at NRC and, as I mentioned, that will be fully open. EPA will be participating in that. Every other citizen who has a concern will. My advice to this body is proceed. We are simply taking a step forward. Let us take that step forward and make the process work in an open fashion for the benefit of all us. Let us resolve the question today. Vote aye.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we have seen this resolution or one very like it before. The same thoughts that we saw before we see before us today, and that is that this is not a balanced resolution. It is not in the interests of Israel. It is not in the interests of the Palestinian people, and it is not in the interest of the United States. It is simply a denunciation of the Palestinians, and it does nothing to set out a picture of balance as the position of the United States. It is time the United States recognizes something. Our commitment, and I am a part of that, to Israel for its continued existence requires that there be peace in the Middle East, and it requires that the United States function as an honest broker and as a friend to all parties and to all countries in that area. We can and we should and we do and we denounce terrorism. It is wrong. But this denunciation of terrorism is not the kind of mechanism that will bring peace. It does not posture the United States as a friend to all. It does not posture the United States as an honest broker seeking to defend the interests of peace and to establish a place and a climate in which Israelis and Israel and Palestinians and a Palestinian state may live at peace. It simply takes one side. That is no way to get ourselves in the position of being an honest broker. I would like to read something that was said by a man wiser than I and wiser than most of us here. He said this: ``I truly tell you, we have before us today an opportunity for peace which time will never repeat and we must seize if we are really serious in struggling for peace. If we weaken or fritter away this opportunity we shall end in a new blood-bath. He who has conspired to lose it will have the curse of humanity and history upon his head.'' These are the words that Anwar Sadat spoke to the Israeli Knesset in 1977. I would remind you that Sadat, like Yizak Rabin, paid the highest price for his search for peace. I would tell you that until the United States recognizes the need for us and this country to function as an honest broker for peace, there will be no peace, there will be no security for Israel, there will be no security for the Palestinians and no security for the United States. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating yet another irresponsible Congressional resolution that does absolutely nothing to help end the violence that plagues the Israeli and Palestinian people. I rise in opposition to this resolution, which at a very delicate time undermines the Bush Administration's efforts to ease tensions, end violence, and bring about a fair peace that will be acceptable and beneficial to Israelis and Palestinians. This resolution sends exactly the wrong signal at this perilous time. It will only further fan the flames of violence, increase regional instability, and compromises our war on terrorism. With American forces engaged in battle, the Administration needs Congress to support its diplomatic efforts, particularly the effort to bring about peace in Israel and the Occupied Territories. The Administration needs Congress to support its efforts to engage both the Israelis and Palestinians as an honest broker that sees the death of any innocent human being as a tragedy and threat to the long-term interests of the parties involved, our regional allies, and the United States. Congress must stand for peace, for it is peace along that will benefit Israel, Palestine, and the United States. The Administration does not need Congress to pass one-sided, proactive measures that undermine U.S. diplomacy and our ability to address this problem, which has proven to be a cancer on Israel, Palestine, the region, and U.S. diplomacy. Consistent and fair U.S. leadership is critical to proving Israel security and allowing the Palestinian people to live with dignity, and is the best and perhaps only viable hope for reducing bloodshed. As bad as the situation is today, there are rays of hope that we must not block. We have an opportunity for peace, and numerous diplomatic initiatives--based on U.S. leadership and building on the Mitchell Committee Report, the Tenet plan, and the Saudi Proposal--that must move forward. These measures could prevent the widening of this conflict into a war in which there will not be a winner regardless of military outcome. Passage of H. Res. 392 will undermine the Administration, diminish U.S. leverage with the Palestinians, and further damage U.S. creditability in the region. If the U.S. fails to act as a peace proponent now, there will most certainly be a leadership vacuum in the region. This will hurt our allies, including Israel. Mr. Speaker, what is the vision of the Administration? Secretary Colin Powell said that is to build, ``a region where Israelis and Arabs can live together in peace, security, and dignity.'' To do this he noted that both parties must take steps, some painful, in order to reach a just conclusion to this conflict. H. Res. 392 does not embody this vision, and it does not embody peace. Why aren't we debating H. Con. Res. 253, a bill I introduced that endorses the Mitchell Commission recommendations? Why aren't we debating H. Res. 394, which my colleague from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, introduced? Why aren't we debating H. Res. 382, that my friend Alcee Hastings introduced? All these bills are balanced, and urge a peaceful settlement to the ongoing conflict that is endangering the region and the world. Why aren't we urging the parties to work with the Administration to end the violence and make peace? Let me read you a statement made from a man wiser than I: I truly tell you: we have before us today an opportunity for peace which time will never repeat and we must seize it if we are really serious in struggling for peace. If we weaken or fritter away this opportunity we shall end in a new blood-bath; he who has conspired to lose it will have the curse of humanity and history on his head. Mr. Speaker, these are the words Anwar Sadat spoke to the Israeli Knesset in 1977. Sadat, like Yitzak Rabin, paid the highest personal price for peace. Let us remember these words and these brave men, and champion efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace. Let's be on the right side of history. Vote down this resolution, and support the Administration's efforts to solve this conflict and bring peace to this troubled land.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, for 75 years, May has been designated Better Hearing and Speech Month. With an estimated 42 million Americans affected by speech, language, and hearing disorders, audiologist and speech language pathologist have made a special effort during this month to inform, educate, and raise awareness about this critical health care issue. It is estimated that one in six Americans has a hearing, speech, or language problem--a condition that makes it difficult to communicate with others. An impairment of the ability to hear, speak, or understand effectively can affect anyone, of any age, at any time. If left untreated these problems can limit a person at home, school, and work. With proper treatment, however, the isolating effects of communication disorders can be minimized or completely eliminated. As with most health care conditions, it is critical that communication disorders be diagnosed early. As the most common congenital birth defect, hearing loss can severely affect a child's social, emotional, and academic development. That is why I urge all 50 states to follow the example of my home state of Michigan, and implement routine hearing screens for every newborn before they leave the hospital. Also, hearing loss among Americans age 65 and over affects one out of three people, but without effective screening, many are condemned to suffer in silence. We must seek comprehensive hearing screening for all Americans. Therefore, I support this resolution recognizing May as Better Hearing and Speech Month and urge the people of the United States to focus on preventing, mitigating, and curing communication disorders.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H. Con. Res. 388, establishing a National Minority Health and Health Disparities Month. This resolution has been crafted by my good friend and colleague, Representative Christensen. The resolution was reported unanimously by the Committee on Energy and Commerce last week. Mr. Speaker, this resolution will help to keep our attention focused on a disturbing fact of life. That fact is that people of color face devastating disparities in research, quality, access, and other measures of health care. Women are particularly hard hit, as reflected in the statistics. The prestigious Institute of Medicine recently published yet another study that shows we still have a long way to go before we can say that all Americans share equally in the benefits of modern medicine. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this resolution specifically mentions the Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act of 2000. I was proud to join my colleagues, including Representatives John Lewis and Jesse Jackson, Jr., in that effort. That bill recognized that disparities exist throughout the development and delivery of health care. It was a good step, but clearly much more needs to be done. The entire health care system, from ``bench to bedside,'' needs to be vigilant and to address disparities wherever and however they occur. I applaud Representative Christensen for bringing this resolution to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support her work and to support substantive efforts to eradicate health disparities in all programs that come before this body.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and remember the 1.5 million victims of the Armenian Genocide, who were systematically slaughtered solely because of their race. While there is never a justification for genocide, in this case there also regrettably has never been an apology, and the criminals were never brought to justice. Such an unconscionable act, however, can never be forgotten. Accordingly, it is our duty as elected officials to state in no uncertain terms that the Armenian Genocide is clearly and unambiguously defined as genocide. Repeatedly, many leaders, including the President, have called the Armenian Genocide everything but a genocide. Only when this term is understood will the tragic events that began on April 24, 1915, be placed in the correct historical context. The Armenian Genocide cannot be denied. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in tribute to the Armenian people who have fully recovered from this atrocity by maintaining their proud traditions and culture, becoming an integral part of America, and nine years ago, forming the Republic of Armenia. The Ottoman Empire's last, desperate act was one of profound cruelty, tragic and gruesome beyond description. During World War I--a tumultuous, revolutionary time of great societal transformations and uncertain futures on the battlefields and at home--desperate Ottoman leaders fell back on the one weapon that could offer hope of personal survival. It is a weapon that is still used today, fed by fear, desperation, and hatred. It transforms the average citizen into a zealot, no longer willing to listen to reason. This weapon is, of course, nationalism. Wrongly directed, nationalism can easily result in ethnic strife and senseless genocide, committed in the name of false beliefs preached by immoral, irresponsible, tyrannical leaders. Today I rise not to speak of the present, but in memory of the victims of the past, who suffered needlessly in the flames of vicious, destructive nationalism. Exactly 87 years ago today, the leaders of the Ottoman government tragically chose to systematically exterminate an entire race of people. In this case, as in the case of Nazi Germany, nationalism became a weapon of cruelty and evil. Let us never forget the 1.5 million Armenians who died at the whim of wicked men and their misguided followers. The story of the Armenian Genocide is in itself appalling. It is against everything our government--and indeed all governments who strive for justice--stands for; it represents the most wicked side of humanity. What makes the Armenian story even more unfortunate is history has repeated itself in all corners of the world, and lessons that should have been learned long ago have been ignored. We must not forget the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, or Bosnia. It is our duty that by remembering the millions who have been victims of genocide, we pledge ourselves to preventing such acts from repeating themselves. It is an honor and privilege to represent a large and active Armenian population, many who have family members who were persecuted by their Ottoman Turkish rulers. Michigan's Armenian-American community has done much to further our state's commercial, political, and intellectual growth, just has it as done in communities across the country. And so I also rise today to honor to the triumph of the Armenian people, who have endured adversity and bettered our country. The Armenian people have faced great trials and tests throughout their history. They have proved their resilience in the face of tragedy before, and I have no doubt that they will endure today's tragic occurrence, recognize that a madman's bullet can never put an end to a people's dreams, and keep moving forward on the path of peace and freedom. Mr. Speaker, let no one, friend or foe, ever deny that the Armenian Genocide occurred. Let us not forget the heinous nature of the crimes committed against the Armenian people. Let us promise to the world as American citizens and citizens of the world, that we will never again allow such a crime to be perpetrated, and will not tolerate the forces of misguided nationalism and hate.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment and in opposition to the bill. I say to the sponsors of the legislation, shame. This is a piece of drivel. It is not a piece of legislation, it is a gift to the accounting industry and those who would steal from the American investing public. Look at the history: Enron, Global Crossing, Baptist Foundation of Arizona, Waste Management, Sunbeam, Xerox, Rite Aid, Microstrategy. Accountants and fat cat officers of corporations stole billions and lied to the American investing public. That is what happened, and that is what needs to be corrected, and that is not what is addressed here. The watchdogs in those cases and many others were asleep, or benefiting from their wrongdoing, or just plain blind. What is the response of the legislation to this outrage? The bill passes the buck to the SEC on every major issue, and avoids addressing important issues altogether by requiring that the SEC conduct studies. If Members like studies and they want to waste money, that is a fine way to do it. If they want to hurt the investing public, that is a fine way. Enron would have loved this legislation. Anderson would have found it to be splendid. I would be embarrassed to put a piece of legislation of this kind on the House floor. The LaFalce substitute ends the farcical self- regulation by the accounting industry which is encouraged and fostered by the committee bill. It creates a strong regulatory board that sets strict standards for auditor independence and auditor quality, and it is a shame if the House does not accomplish this important reform today. The LaFalce substitute also requires executives to surrender ill- gotten gains made as a result of financial frauds, and empowers the SEC to bar officers guilty of wrongdoing from serving with other companies so that they may steal again. I think that that is necessary. It also imposes strong penalties for lying, including criminal penalties. The committee bill actually makes it harder for the SEC to bar crooked executives from serving in other companies. On whose side are the authors of this legislation? Mr. Chairman, our financial markets run on confidence. Those on this side apparently do not know that. If the people have confidence, everybody makes lots of money. They do not run on money, and no confidence will exist, where there is stealing, dishonesty, false accounting, and the kinds of things which we have seen going on in the accounting industry. I would note that it is time that we deal with these things, and deal vigorously. The American public wants action. They do not trust the accounting, they do not trust the financial markets, and they want to see something in which they can have faith. Unless and until Members do something about the situation that the American public sees, again with the Enrons and the other corporations where this is going on, and about the Andersens, we are going to see no confidence in the securities markets, and we are going to find that the economy of this country is going to hurt. I say vote for the LaFalce amendment, vote against the committee bill. The committee bill is a sad, sorry, and repugnant joke. Vote for a piece of legislation that protects the American public. Vote for a piece of legislation that protects the investors of this Nation. Let us give confidence to the markets, instead of passing a sorry, silly charade like this.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, yet again I stand here perplexed by the actions of my Republican colleagues. Will they never cease to amaze me? Perhaps one day I will realize that there are no lengths my colleagues on the other side of the aisle won't go to in order to help their fat cat buddies. I would note that the wealthiest one percent of the population will receive half of the benefits from this extension. The wealthiest one percent! I ask you, Mr. Speaker, do the wealthiest one percent of our population need our help? I think not. Based on the most recent CBO estimates, permanently extending last year's ridiculous tax cuts will increase the deficit by another $374 billion through 2012. Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, I stood in this very spot and urged my colleagues to vote against the Republicans' ill conceived tax scheme. Here we are, one year later and already back in deficit spending. Because of these absurd tax cuts and the Republican budget, we are taking $1.5 trillion out of the Social Security Trust Fund over the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, the most simple laws of math dictate that we cannot carry out our priorities, Democratic or Republican, with this scheme. It is critical that we pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit and address the dramatically rising cost of Social Security as the baby boomers retire. Where will we get the money? How will we pay for homeland security and the President's war on terrorism? How does the President intend to fund his star wars program or increase the defense budget? How will the landmark education reform the President has advocated by carried out without any funding? Making this tax cut permanent will raise the 10 year cost of last year's tax bill to $2 trillion. Can we afford it? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. George Santayana, whose writings and wisdom I have found to serve those in politics, said: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican colleagues have a very short memory. Not only do I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this bill, I would also ask that they join me in cosponsoring a bill introduced by my good friend from Massachusetts, Representative Frank. His bill, H.R. 2935, would repeal the reduction in the top income tax rate. This would add about $100 billion to federal revenue over the next 10 years. All of this money would go into the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, where it is needed.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ruben Burks on the occasion of his retirement from the UAW as secretary-treasurer. Mr. Burks was elected secretary-treasurer of the UAW on June 24, 1998, by the delegates to the 32nd UAW Constitutional Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada. As secretary-treasurer, Ruben holds the second-highest office in the UAW. He is responsible for various administrative departments of the International Union, including Accounting, Auditing, Building Maintenance, Circulation, Purchasing, and Strike Insurance. In addition, Burks directs the UAW Michigan CAP (Community Action Program) and the UAW's Veterans Department. Prior to his position as secretary-treasurer, Ruben served three terms as director of UAW Region IC, which covers 11 counties in south- central Michigan and is headquartered in Flint. Mr. Speaker, Ruben has been a member of UAW Local 598 since 1955 when he went to work as an assembler at the former Fisher Body Plant 2 of General Motors Corporation in Flint, Michigan. In 1970, Mr. Burks was appointed by then UAW President Walter Reuther to the International Union staff in Region 1C where he serviced UAW members in General Motors and independents, parts, and supplier plants. Ruben has been a long time community activist as well. He has been a leader in Flint Genesee County Economic Development, a cooperative effort by labor, business, and civic leaders to keep good jobs in the Flint community and to attract new industries to the area. Ruben played a leading role in the UAW-General Motors Community Health Care Initiative in Flint, an innovative community-based effort to improve the quality and accessibility of health care while at the same time making the community's health care delivery system more cost efficient. Ruben has not only been active in the UAW, but is also actively involved in numerous civic, charitable, and youth organizations in the Flint community, including Special Olympics, March of Dimes, Red Cross, and Easter Seals. An outspoken advocate for working families in the political arena, Mr. Burks has made grassroots political action by UAW members a high priority in Region 1C. Ruben also received an honorary degree in Community Development from Mott Community College in recognition and appreciation of his contributions to the Flint community. Ruben has lived in Flint since 1955 and is the proud father of seven children and ten grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, as Ruben leaves his position as secretary-treasurer of the UAW, I would ask that all my colleagues salute him and his leadership.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend, Stephen P. Yokich, on the occasion of his retirement after nearly 35 years of dedication to the UAW, including his impressive two terms as President of the organization. Steve is a natural born leader and has been a driving force within the UAW. He has played a leading role in re-energizing the labor movement, developing new strategies to address the challenges of the global economy, expanding the UAW's organizing activities, and cementing close ties with other major unions. Steve's long and impressive career in the labor community began when he was appointed by UAW President Walter Reuther to the Region I staff in 1969. Since then, Mr. Speaker, Steve has worked to make the UAW the strong and diversified organization that it is today. A former director of the UAW's Organizing Department (from 1983 to 1989), Steve has made organizing a top priority of the Union. An early advocate of diversifying the UAW's membership, he planned and directed the highly successful 1985 organizing drive that brought 22,000 State of Michigan employees into the UAW. Mr. Yokich also has impeccable collective bargaining skills which were displayed on several occasions, including his 1999 and 1996 negotiations with the major automakers. Under Steve's leadership, the contracts achieved with the Big Three automakers in 1996 bolstered hallmark job and income security programs, and further expanded the widely respected ``People Programs,'' that benefit members and their families. In the weeks leading up to the traditional opening of contract talks with the Big Three in 1996, Yokich's bargaining innovation and savvy took the floor. He surprised the companies and industry observers by refusing to designate one company a ``strike target.'' As he told the press, ``Our members elected us to bring back agreements, not to go on strike.'' Just a few days prior to contract expiration, Yokich announced that the Ford Motor Company would be the lead company for the Union's all- out settlement efforts. The results validated Steve's innovative new approach to auto negotiations. The Union gained wage and benefit increases in each year of the three-year Ford agreement, and greatly strengthened existing job and income security programs. Other key gains included: cost of living protection for retirees, health care improvements and the enhancement of many other programs. Mr. Yokich made an historic breakthrough with the first company-paid tuition assistance for post secondary education of dependents of UAW members, as well as tuition assistance for retirees. Similar contracts then followed at Chrysler and General Motors. Mr. Speaker, Steve has also been a forceful leader in bringing women and minorities into top UAW leadership positions. He has always been a strong believer that the UAW leadership must accurately reflect the make-up of the membership. Mr. Yokich not only believed in diversifying the UAW, but he also fought for improvements in workplace health and safety and for education and training for UAW-represented workers and their families. Steve was widely praised for his pioneering role in developing Employee Assistance Programs to help workers with problems such as drug and alcohol abuse. Steve has had a hand in virtually all facets of the UAW including the UAW's Agricultural Implement Department and the Skilled Trades Department. He is also a veteran political activist. Steve has coordinated and participated in numerous statewide and national campaigns. As if all of the above was not an impressive enough list of accomplishments, Mr. Yokich is also involved in a wide range of labor, civic, and charitable organizations. He is a member of the NAACP and the Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW), and serves on the boards or steering committees of the Economic Alliance of Michigan, Michigan Blue Cross-Blue Shield, the Michigan Cancer Foundation, and the Father Clement Kern Foundation. Mr. Yokich and his wife, Tekla, are the parents of two children, Stephen A. and Tracey, and have one grandson, Michael Stephen. Hopefully, his retirement will allow him to enjoy more time with his family, as well as devoting more time to golfing, hunting and fishing. Mr. Speaker, as Steve leaves after nearly thirty-five years of dedication to the UAW, I would ask that all my colleagues salute him and his efforts on behalf of American workers.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Equal Pay Day. This is a national day of action to promote fair pay. It is disheartening that Equal Pay Day comes only once a year. Mr. Speaker, everyday should be equal pay day. Even though we have had equal pay laws on the books for nearly 40 years, women still only earn .73 cents to the male dollar nationally. In my home state of Michigan, that figure is even worse, with women earning an average of .67 cents to the male dollar. Not surprisingly, women of color are in the worst position, earning only .64 cents to the male dollar. This, Mr. Speaker, is quite simply a disgrace. Equal work deserves equal pay. But in today's economy, unfair pay hurts more than just women; it hurts families. When women are not paid fairly, it lowers the family income. That means there is less money for essentials like groceries, doctors' visits, and clothes for the children. This is not a women's issue, Mr. Speaker, it is a family issue. We protect America's working families by rectifying this wrong. What can we do? I have two answers for you. 1. We can pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which was introduced by my good friend from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro. The Paycheck Fairness Act would strengthen existing equal pay and civil rights laws by providing effective remedies to women who are not being paid equal wages for equal work. 2. We can pass the ERA, reintroduced this year by my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York, Carolyn Maloney. We have waited too long to provide women with equal standing in the Constitution. The ERA would put some real teeth in our equal pay laws, and guarantee equal pay for equal work. I would encourage all members who are not currently cosponsors of the ERA to join us. We have 200, but we need more. I would ask my colleagues to truly represent the 50 percent of their constituency that still goes unrecognized in the very document that guarantees our rights and freedoms. Why should women be left behind? Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives DeLauro and Maloney for their much needed leadership on this very important issue. There is no excuse for disparity in pay between men and women. Mr. Speaker, it is time for action. In honor of Equal Pay Day, I would ask my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of these two important bills. There is no better time than the present. Let's stop ignoring this serious family problem today.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on April 10, 2002, the House of Representatives voted to reject H.R. 3991, the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act, by a vote of 205-219. Although the underlying bill was noncontroversial, the Republican leadership refused to permit reformers' attempts to strip an amendment from the bill that would have rolled back important campaign finance laws, including the 2000 Section 527 disclosure requirements and the Shays-Meehan reforms which became law two weeks ago yesterday. I am a staunch advocate for campaign finance reform and supported the legislation requiring Section 527 groups to disclose their contributors as well as the Shays-Meehan law. Had I been able to vote yesterday, I would have joined my colleagues who support campaign finance reform and voted against H.R. 3991.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the skill, tenacity, and leadership of our colleague and my friend, Rep. Lois Capps. I have served with many fine people over the course of my career in the House of Representatives and she is among the best. She fights every day for the people of her district, and for causes that affect virtually every member of our society. She does this with great skill and even greater courage. I have come to admire her strength, compassion, commitment, and drive. It is with great respect and affection that I request that a copy of her recent remarks to the American Medical Association be included in the Record. I recommend that all of my colleagues read them with great care. Statement of Rep. Lois Capps, American Medical Association Conference, March 10, 2002 Opening Thank you very much for inviting me here to speak today. It is an honor to spend some time with my colleagues in health care. I have been asked to speak to you about the Democratic Party's agenda on health care. But I am not sure there should be a separate ``Democratic'' or ``Republican'' agenda on health. Though politics often suffuses the debate about health care, we should not come at this issue from a political perspective. I have only recently in my life become an elected official. And I do not consider myself as simply a politician. Instead, I think of myself in the terms that defined the forty years of my career before I came to Washington. I am a nurse. I am a health care provider. It is my calling. And I think of myself in my new job as just a different kind of health care provider. I may have traded in my nursing uniform and medical equipment for legislation and committee action. But my goal is still the same. I am obliged to care for the health of my patients, whether they are the students in the Santa Barbara school system, the patients in Yale New Haven Hospital, or the seniors on Medicare across America. And I am proud to bring the benefits of this lifetime of nursing experience to the halls of Congress. And I think my experience has taught me well. As medical professionals we have learned that we need to carefully examine symptoms, check vitals, run tests, and thoughtfully consider our options. Then we select the best course of action we can think of. We don't look at the label on a medication to see if it has a D or an R on it. We don't look to see if Tom Daschle or George Bush recommended a particular treatment. We call on all of our medical training and professional experience. We often consult other doctors and nurses, because we have learned that health care is better when provided by a team. And this is how the Congress needs to approach the challenges facing today's health care system. Most of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, are genuinely interested in reaching across party lines to come up with good solutions. But a few are more interested in opposing the other party's members than in solving our problems. They are unwilling to engage in a debate on the issues, but would rather stymie their opponents ideas, be they Republican or Democrat, for political gain. I am a nurse. Sen. Kyl is a lawyer. My colleague, the Ranking Member of the Health Subcommittee, Sherrod Brown is a teacher. Rep. Ganske is a doctor and Rep. Norwood is a dentist. Some of us are Democrats and some of us are Republicans. It is going to take all of our varied experience, expertise, and perspectives to develop real solutions to the challenges we face today. Overview And we face real challenges. A few minutes ago I suggested that Congress should treat health care problems the way a doctor treats a patient. So let's do that now. Let's check our nation's health care vital signs and look at some of its symptoms. There are 125,000 vacant nursing positions across the country. Physician fees under Medicare have grown 13% less than the costs of practice since 1992. Approximately 56 million Americans are not protected by any state or federal patient protections. 40 million Americans are on Medicare. 78 million baby boomers will start to join them in the next decade. Annual spending on prescription drugs by seniors has grown 116%, from $18.5 billion in 1992 to $42.9 billion in 2000. And 43 million Americans are without health insurance of any kind. These are not strong and stable vital signs. They point to several problems we must address in order to get our patient, the health of our nation, out of critical care. Nursing First of all we have to make sure that the health care infrastructure is there to care for all Americans. This leads us to the nursing shortage. I admit I have a bias when I talk about this issue. I think nurses are terribly important to our health care system. I know first hand the challenges facing the nursing profession and the consequences if we fail to meet them. And today the nursing community is facing a dire situation. With an aging nursing workforce approaching retirement, and a dwindling supply of new nurses, we are facing an incredible shortfall of well trained, experienced nurses. To make matters worse this will peak just as the baby boom generation begins to retire and require a greater amount of care. I have written legislation, the Nurse Reinvestment Act, to deal with both the immediate and the long-term problems we face. This legislation included proposals: To improve access to nursing education, to entice young people into nursing, to create partnerships between health care providers and educational institutions, and to support working nurses as they seek more training. This past December, the House passed a slimmed down version of my bill, and the Senate passed legislation more like what I originally envisioned. We are now trying to work out the differences. I deeply appreciate the support of the AMA for my legislation. We are close to finishing it and we would not be here without your support. Physician Fees And just as we need to make sure patients have nurses, we also need to make sure they can see their doctors. As you are all aware, the reimbursement rates for physicians' services under Medicare saw a disastrous cut of 5.4% this year. This cut has already had a terrible impact on health care in my district and, I am sure, across the country. If these cuts are not corrected quickly they will be devastating to medical professionals and our ability to provide quality health care. I know you have been deeply frustrated by these cuts, as have I. And you have begun changing your practices to accommodate new economic reality. A doctor's office is usually a small business. But as you well know, unlike most small businesses your decisions have life and death consequences. Some doctors in my district have left private practice altogether. Others are threatening to. Many who stayed in private practice said that they could no longer afford to accept new Medicare patients. And others simply left Medicare all together. This has meant that many seniors across the country are scrambling to find new doctors so they can continue to get the care they need and deserve. Along with a couple of my colleagues I introduced legislation to freeze physician fees at the 2001 level until Congress could find a long-term fix. And when Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Brown, Chairman Tauzin, and Ranking Member Dingell introduced their own legislation to keep the cut minimal. I was pleased to join them in their efforts and was able to get 146 of my colleagues to ask the Speaker for a vote on this issue. But, in spite of the bipartisan agreement on this issue, the bill has not been brought to the House floor. I know you will keep the pressure on the House leadership to bring this issue to a vote. I will too. We need to solve this problem now.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to pay tribute to the Girl Scouts on their 90th Anniversary. The Girl Scouts are the world's preeminent organization dedicated solely to girls--all girls. In a nurturing environment, girls are able to build character and skills for success in the real world. Girl Scouting began on March 12, 1912, when founder Juliette Gordon Low assembled 18 girls from Savannah, Georgia, for a local Girl Scout meeting. She believed that all girls should be given the opportunity to develop physically, mentally, and spiritually. Today, Mr. Speaker, that small group of 18 girls from Savannah has blossomed into 3.8 million Girl Scouts nationwide. The Detroit Metro Girl Scouts currently have 32,000 girls involved and it just keeps growing. Not only have the Girl Scouts continued their dedication to building good citizens and leaders, but their organization has established a research institute, received government funding to address violence prevention and is addressing the digital divide with activities that encourage girls to pursue careers in science, math and technology. The Detroit Metro Girl Scouts have set up a program with Lawrence Technological Institute in Detroit, Michigan to further the involvement of young women in the field of technology. In the Girl Scouts, girls discover the fun, friendship, and power of girls together, through a myriad of experiences, such as extraordinary field trips, sports skill-building clinics, community service projects, environmental stewardships and numerous other character building activities. They provide young women with the opportunity to build a strong mind, body, and spirit through various programs dealing with nutrition, diet, exercise and several other health campaigns including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and Child Health Day. Mr. Speaker, the Girl Scouts are an asset to communities all over the United States. I want to thank them for their tireless effort to provide young women with the personal, emotional and intellectual foundation that is essential for building good citizens and leaders. On the occasion of their 90th Anniversary, I would like to ask all my colleagues to salute the Detroit Metro Girl Scouts and their fellow Girl Scouts across the country.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).