John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to assert my strong support for the Shays-Meehan substitute and to urge my colleagues to do likewise and to vote down all poison pills and crippling amendments.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1748, a bill to designate the United States Postal Service building located at 805 Glen Burnie Road in Richmond, Virginia, as the ``Tom Bliley Post Office Building.'' Before his departure from the House of Representatives at the conclusion of the 106th Congress, Tom Bliley and I had served together for two decades on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. As Chairman of the Committee on Commerce during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses, Tom worked to address difficult topics across the vast range of the Committee's jurisdiction. Tom reached out in a bipartisan manner to move important legislation through the Committee, including the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, and Digital Signatures legislation. I note that this bipartisanship on the Committee came during a time of intense partisanship in the House. When we were adversaries, Tom remained a gentleman and a friend. I value his friendship and thank him for his. I congratulate Tom on his two decades of worthy service to his constituents, the Committee, and the House of Representatives, and can think of no more fitting way to honor him and his fine public service than by dedicating this U.S. Post Office building in his honor.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this farcical, time-wasting resolution. Have we no real work to do? We have a duty to protect our great nation in times of crisis and war. We do not, however, have a duty to help our Republican colleagues look out for their fat cat buddies through an unbalanced and, frankly, unfair tax cut like the one passed last year. The tax cut was passed; that is over. I would now, however, ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this ridiculous resolution today. I would further ask that my colleagues 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, so we can keep our commitment to our seniors. Mr. Speaker, the budget submitted by President Bush this week proposes a budget deficit every year for the next decade. This means a $1.5 trillion budget deficit over the next 10 years. The Bush tax plan that passed last year left too little room for error, and no room for unexpected events like September 11. No one in this chamber would deny that we need to defend our nation, but we must do so in a fiscally responsible manner. In addition to the threats posed by terrorism both at home and abroad, we face other great domestic challenges. Our kids are taught in dilapidated schools that are not equipped to handle technology that is so vital to their future. Seniors cannot afford the prescription drugs they so desperately need. We have no Patients' Bill of Rights and we must do more to protect our environment. These are important issues that need to be addressed before we give tax cuts to the fat cats. Mr. Speaker, where are our priorities? It was bad enough to debate this foolish policy once. I am perplexed as to why the GOP leadership now wants us to waste time reaffirming our support for this ridiculous tax scheme. I am forced to conclude that my Republican colleagues truly believe we have no more important work to do. I ask my colleagues to reject this resolution and to stand strong for fiscal responsibility.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2506, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for FY 2002. With American forces engaged in battle, it is essential that Congress provide the Administration the tools it needs to meet our foreign policy objectives, which include playing an active role in the Middle East peace process. The events of the past weeks have again reminded us the troubled waters through which we must tread in the Middle East. The cycle of violence that has embroiled the region for the last 14 months has in no way helped Israel or the Palestinians. The longer this violence persists, the worse it will be for all parties, including the United States. Already, American credibility vis-a-vis the peace process has been seriously questioned. The violence unleashed in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and elsewhere by Palestinian suicide bombers is wrong. There is no justification for killing innocent civilians, and the deaths of 27 Israeli citizens is outrageous and must be condemned by all. I fail to comprehend what would compel a young man to strap explosives to his body, and surrender his life in an immoral, misguided effort to kill innocent people. In response to the suicide attacks in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Israel has again launched a powerful military response intended to scare Palestinians into submission. This strike has caused numerous Palestinian casualties, and destroyed Yasser Arafat's headquarters. While Israel intended to send a message to Palestinians, I do not think the message they sent--delivered from helicopter gunships and F-16's-- is one they wanted the Palestinians to receive. A commentator drew an apt parallel when he noted that if the English bombed Belfast and Dublin in response to an IRA attack, the Irish would hardly be more eager to work with the British on matters of security. Mr. Speaker, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is headed toward a precipice, which poses a grave danger to Israel, the Palestinians, and the United States. On November 19, Secretary Colin Powell indicated a renewed, active U.S. initiative to end violence and get the peace process back on track. Powell noted that obtaining a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians is our central diplomatic challenge, and that our vision is to help build, ``a region where Israelis and Arabs can live together in peace, security, and dignity.'' He also stated that both parties must take steps, some painful, in order to reach a just conclusion to this conflict. This is not the time for our country and this body to play the role of partisan. We must not be pro or anti-Palestinian, nor must we be pro or anti-Israeli. We must sanction the conduct of those who insight violence or dictate their will by force alone, and criticize any activity that undermines confidence, security, and peace. We must urge both parties to rededicate themselves to the path of peace. This is the only path in the long-term interest of the United States, and is certainly the only one offering real security for Israel and statehood for the Palestinians. Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary Powell noted, United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, Camp David, and all agreements made in the last decade have spelled out the principles upon which a final peace settlement will be made. Israel will get security and the opportunity to forge economic, political, and cultural ties to its neighbors; Palestinians will get an independent state. Israeli and Palestinian citizens alike will all have the opportunity to live normal lives. Both parties win. Only rejectionist and extremists lose. The first step to peace is implementing the Mitchell Committee Report. The Mitchell Committee studied the ongoing violence over a period of months, and the report is submitted included objective findings and constructive recommendations as to how to end the violence and rebuild confidence that will enable the parties to return to the negotiating table. Both Israel and the Palestinians have accepted the Mitchell Committee Report. It alone offers the one thing that is most needed today: hope. Mr. Speaker, I would note that I have introduced H. Con. Res. 253, a resolution which expresses support for the Mitchell Commission report. It is supported by the Administration, and I would hope that more members would register their support for the peace process by endorsing Mitchell and cosponsoring H. Con. Res. 253. ``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 of Anwar Sadat spoken to the Knesset in 1977. Sadat, like Yitzak Rabin, paid the highest personal price for peace. Let us remember them, and champion efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace. Now is a historic opportunity for between peace and war. Let's be on the right side of history.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2869. This bill combines the brownfields provisions of S. 350 that unanimously passed the Senate on April 25, 2001, and the small business liability protection provisions of H.R. 1831 that unanimously passed the House on May 22, 2001. This bill is a good piece of legislation. It deserves the support of all members. In the past two Congresses, members on this side of the aisle have put forward, and strongly supported, stand-alone brownfields legislation and targeted relief for small business. Those policies are contained in this bill. The passage of this legislation will help revitalize and redevelop our communities. Using the provisions of this bill, local governments will be able to obtain increased funding and remove urban eyesores and create new jobs. At the same time, risks to the public health from petroleum and hazardous substances contamination will also be addressed at these lesser-contaminated brownfield sites. 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 lands once occupied by mighty manufacturing facilities and thriving communities. Brownfields development is occurring in Michigan communities like Taylor and Monroe, as local governments, developers, and citizens are finding creative ways to rebuild our communities. This bill maintains the policies of EPA's current and very successful brownfields program. Adoption of this brownfields legislation is a top priority for our Nation's mayors, who have testified that it meets all of their fundamental needs. I congratulate Subcommittee Chairman Gillmor, Ranking Member Pallone, and our former Ranking Member from New York, Mr. Towns, for their hard work over several years on this important legislation. I strongly urge adoption of H.R. 2869 as amended.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act of 2001. While this bill is technical in nature, it offers real benefits to low-income Native American women who are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer. The bill makes a technical correction to legislation that Congress enacted last year, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act. Last year's legislation allowed States, at their option, to cover low-income women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention screening program under Medicaid. The bill, however, inadvertently excluded Native American women from receiving assistance under this option due to an underlying definition of ``creditable coverage'' intended to protect Native Americans receiving health services through Indian Health Services in the context of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Unfortunately, in this instance, the definition had the effect of excluding Native American women from coverage rather than protecting them. The legislation before us today will resolve this problem by clarifying the term ``creditable coverage.'' While Native American and Alaskan Native women have a higher incidence of breast and cervical cancer than the U.S. population generally, the exclusion from the new Medicaid coverage option leaves Native American women with fewer resources to fight their breast and cervical cancer. This legislation needs quick enactment to ensure that Native American and Alaskan Native women receive this needed assistance. The Senate already passed this legislation by unanimous consent. This bill is supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and American Cancer Society among others. I am pleased that the House will address this very important issue this year. I wish to extend my appreciation and recognition as well to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked on this issue, including the lead sponsor Representative Tom Udall. I also want to commend Representative Anna Eshoo, who worked tirelessly last year to make this State option under Medicaid a reality. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to pay tribute to the Dearborn/Dearborn Heights Chapter of the League of Women Voters on their 50th Anniversary. Recognized by the National League of Women Voters on December 19th, 1951, the Dearborn/Dearborn Heights Chapter has fulfilled and continues to fulfill it's primary goal of encouraging the informed and active participation of citizens in government, working to increase understanding of major public issues and influencing public policy through education and advocacy. The Dearborn/Dearborn Heights Chapter has provided numerous services to the community since their inception in 1951. In 1952, they provided election-day childcare in 63 precincts, allowing parents to vote. They helped establish the Northwestern Child Guidance Clinic in 1963. Throughout the years, they have worked with ABC News on election-day exit polling. These fine women have helped pass library proposals and establish a diversity committee which works to engage local students in community discussions. Mr. Speaker, these women have served their community well. Though they are a non-partisan group, the Dearborn/Dearborn Heights Chapter of the League of Women's Voters is extremely political, focusing their efforts on child health and welfare, juvenile justice, and campaign finance reform. A League representative sits on the Rouge River Advisory Council, as well as the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Educational Advisory Council. As spelled out in their original charter, the League's actions are always a reflection of their member's priorities. I would like to recognize the current officers of the Dearborn/ Dearborn Heights Chapter of the League of Women Voters: Elizabeth Linick, Janice Berry, Mary Jo Durivage, Mary Anne Wilkinson, Jeni Dunn and Mary Bugeia. I thank all the fine members of this Chapter of the League for all their hard work over the past 50 years, and would ask that they keep it up. On the occasion of their 50th anniversary, I would ask all my colleagues to salute the Dearborn/Dearborn Heights Chapter of the League of Women Voters.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is a good time to bring it up. It is late at night. This kind of cynical legislation should be brought up in the dark because people are not going to want to see this kind of sorry display take place. First of all, this is a rather shameful piece of legislation. It is a fine compendium of giveaways to special interests on which there is neither economic nor moral justice. The bill promises laid off workers a lot of help but then squeezes them into a kind of weird situation where they cannot get it. It gives tax credits to people who do not have any money who are going to have to wait for a year to file an income tax, and then get their refund, and then to maybe go out and get the money that they have to have now to buy the unemployed health care program that this bill supposedly sets up. Does that make sense? I hardly think so. Now, the Republicans are talking about how this is going to give us a bill that is going to go to the Senate. The Senate is not going to take up this sorry piece of legislation. And on top of that, it is illusion at best. The program of grants that are given to the governors are, in fact, taken away from categorical programs. And it is interesting to note that those programs, the Republicans do not even know how they are going to go to work. And they said, well, we are going to have to find in one discussion, they said, we are going to have to find out how we are going to create some sort of national calamity that will create the need for putting money into some of the States that are losing money. Now, I am sure with the innovation that they have, if there is a Republican governor that that might occur; but then again, it might not. In any event, the simple fact is that the unemployed who are supposedly getting health care under this are not. They are getting a tax credit which they will not be able to cash in until such time as they have, in fact, filed a return. And if they have not filed a return, they are not going to get anything. And if they have not gotten any money coming back, they probably are not going to get anything either. So it is all fraud. It is all sham. It is all illusion. It is, in fact, a thinly disguised tax cut for the rich for the world to do. And I can understand that the stimulus that the Republicans are talking about is a stimulus for their fat cat Republican friends. It is essentially a repealer, believe it or not, of the alternative minimum tax going back for years to take care of their buddies. Now, I recognize in an election year that probably makes good sense but it is hard to defend morally and it is hard, indeed, to justify on the basis of economics. It is also something which is not going to become law this year. The unemployed are not going to get the health care benefits that my Republican colleagues are talking about. And the end result is that this is just an exercise in frustration and illusion and delusion and deceit.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the Nurse Reinvestment Act, a solid piece of legislation, one which does great credit to the gentlewoman from California and one which is a solid down payment on our effort to address severe shortages in the nursing professions. We need to do more, and we must do more. But for a variety of reasons, this is about as good as we can do today. It is, however, a valuable bill. As with any bill of importance, this is a very important bill and much of the credit goes to the colleagues of ours who are willing to do the hard work. No one has worked harder for the nursing profession than my distinguished friend and colleague from California (Mrs. Capps). She has been tireless and, today, that effort bears fruit. I congratulate her and salute her for a job well done. Of course, we would not be here without bipartisan support and cooperation; and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the subcommittee ranking member, and, of course, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the full committee, for their support of this undertaking. The bill will help us recruit more nurses through public service announcements and other educational programs. These will inform the public about the nursing profession as a career and will tell potential nurses about resources available to them if they choose to enter this wonderful, caring, and giving profession. This legislation mandates the study of the shortage in the nursing faculty and requests an analysis of the methods by which we may address effectively the faculty shortages and other shortages in the industry. Finally, the bill has educational scholarships to the loan repayment program for nurse education. This is an important new tool, and it is a significant step in the right direction. Educational assistance in the form of scholarships reaches a new pool of applicants, and it also pays additional dividends in delivering quality health care to underserved areas as aspiring nurses work off their scholarship commitments. The types of facilities that can accept nurses through this program have expanded, which will add to the appeal of the programs, both for nurses and for the health care facilities in which they serve. Mr. Speaker, we are looking at a severe shortage of nurses which we can anticipate will get worse because of lack of adequate pay, because of lack of adequate responsibility, because of excessive hours, and a wide array of other things. This will be a small step forward towards ending those unfortunate situation; but we hope that we will shortly be moving forward on other legislation which will continue and in new ways address the concerns which we confront in this area of providing adequate nursing care to the people of this country. I would note that the nurses are a wonderful group of public servants to whom we owe a great debt. I again thank my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), and my other colleagues who have brought us this far. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose passage of S. 1789, a bill that would continue a program that grants drug companies an additional six month period of market exclusivity, if they conduct tests on the use of their drugs for children. This bill is a slight improvement on H.R. 2887 that passed this House last month. We all agree that improved testing and labeling of prescription drugs for use in children is a good thing. The only question for debate is how to accomplish that important public health objective. The bill does close a potential loophole by instructing the FDA to approve generic drugs without proprietary pediatric labeling awarded to product sponsors under the Hatch-Waxman Act. But I continue to oppose the bill because its central feature, exclusivity, is about further increasing the profits of an already bloated industry--an industry that does not seem to be able to moderate its pricing practices even as it increasingly burdens its customers, American consumers, and taxpayers. The impact of pediatric exclusivity falls directly on those who consume the drugs that get the exclusivity. Who are these people? They include seniors, many that cannot afford the prescription drugs they need. And, ironically, pediatric exclusivity can hurt the very people it is intended to help because many unemployed, uninsured, and working poor cannot afford the expensive drugs needed by their children. What benefit have consumers and taxpayers received for this multi- billion dollar extension of monopoly prices? Of the 38 drugs that have been granted pediatric exclusivity, less than 20 of them now have pediatric labeling. The Committee and the Senate rejected, unwisely in my view, an amendment by Representative Stupak that would have closed this dangerous loophole in the law by conditioning the grant of exclusivity to actual pediatric labeling. This bill forces our citizens to overpay drug companies for pediatric testing that should simply be required by law. I oppose it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3343. H.R. 3343 would amend Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) and Chapter 28 of the Atomic Energy Act to increase the authorization ceiling on the Federal share of cleanup costs at a thorium site in West Chicago, Illinois. The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported this bill unanimously last week. The reason for that was the development of compromise language that avoids competition for money between cleanup sites and leaves everyone at least a little bit better off than they would otherwise be under current law. As reported, the bill not only increases the total thorium reimbursement authorization so that Federal contribution to the cleanup effort can continue, but it accomplishes that goal without robbing Peter to pay Paul. By establishing annual amounts to be authorized for thorium activities in each of the fiscal years 2002-2007, it ensures there will be adequate funds remaining for cleanups at the Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee facilities. The bill also increase the sizes of the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund in order to hold harmless the cleanups at the other facilities and mine sites, without raising the fees currently assessed on utility ratepayers. In addition the bill requires the General Accounting Office to audit the Fund to ensure it is, and will be, sufficient to cover the costs of all the activities authorized and to look at the current and likely costs of the cleanup activity at the various sites. Last but not least, the bill contains language authored by the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Strickland, that provides specific authorization for the Secretary of Energy to expend funds to keep the Portsmouth, Ohio, uranium enrichment facility in ``cold-standby'' mode. I believe this to be wise, for it allows the Secretary to use the facility again if needed to protect the continuity of domestic supply or to meet the contract demands of the Department. I want to again thank my good friend, Chairman Tauzin, and commend all the Members who worked with us to craft this compromise language, including Representatives Strickland and Whitfield, Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Boucher, of course the sponsor of the bill, representative Shimkus. I also want to thank Speaker Hastert, with whom I have worked many times on legislation to ensure the cleanup of thorium wastes, for his assistance in moving this bill forward with bipartisan support. H.R. 3343 is good legislation and deserves the support of all Members.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to pay tribute to the Dearborn/Dearborn Heights Chapter of the League of Women Voters on their 50th Anniversary. Recognized by the National League of Women Voters on December 19th, 1951, the Dearborn/Dearborn Heights Chapter has fulfilled and continues to fulfill its primary goal of encouraging the informed and active participation of citizens in government, working to increase understanding of major public issues and influencing public policy through education and advocacy. The Dearborn/Dearborn Heights Chapter has provided numerous services to the community since their inception in 1951. In 1952, they provided election-day childcare in 63 precincts, allowing parents to vote. They helped establish the Northwestern Child Guidance Clinic in 1963. Throughout the years, they have worked with ABC News on election-day exit polling. These fine women have helped pass library proposals and establish a diversity committee which works to engage local students in community discussions. Mr. Speaker, these women have served their community well. Though they are a non-partisan group, the Dearborn/Dearborn Heights Chapter of the League of Women's Voters is extremely political, focusing their efforts on child health and welfare, juvenile justice, and campaign finance reform. A League representative sits on the Rouge River Advisory Council, as well as the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Educational Advisory Council. As spelled out in their original charter, the League's actions are always a reflection their member's priorities. I would like to recognize the current officers of the Dearborn/ Dearborn Heights Chapter of the League of Women Voters: Elizabeth Linick, Janice Berry, Mary Jo Durivage, Jeni Dunn and Mary Bugeia. I thank all the fine members of this Chapter of the League for all their hard work over the past 50 years, and would ask that they keep it up. On the occasion of their 50th anniversary, I would ask all my colleagues to salute the Dearborn/Dearborn Heights Chapter of the League of Women Voters.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the patriotic citizens of the Ida Township Volunteer Fire Department, which has served Ida and the surrounding area for over 63 years. Mr. Speaker, these local Michigan heroes stand ready to put their lives on the line in service to their community. They are a brave, professional and dedicated group, providing a lifeline to all whose lives are in danger. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, have brought to light the important role firefighters and other first-responders play in protecting this country from numerous threats. Not only are they prepared to safeguard our communities from everyday tragedies such as fires and accidents, but they serve as the first line of response in the event of major catastrophes, including terrorism. I am proud to represent these courageous individuals and on behalf of our local community, thank them for their service. Therefore, it is with great pride that I submit the following names of the Ida Township Volunteer Fire Department into the Congressional Record in recognition of their past and continued service: Chief Ed Wertenberger, Lonnie Wertenberger, Troy Stein, Randy Stanifer, Paul Metz, Mark Mruzek, Dale Longnecker, Jim Longnecker, Kirt Horn, Rocky Oberski, Tim Mata, Scott Desbrough, Shawn Geyman, Mike Geyman, Chad Metz, Curtis Durocher, Scott Weeman, Adam Booker, Scott Ducharme, Carl Arnold, Curtis Stanifer, Jim Longnecker Sr., Tim Wertenberger, Corey Jones and Tyler Stern. Mr. Speaker, I note that their hard work is not limited to their local community. Two days after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Curt Stanifer, Randy Stanifer, Carl Arnold, Scott Ducharme, Mark Murzke, Ed Wertenberger, Dale Longnecker, Troy Stein, Rocky Oberski and Curt Durocher traveled to New York City, to assist in the rescue and recovery efforts. They make this trip at great personal sacrifice and risk to their own lives. Accordingly, I salute them for their courageousness and commitment to serve others, and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing these brave individuals.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to share with my colleagues the remarkable story of the 2001 Capitol holiday tree. The holiday tree is a sixty-seven year old, 74-foot white spruce, that was cut on the Ottawa National Forest in the Western Upper Peninsula, in the great state of Michigan. Tonight at 5:00 p.m., the Speaker will throw a switch and illuminate this magnificent tree for the world to see. It is with a great sense of pride that I inform my colleagues that this is the fifth time that the state of Michigan has provided the Capitol holiday tree. This year's tree is aptly named the ``Tree of Hope,'' and will be displayed on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol until early January. Before arriving in Washington, D.C., the tree traveled throughout Michigan and stopped in 10 communities, including beautiful Monroe, in my congressional District. The tree will be decorated with 6,000 handcrafted ornaments provided by Michigan residents. And I would draw my colleagues' particular attention to the beautiful ornament provided by Monroe County Community College, a fine institution of higher learning in Michigan's 16th District. The ornament was designed by Jerry Morse, the graphic arts designer at the college, and constructed by Matt and Pam Hart of Temperance. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this fine craftsmanship. The Tree of Hope is a beautiful symbol of Michigan's vision of peace and optimism for the new millennium. The people of Michigan have provided their unique wishes and dreams of a better tomorrow with the 6,000 handcrafted ornaments that will adorn the tree. It is a fitting message of peace for the holiday season. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Capitol holiday tree from the great state of Michigan, and the magnificent ornament from Monroe.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering bipartisan legislation on a matter of utmost national importance, our preparedness against terrorism. I want to begin by commending my good friend, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), as well as my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), who worked so hard on this, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). This bill was put together in the best bipartisan traditions of the way the Committee on Energy and Commerce has always worked, and it resolves in the best possible way the questions that concern us with regard to preparedness and protection of our people against bioterrorism. There are many excellent provisions in the legislation, including improvement and protection of drinking water supply, tighter controls on dangerous biological agents, and a number of other things, including putting support where it needs to be put to help our people to address the problems which they have on the local level and to improve Federal- local cooperation in these matters. It also does something very important, and that is it improves inspection resources for imported food. These are only a downpayment on what will ultimately be necessary, but nonetheless they are an enormous increase over the way things are done at this particular time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, without exception, to support it. It is bipartisan, it is good, it is in the public interest; and I again commend my colleagues, including our chairman, for the fine work which has been done on this very difficult and very important piece of legislation. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a detailed explanation of the bill: Title III, Subtitle A--Protection of Food Supply, addresses existing deficiencies in the Nation's food safety infrastructure and takes appropriate steps to protect the Nation's food supply from new threats of terrorism. In particular, it authorizes new powers and $100 million to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) so it can increase and improve inspections of imported food at the 307 different U.S. ports of entry. With the additional funds and authorities in this bill, FDA should be equipped to inspect about 2 percent of all imported food shipments. While this remains significantly less than FDA's recommendation to inspect 10 percent of all imported food shipments, this legislation is an important downpayment. The subtitle also provides for permissive debarment of scofflaw food importers, requires prior notice of shipments, provides administrative detention authority, requires registration and recordkeeping, and bars port shopping. Vigorous and targeted use of these new authorities should enable the Secretary to mitigate problems caused by too few inspectors. For example, under this subtitle 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. However, the bill 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, and its resources, more effectively. Accordingly, the circumstances under which temporary hold authority can be invoked are broader than those under which detention authority can be invoked. Title III, Subtitle B--Protection of Drug Supply, includes Section 312, which requires additional information regarding import components intended for use in export products. This section does not change any definitions of regulated articles or the scope of regulation of those articles as set forth in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and its implementing regulations. Further, it is not the intent of this section for the Secretary of Treasury to engage in a new rulemaking to determine the requirement for bonds for goods imported under section 801(d)(3) of the FFDCA. Existing requirements for the bonding of goods imported for further processing and export should be applied. Finally, certificates of analysis are not required if the only chemical or biological component of the good imported under 801(d)(3) is de minimus, incidental, and poses no danger to human or animal health. Title IV--Drinking Water Security and Safety, adds a new section 1433 to the Safe Drinking Water Act that requires community water systems to conduct assessments of the vulnerability of its system to a terrorist attack. Sandia National Laboratories, under a contract with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has developed a new methodology for assessing and improving the security of drinking water systems. Under Section 1433 vulnerability assessments should include comprehensive site characterizations, a determination of the consequences of intentional acts or terrorist attacks, and an analysis of the use, storage, or handling of various chemicals to see whether a substitution to less dangerous chemicals will enhance the safety and health of the public in the case of an attack. For example, many drinking water systems are switching away from liquid chlorine to other chemicals that minimize the risk of an airborne toxic plume in case of a tank explosion. Further, the term ``physical barriers'' should be interpreted to include ``buffer zones'' to a physical attack. Section 1433 also requires that emergency response plans be prepared or revised by community water systems after the vulnerability assessments. In FY 2002, the bill authorizes $120 million to assist water systems in conducting vulnerability assessments and preparing emergency response plans. This funding is available to also provide financial assistance to water systems for basic security enhancements and to address significant threats to public health. Basic security enhancements of critical importance include management systems, operating procedures, re-keying locks, buffer zones, cameras, fencing, hardening of storage tanks, equipment for back flow monitoring, security screening of contractor support services, and intrusion alert systems. The bill charges the EPA, working with other agencies such as CDC and the FBI, to provide water systems with a consistent definition of the range of threats facing a system. This will help ensure that quality vulnerability assessments are conducted. Title IV also contains amendments to Section 1432 of the Safe Drinking Water Act to increase the criminal penalties for tampering or threatening to tamper with a public drinking water system. Finally, the bill 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 at a community water system which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons. 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. The Government has a responsibility to protect our citizens, and that responsibility begins with homeland security. 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. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. All the Democrats have agreed with me this is a superb piece of legislation and they have all gone home to bed so that they could vote on it tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in regretful opposition to the resolution. It is clear we have an opportunity to pass a resolution which will contribute in a significant way to the peace process. It is very clear that we have a duty to oppose terrorism, which I have always done and which I continue to do. It is also equally clear that the United States has a long-standing commitment to the freedom and independence to the State of Israel, and I strongly support that undertaking. But I would note that here the resolution contributes very little to the accomplishment of those purposes. What this resolution does is to essentially set up a situation where the United States appears and in fact does and will be viewed by people in the area as having taken sides. The interests of the United States here are to bring to a halt terrorism and to create a lasting viable negotiated peace. That is best done by attacking the root causes of terrorism, not the least of which are the thousands or hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and others feel themselves to be unfairly, badly, and improperly treated. Their homes are destroyed. Their orchards are destroyed. Their lands are settled in defiance of their wishes their people are driven to poverty and killed. International agreements which they have made in their names are not being honored. The duty of the United States here is a very simple one, and that is to work for peace in the Middle East. Our single most important concern in that area is peace: peace for Israel, security for Israel, peace and security for the Palestinians, an end to the fighting, a termination of terrorism. How is that done? Is it done by shooting up Arafat's helicopters? Is it done by terror bombings of people who are committing suicide to kill Israelis? No. Only one way leads to this course, the strongest possible leadership by the United States functioning as an impartial honest broker between people who find little reason not to hate each other. Mr. Speaker, this will be done by a long process of negotiation in which the parties must come together to negotiate their differences under the strong leadership and guidance of the United States. This resolution accomplishes nothing in that end. It does nothing to move forward the peace process which came so close under the leadership of President Clinton during the last days of his administration. It does nothing to strengthen our friends in the area, the Governments of Egypt and Jordan. And it does nothing to make it possible for Mr. Arafat to provide the necessary leadership towards meaningful discussions. Rather it, and other actions leave Arafat weaker and less capable of effective participation in the peace process. The question Members have to ask is: How is it that Arafat is to be better disposed to move forward towards peace when his people are angry and when his helicopters are bombed and when his headquarters is threatened? The answer is, not at all. But, it goes beyond this. How is the peace process, or how are our concerns about peace in the area moved forward by weakening Arafat and by making him appear to be incapable of leading the Palestinian people? Or making the Palestinian people less willing to follow his leadership in the peace process? Mr. Speaker, I hold no brief here for any side, none for Mr. Arafat, none for the Israelis or anybody else. I think the United States has to look to one thing. Let us look to our principal interest. Our principal interest is peace in the area. How is that to be achieved? Only in one way and no other. There is only one country in the world that has the prestige and the ability to do that and the military capability to bring that about. When it gets down to the point, we, and we alone, acting as leader of other Nations also dedicated to peace have the capacity to do what has to be done, to bring about real meaningful and final negotiations to settle the problems. The issue here is how we bring the parties forward to begin a long and difficult a process. We must use the most intense pressure of the United States to abate and to terminate the terrible events which we are seeing in Israel, in Palestine, in the occupied territories in the Middle East. Negotiations between the parties are the only way. I think Members can anticipate that the terrible events which occurred the other day in Israel with scores of people injured and killed are going to be replicated again and again. Angry, frustrated, bitter people are going to use that method because that is the only method that is available to the weak. Again how are we going to bring the terrible events in the Middle East to a halt? By seeing to it that the problems that exist between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the others in the area are abated by negotiations between them. Is this going to be easy? Of course not. But is there an alternative way? The answer is there is no other way that that could be accomplished. Certainly the resolution which is before us offered, by good friends of mine, for whom I have great respect, with, I am sure, the best of intentions, does not carry out the mechanisms for bringing peace and it does not offer us the prospects of seeing progress going forward. Nor does it offer this Nation the opportunity to know that we have done something which will abate the root causes of terrorism in that world which are causing deaths in the United States as well as Israel, Palestine, and other places. We have committed ourselves to a massive effort in Afghanistan, which has caused us to spend billions of dollars and to put at risk our military personnel. I support that effort, and each year I support massive funding to help Israelis to maintain their statehood and to deal with their security problems. This resolution is counterproductive. It does not move us forward towards world peace. It does not move us forward towards a resolution of the controversy of the differences which are major causes of terrorism, heartache, death and suffering, for Israelis and for Arabs alike, and on September 11, Americans. This leaves us with a large new group of people who are going to say the United States sides with Israel, and that this country is not concerned about peace in the Middle East, and not concerned about addressing the enormous problems which divide the people there. We thus ignore some of the terms most important to our national security. We are talking here about an area which has the potential for the next world war occurring. Terrorism can bring it about at any time. It could happen; and if it does, the results to Israel will be calamitous. Five million Israelis, or a few more, in a small country surrounded by millions of Arabs, is facing terrible risk and danger in the event that there is significant trouble. I am not sure that the United States can address any of the problems that we have with peace in the area easily, or that we can address the problems of assuring our own security. But we must. We have already learned the bitter anger that causes suicide bombers will kill large numbers of Israelis and Americans through terrorist tactics. I would urge my colleagues to choose a better mechanism for assuring peace in the area and the security of the United States, a negotiated settlement by the parties, driven by our leadership, and effort, with the support of the other peace loving Nations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I do not object to that.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I do not. I simply reserve the right. That means 10 minutes more for those supporting the motion and 10 minutes more for the opposition?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Each side, I would like to know what that means?