John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 280.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. This is a very important debate and one which merits the careful attention of all of our colleagues. And it is one on which the body here should remain focused on the issues which are before us. What is the real issue that confronts the United States? Is it this resolution, or is it real and lasting peace in the Middle East? The answer is our concerns are peace in the Middle East, peace for the Israelis, peace for the Palestinians, peace for the other Arab and Muslim countries in the area. And without that, there will be no peace and no security for the United States, as September 11 shows us. I have heard a number of my colleagues say, that, you are either for us or against us on terrorism. I am aware of no one in this body who does not join me in opposition to terrorism. And I am aware of no one in this body who does not feel that peace is in the best interest of all. I am also aware of no member here who is not supportive of the continued existence of the State of Israel, and who does not feel that this should be a part of American policy and concern. I am troubled, however, when I hear some of my colleagues, as they have done in this debate, talk about how the issue here is terrorism, and you are either with us or against us on terrorism. Not so! The issue is peace and how to achieve it. That must be our debate and our focus. Peace is the important issue, and it is the one that concerns us above all others in the Mid East. It is one which we have addressed in our resolutions earlier and which we are addressing now through actions diplomatically and militarily. Now what should be the focus of the debate here is something quite different, and that is how we focus the efforts and the energies of the United States to bring about peace. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 253 which expresses support for the Mitchell Commission Report. No action has been taken by the Committee on International Relations, and yet that is something which the United States should be speaking and upon which this body should be speaking. I have heard nothing in this debate from the other side about what they propose to do to bring about a real peace. Is the termination of the existence of Mr. Arafat as the head of the Palestinian Authority in the best interests of the United States? Will that resolve the controversies? No, it will simply eliminate somebody who is a potential participant in meaningful peace talks, and one who with proper support can provide useful leadership. What we suggest here is to bring all of the parties together and make them talk. Let us use the full prestige and the power of United States to accomplish that purpose. That is far better. Each day that passes means more risk of the kind of terrible crimes that we saw in the killing of scores of Israelis and the wounding of many, many more. This is what we are talking about. The best interests of Israel, the best interests of the Palestinians, and the best interests of the United States are found most powerfully in the resolution of the controversies there. These controversies create bitter and angry people who are going to engage in terrorist activities and are the real risk to the people of the world, and to world peace. I am surprised that my colleagues are not more publicly aware of this. We are not talking for or against Israel. We are not talking for or against the Palestinians. We are talking about two things: one, peace; and, two, a process which has to be bottomed on justice and a sense of justice by all of the parties in the area. I do not know what I have to do to have my colleagues here understand that the interest of the United States will never be served by the conflict which exists in the Middle East, or what I have to do to have my colleagues understand that this kind of Resolution really does nothing to resolve those kinds of problems, or to make my colleagues understand that peace and security for Israel or the United States or Palestine lies only in one thing and that is a negotiated settlement in which they have come to an agreement themselves. This is something which can only be forced by the United States. Mr. Speaker, I see nothing of that kind moving forward in this discussion. I see only further actions taken by the United States to continue what is going on now, to see the killings in Israel going on, to see frustrated, angry people going out to commit suicide just to kill a few people that they hate, lets understand that this is a risk which has already visited the United States on September 11. To begin to force the peace process to work is the one interest that we should discuss in the United States today. Regretably we are not doing so. We could be discussing how we are going to bring these people to the table. I have heard a rich abundance of denunciation of Mr. Arafat. I remind all here I do not rise to defend Mr. Arafat, but he is the leader of the Palestinian people. We have none other to do this and no assurance that his successor will be more able or compliant. Killings going on, and innocent people on both sides, Israelis, Palestinians and others, are being killed. I have heard great concern about the Israelis, and I share that concern. What happened the other day is terrible, it is criminal and indefensible. I have heard very little about what has transpired with the Palestinians. And I have heard even less of an awareness in this body. The failure of the United States to address this matter vigorously and to see to it that the root causes and the differences of the Israeli people and the people of the occupied territories are negotiated away is a real interest of the United States which must be addressed. Why is it that there are so few in this body that cannot understand that? Why is it that we are debating the faults of Mr. Arafat unless we have a better alternative and a better leader acceptable to the Palestinian people. Why is it that we are failing to discuss peace and a really meaningful way of achieving that peace? That is the end to terrorism and killing. That is the beginning of peace for Israel. It is a beginning of an end to the sorrows and misfortunes of the Israelis. It is also a beginning of an end to the sorrows and the travails that are felt by the Palestinian people. We should be discussing these matters, and we should begin to set a policy in the United States where we are forcibly going to address these concerns and where we are finally taking meaningful action to ensure lasting peace. I am not asking my colleagues to embark on an easy trip. I am asking them to look to find what alternative there are and then to join me and other decent people in an American effort to bring peace to the Middle East for the Israelis, and for the people of the occupied territories. We must assure we do this while we still have friends who are leading countries in the area and while we still bring all parties to the table to commence a meaningful and strong effort for peace. I ask with each passing day, does the cause of peace get stronger with the killing of innocent Israelis in Israel or the killing of innocent Palestinians in the occupied territories? Do the frustrations and angers and the bitterness and the hate that is building over there add a single thing to our prospects for peace? I suggest not. I do suggest that we commence the beginning of a meaningful process forced with every effort that this country can put into it to abate this terrible situation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to rebut what my dear and valued friend has said about me. I do not remember setting up a straw man, but I would like to say the gentleman has mentioned H. Con. Res. 253 which I sponsored earlier and with which the gentleman has suggested a great deal of sympathy. I wonder if maybe the committee could bring that proposal to the floor. It is a fair and even-handed statement. It is supported by the administration. It urges that the United States have as its policy the carrying forward of the Mitchell report. Why is it that we cannot have something like that before us?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I just want to hear again what my good friend said.

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) be granted 2 additional minutes, because the gentleman mentioned me and I would like to have his attention on that matter.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, out of extraordinary respect and affection for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), my good friend, I yield him an additional 1 minute.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to have the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) put that bill on the floor so that perhaps we could be together on something that is in the interest of the United States.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to help my colleagues understand the defect of this legislation, which is that it takes sides. It does this in a way which does not need to be taken, in a fashion and at a time when it is not in our National interest. I condemn terrorism, and I condemn the killing of the innocent Israelis in Israel just recently, just as I do the killing of thousands of Americans on September 11. The roots of the events were somewhat the same: frustration, anger, ill will, hatred, and all of the things that are generated by the kind of situation that has gone on too long in the Middle East. These are events which are not blameable on one person or another, and I do not believe that the blood of the small Palestinian boy who died in his father's arms from Israeli gunfire is any more pleasing in the eye of the almighty God than is the death of the scores of Israelis who died the other day in Israel because of a terrorist bomb. But those are really not the questions that we should be addressing here. I just want my colleagues to keep this in mind: if the problems of the Mideast are to be resolved and if peace is to be achieved there, it is going to take an enormous effort by the United States and by every other peace loving Nation. I would note to my colleagues that it is not done by attacking other Members of this body because of their concern, and it is not done by rejecting the opportunity to use different people who are major players in that area. If we are to succeed, we must call on everyone, the Israeli leadership, Yasar Arafat, the Palestinians, the people of Israel, the people of the United States, Lebanon and the countries like Jordan and Egypt, to help get their assistance in bringing about a viable, lasting peace, negotiated between the parties. We will also need the help of other countries in Africa, Europe, Asia and the two American continents. I see nothing of that kind in this resolution. This resolution, as the gentleman from West Virginia mentioned, does not even use the word ``peace.'' This is what we should be talking about if we are really interested in serving the best interests of the United States. Peace, peace in the Middle East, peace with dignity and honor and respect, for and from all of the parties of that unfortunate area, and how we are to achieve it for all. That is our interest. And that is what we should be addressing. We cannot gain anything by castigating or criticizing anyone here, or elsewhere. Our role must be that of an honest impartial broker. We must travel the long and hard path for peace; and we must start it now, not tomorrow, not sometime in the future. And we must do it by making the parties negotiate these differences out themselves, so that there can be contentment and peace and security in Israel, but also in the occupied territories; so no longer is there frustration, hunger, unemployment, misfortune in the occupied territories, and so no longer is there risk of death and destruction in Israel. That is what the interests of the United States should be and calls upon us to do. We do not serve our country well if we fail to start this effort--Now! And with great resolve. The passing of a resolution of this kind simply shows the Arab people that the United States again is taking sides in a confrontation. It is not in the interests of this country to take sides. It is in the interests of this country to be an honest broker, who can be trusted by all of the parties there, because securing peace can only be done by the efforts of the United States leading the peace loving Nations of the world in a great and difficult effort. The bombing and killing by suicide bombers is not going to get peace. The rockets and missiles and helicopter attacks by the Israelis are going to achieve nothing. Nor will suicide bombing by terrorists. The only solution to this is negotiations between the parties to resolve the issues. Why is it that my colleagues do not understand this simple fact. Why are we not here talking about how we remove the root causes of trouble and get down to the business of bringing about a real and lasting peace that benefits all of the people of the area and benefits the interests of the United States? That is the question we should be asking. Taking sides benefits us not at all, but getting lasting peace does. This is not the way to get lasting peace. This is simply the way to alienate more people in the area and cause ourselves more enemies, more trouble, more risk, more peril, more killings, more misfortune for Israelis and Palestinians alike, and a longer time to achieve peace. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me this time, and I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 3391, the Medicare Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act of 2001. I rise also to praise my colleagues on the committee, the distinguished chairman of the committee, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, and my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Brown and others, including the very fine staffs on both sides of the aisle that worked so hard. The legislation is a product of bipartisan collaboration between two great committees, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means, and also with seniors' groups, providers, and others. This is a bill which is fair. It strikes a balance between addressing the program administration concerns of beneficiaries and providers and ensuring integrity of the program itself. This legislation makes a number of wise improvements in the Medicare program. It gives the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, additional flexibility with claims processors. It also strengthens the independent standards for appeals. It entitles the beneficiaries and the reviewers to ensure independent appeals are really independent, are fair, and in fact take place. I do wish again to commend my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the staff at CMS, as well as my good friend the gentleman from Ohio, for their work on this, and also our friends on the Committee on Ways and Means and the majority and minority staff of both committees for the work they have done. In addition to strengthening the requirements for organizations that will be reviewing appeals, we have improved upon notices that beneficiaries receive when a service is denied, making this situation more user friendly and understandable to beneficiaries who are most often in their later years. More importantly, we have developed a process where seniors can learn whether or not a particular item and service is covered under Medicare before they are financially committed to that service, something which is not presently the case and which creates immense hardship either by denying benefits or imposing unanticipated costs on senior citizens on fixed and limited incomes. Currently the only way a senior can find out if Medicare covers an item or a service is to potentially risk thousands of his or her dollars by getting the service and then pray Medicare will pay the claim. Obviously, this is unfair, and many seniors choose not to get a service rather than take a chance that Medicare will not cover it. This legislation fixes this, a situation which is clearly unjust. And while the provision as it stands now is limited only to physician service in order to meet scoring requirements, I hope, and I intend that in the future we will give the beneficiaries this right for all Medicare services. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Medicare is the most socially successful and valuable program of this day. The program works for beneficiaries and providers alike, but we must ensure that it continues to be a success. The Medicare Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act will do just that. More remains to be done, and I look forward to working with the same fine colleagues that I did to bring this about. The Medicare legislation that we have before us ensures that Medicare fee for services will continue to serve beneficiaries, and it will cause further approval and satisfaction with one of our great legislative accomplishments, Medicare.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3323, the ``Administrative Simplification Compliance Act'' is a responsible compromise. Congressman Hobson and Sawyer have addressed the concerns of the health care industry while maintaining the integrity of the administrative simplification requirements. H.R. 3323 also reflects the bipartisan input of the committees of jurisdiction, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 3323 delays the implementation of the administrative simplification requirements in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) by one year. It ensures, however, that those sectors of the health care industry that take advantage of this delay are using the extra year to ready themselves for compliance. Most importantly, the bill ensures that the one-year delay of administrative simplification does not touch the implementation of the health information privacy requirements in HIPAA, which will go into effect as scheduled. H.R. 3323 also requires that Medicare claims be submitted electronically, with reasonable exceptions. The Medicare program has paved the way in moving from paper-based claims processing to electronic processing, and this requirement will help Medicare run more smoothly. Ultimately, the administration simplification requirements in HIPAA will make our health system more efficient. These requirements will result in billions of dollars in savings, thus freeing up more funds to focus on expanding health care coverage and promoting higher quality care. H.R. 3323 reaffirms the importance of these requirements while giving additional time to prepare for their implementation. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2983. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), my good friend, for yielding me this time. I also commend him for his work on the Price- Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001. I commend the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his labors in that regard, and also the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), my good friend. The bill was reported from the committee by a voice vote, and in a strong bipartisan vote besides. The bill makes important improvements in current law, particularly with respect to the Department of Energy contractors. These contractors perform important and often hazardous work for the country in the areas of research, management of nuclear ponds materials, and environmental cleanup. Since its enactment in 1957, the Price-Anderson Act has provided for full indemnification of these contractors, some of whom originally worked for $1 a year. This has meant that the taxpayers are obligated to reimburse contractors working for the Department of Energy and its predecessors for any and all liability to the public in connection with any nuclear accident. This complete insulation from liability is unique in Federal contracting law and suspends one of our legal system's most useful incentives for proper conduct by businesses, and that is the knowledge that they can be held accountable for their misconduct if it results in injury to others. While Price-Anderson's total indemnification policy may have been appropriate when it was enacted over 40 years ago, it is no longer necessary and no longer warranted. I do commend very much the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the committee, for working with me on a compromise that holds for-profit contractors accountable for harm caused by their intentional misconduct and that of their corporate officials. With respect to nonprofit contractors, such as universities who run our national laboratories, the compromise subjects those entities to civil penalties for violation of DOE nuclear safety regulations. I feel these provisions should have been more stringent; but they are, nonetheless, significant and valuable reforms. Again, I wish to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the subcommittee; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the ranking member; and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for their work in fashioning this compromise. I believe the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) should be congratulated for the important reforms he brought to the committee's attention, which were adopted after a useful, bipartisan effort by all of the members of the committee. As my colleagues know, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) is a tireless advocate, both for his communities and for others in which DOE nuclear facilities are located. His amendment ends the Department's exemption from OSHA worker-safety requirements, something badly needed and much overdue, and directs the Department to adopt equivalent safety regulations. This amendment was included in the bill only by his dogged determination and great effort. I do want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who worked with the chairman and me to address matters of nuclear security that have become more important in light of the events of September 11. That amendment, sponsored by the three of us, the Markey-Tauzin- Dingell amendment, requires the President to define those types of threats that could be rightly handled by our Armed Forces, such as attacks by hostile aircraft, and to develop a plan for addressing these threats. For these threats that do not fall into this initial category, the bill requires NRC to revise its design basis threat to ensure that the operators of nuclear facilities, including decommissioned reactors, are providing adequate protection to the public. The legislation, in a second fashion, requires NRC to establish and oversee a rigorous program of force-on-force exercises to ensure that each nuclear facility will be able to respond adequately to any terrorist threat. Third, the Markey-Tauzin-Dingell amendment directs NRC to use its long-held authority over the movement of radioactive materials to establish a cradle-to-grave system for tracking movements of these materials that could pose a threat to the public health, to the public safety, or to the common defense if they fall in the wrong hands. The language instructs the NRC to ensure that all those involved in the movement of these materials have been subject to a timely background check by appropriate Federal entities such as the FBI. Fourth, the amendment requires NRC within 1 year of enactment to issue a rule exempting from the new manifest and background check requirements shipments of these materials, particularly radiopharmaceuticals that do not pose a threat to the public health, safety, or well-being. This is a good proposal, and the amendment does great good. It is a meaningful bipartisan compromise that represents not only a great step forward in protection of our nuclear facilities and more secure movement of our nuclear materials, but manifests real bipartisan cooperation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It should be passed. It is far better than existing law.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). I want to thank him and commend him and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who has just spoken so eloquently on this matter, and of course the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) and my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for their support. Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. It has bipartisan support. It is supported by every State, local, and governmental agency within the area that would be served by this refuge. It is also supported by all of the private conservation organizations in the area, including the list that was read by my dear friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), whose leadership I want to expressly commend and congratulate, and I want to thank him again for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation which is going to do a great deal of good, and in some surprising ways. There will be very little additional cost to the Federal Government. It will rely largely upon donations and largely upon management agreements, easements, and cooperative undertakings between State, Federal, and local organizations in the area. It will make it possible for us to have a lot of land, which will be of enormous value to fish and wildlife, set aside without impairing the ownership or the industrial or commercial activities in the area. It is a proposal which will afford enormous opportunity for us to increase the conservation values of the area, and to do much to preserve the fish and wildlife values of the Detroit River. It will have the full cooperation of our Canadian friends because the Detroit River is a national heritage river here in the United States and also in Canada, and cooperation is being given at this time by the two distinguished members of Parliament on the Canadian side of the river, the Honorable Herb Gray, the deputy prime minister, and also the Honorable Susan Whelan, who is working closely with me on these matters. This is a good piece of legislation which will afford great opportunity for us to make a significant contribution to preservation of the 5 million ducks and geese that fly up and down this river every spring and fall, and to achieve significant additional advances with the support of the people and a cooperative program in the administration of that area. I give thanks to my dear friend, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is highly appropriate that we welcome Imam Yahya Hendi. This body represents all Americans, and it is extremely appropriate, then, that we should welcome the Imam today to help celebrate the commencement of the holy month of Ramadan, which is set to begin tomorrow. Islam is not only one of the world's great religions, but it is one of the great American religions. American Muslims have immigrated to this country from all corners of the globe, and in all parts of the United States Muslims are valued, integral members of our communities. It is an honor for me to represent the largest Arab American community in the United States. As Ramadan begins, I extend my personal greetings to all Muslim Americans, particularly my friends and constituents in Michigan's 16th District. Mr. Speaker, I also send best wishes to our Muslim friends and allies in the Middle East and South Asia, as well as Muslims in all corners of the world. To our allies in the Islamic world, I would also like to express my gratitude for their friendship, particularly at this difficult time. As President Bush has pointed out, the United States is not at war with Islam. We are at war with terrorism. Mr. Speaker, some of what has been said over the last couple of months has painted a highly inaccurate picture of Islam. Islam is not a religion of division and intolerance, but rather, a religion which values diversity and understanding. It is, above all else, a religion of peace and progress. Americans must not tolerate injustices committed out of ignorance against any group of Americans, particularly against Muslim Americans, who share with us the horror of the events of September 11, which to them are particularly offensive because the Muslim community feels it is grossly improper that the perpetrators expressly attempted to use that faith as an excuse for a horrible crime. In this month of introspection, faith, prayer, and cleansing, I again wish to relay my greetings and best wishes to the Muslims in southeast Michigan and in the United States, as well as all the Muslims in the world.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose passage of H.R. 2887, 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. Make no mistake; there is complete agreement on the part of all Members 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. In 1997, when this law was enacted, the economy was healthier and drugs were cheaper. Even then, I expressed concern about the detrimental impact this provision could have the availability of generic drugs. It is now my view that we made a mistake in enacting the pediatric exclusivity law. First, it establishes a voluntary ``incentive'' for activity that should instead simply be required. Second, assuming that we choose to provide an incentive, the exclusivity program is more expensive, less equitable, and less efficient than any number of alternatives. Let there be no doubt. The central feature of this bill, 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. For example, one drug, Prilosec, earned an additional $1.4 billion during the six months of additional monopoly pricing that AstraZeneca enjoyed. Another drug, Prozac, earned Eli Lilly an additional $900 million. Indeed, of the 38 drugs that have been granted pediatric exclusivity, less than 20 of them now have pediatric labeling. The companies are not even required to make public the results of the studies they agreed to perform. The Committee 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. Don't just take my word for it. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and many supporters of this legislation have declared that the absence of pediatric labeling of drugs used by children presents serious health risks to them. How much did these studies cost the manufacturers? An average of less than $4 million each. How much did this cost American consumers? For only 24 drugs that either have received or will likely receive pediatric exclusivity under this bill, their sponsors will net $11.5 billion and cost consumers $5.4 billion over the five fiscal years of the program. Depending on future price increases, the total windfall to the brand name pharmaceutical industry could easily exceed $20 billion. The Prilosec windfall alone is worth more to AstraZeneca than the Administration's entire 2002 budget request for the FDA. 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. During the Subcommittee and Full Committee mark-ups, Democratic colleagues offered amendments that were collectively aimed at enhancing the protection afforded to children when they take prescription drugs and designing programs that minimize and equitably allocate the financial burden. Unfortunately, we will not be allowed to offer those amendments today. Any of them would have saved consumers billions and offered the same or better benefits in the accurate labeling of these medicines for children. But the Republican Leadership has chosen to hide behind process and avoid votes on these ideas. I urge my colleagues to vote no so we can have the opportunity to craft a more efficient and equitable way to accomplish this important public health objective. Several potential, and very serious, abuses of the Hatch-Waxman procedures have been uncovered during the course of the discussions with the FDA regarding the technical provisions of this bill. We learned that one company, Bristol Meyers Squibb, had apparently succeeded in convincing FDA that it was entitled to all additional 3\1/ 2\ years of exclusivity for the same pediatric study of its drug, Glucophage, that Bristol Meyers Squibb they had submitted to acquire the initial six months of monopoly marketing. Three of those years of alleged exclusivity were based on the company's claim that a study of some 68 pediatric patients was sufficient to merit a new indication of use claim under Section 505(j) of the Act. Normally, such claims only result in differential labeling between a product that was the subject of a new trial and other therapeutically equivalent products on the market. However, Bristol has apparently succeeded in convincing at least some of the decisionmakers in FDA that the differential labeling regarding pediatric use may constitute a safety risk if not found on equivalent generic products. Because FDA has granted three-year exclusivity to the pediatric label of Glucophage, Bristol has argued that no generic may be marketed during the pendency of its labeling exclusivity. Most Members recognize this argument as a fundamental abuse of the system and were the FDA and the Bush Administration to accept the claim, consumers would be harmed. I am happy to note that H.R. 2887 closes this potential loophole by instructing the FDA to approve generic drugs without proprietary pediatric labeling awarded to product sponsors under the Hatch-Waxman Act. However, this is merely a partial fix of the abuses that can arise from decisions of the FDA that performing 505(j) studies for ``new indications'' allows the grant of exclusivity for studies that merely segment the population for which there is an already approved treatment. While differential pediatric labeling may not prevent the development of a competitive market for a drug product, generic labeling or labeling based on race, gender or a host of other distinctions within a population could ``evergreen'' the monopoly enjoyed by a drug manufacturer and the inflated prices charged all consumers. Not surprisingly, attempts to close this potential three-year loophole were opposed by the brand name industry. We can now expect a rush of petitions to the FDA to approve special labeling for sub- populations that, in many cases, will cost consumers billions of dollars for each drug. Even worse, such studies would divert research dollars into preserving existing monopolies instead of developing new products, the purpose of government protection. This would be quite a legacy for the FDA, for the Bush Administration, and for the House Republican Leadership.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to call the House's attention to an important event that will take place next week in the heart of Michigan--the Detroit Economic Summit. On November 14-15, 2001, representatives of a variety of senior officials from Arab countries and political organizations, Michigan-based companies, and the leadership and rank-and-file members of the Arab American and community organizations in the Detroit and Dearborn area will assemble for a series of events devoted to promoting trade and economic ties between the United States and the countries of the Near East. The Summit is being spearheaded by the American Arab Chamber of Commerce in Dearborn, which has worked hard to draw in the talents of like-minded organizations, businesses and institutions such as the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, the CMS Energy Corporation, the Detroit Medical Center, the Ford Motor Company, and others. The Summit will feature the participation of the Secretary General of the Arab League, His Excellency Amre Moussa, who is leading a delegation consisting of the distinguished Ambassadors of the Arab countries. Working collectively, and drawing from their deep experience in both politics and commerce, the organizers and participants in these events are all working for a common, and in my view, very important objective: establishing the Detroit/Dearborn area as the gateway for American trade, investment and commerce with the Near East region. As many of our colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, the Near East region holds a vast wealth of potential as an investment destination and trading partner for businesses, financial institutions and investors from the United States. Many of the governments of the region have made significant strides in adopting clearer and more transparent trade, investment and regulatory regimes and have made corresponding efforts to privatize state-owned industries and open up their economies. These efforts have helped to diversify and increase the levels of economic interaction between the United States and the region, and with the concerted efforts of those who are participating in the Summit, there is good cause to anticipate further growth and expansion. The promotion of trade and investment is important not only for its impact on economic growth, employment, and standards of living in the United States and the Near East. Stronger economic ties also bring forth associated benefits, such as a greater appreciation of cultural and religious distinctions of the American and Arab peoples. As economic activity extends across borders in the region and with the United States, the prospects for peace, stability, and common understanding are likewise advanced. In times such as these, I trust that all of us will appreciate the importance of achieving these objectives. As the home to hundreds of thousands of Arab Americans, the Detroit area is naturally suited to serve as a gateway for commerce between the United States and the Arab states. At the same time, Michigan-based companies are leading the way in increasing the volume of two-way trade and investment: everything from large-scale endeavors like CMS Energy's pioneering work in producing power and desalinated water in the Arabian Gulf or Ford's exports to the region, to small-scale imports of goods and wares from the region to the Detroit area. Much like Miami has become the hub for economic ties between the United States and Latin America, The Detroit/Dearborn area is well on the path toward establishing itself as America's bridge to the Arab World. I urge my colleagues to join me welcoming the participants of the Economic Summit to Michigan and wishing them well as they continue with their vital work. I would also ask that the House acknowledge the hard work and vision of the organizers of this event, the Arab American Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Report directs the EPA Administrator to put into effect without delay the 10 parts per billion standard for arsenic promulgated in the Clinton administration rule published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2001. The Bush administration has, without justification, delayed the effective date of the January 22nd rule and has been in clear violation of Federal law. Congress had set a deadline to have a new final standard for arsenic in effect no later than June 22 of this year. The House of Representatives, in July, sent the administration a clear message when it voted to have an arsenic standard no higher than 10 parts per billion so the United States would be in line with the World Health Organization, the U.S. Public Health Service, and the European Community. The current standard of 50 parts per billion has not been updated in 60 years. We informed Administrator Whitman last spring that her action on the arsenic standard was a serious mistake and it has proven to be so. Late last week she publicly acknowledged that the Clinton administration standard of 10 parts per billion was the right standard for arsenic and 2006 was the appropriate compliance date. According to EPA data, there may be as many as 367,000 individuals in approximately 176 communities in Michigan drinking water that contains arsenic at concentrations that exceed 10 parts per billion. The Congress and the Administration must work together to provide the financial assistance necessary for small communities to rapidly come into compliance with the new standard. No person, whether living in a small community or large, should have arsenic in their drinking water, presenting an unreasonable health risk. Especially when the best peer- reviewed science tells us that exposure to arsenic in drinking water causes lung, bladder, and skin cancer. Mr. Speaker, the 10 parts per billion standard for arsenic is supported by more peer-reviewed science than perhaps any other drinking water standard ever promulgated by EPA. In just the last two years, two National Academy of Science reports were issued. The June 1999 report called on the EPA to move to a more protective standard ``as promptly as possible.'' The second National Academy of Sciences' study, completed two months ago, found that the risks of bladder and lung cancer from arsenic contaminated water were much greater than previously assessed. This finding was based on the best and most recent scientific research and is based on studies of human populations. The independent Science Advisory Board at EPA also found evidence linking arsenic consumption to heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension. I would say to my fiends on the Appropriations Committee that it is a mistake to encourage small communities to seek lengthy compliance time extensions as they continue to drink water with unhealthy levels of arsenic. Nor should they seek a rollback in our environmental protection laws. We would work together to identify or develop additional cost-effective technologies and provide targeted financial assistance where necessary to bring small water systems into compliance with the new protective standard for arsenic. The existing drinking water State Revolving Loan Fund contains $850 million for grants and loans to public water systems. This fund is authorized at one billion dollars and the appropriation is $150 million less than the authorized level. I am, therefore, surprised and concerned that the Conference Report fails to direct any financial assistance to help small systems come into compliance with the new arsenic standard. I would hope this problem is rectified in the future. In conclusion, I support the Conference Report and I am pleased that it requires the adoption of the safe arsenic standard without delay. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October 31, 2001. Hon. John Dingell, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Dingell: As you know, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been conducting a thorough review of the appropriate standard for arsenic in drinking water, based upon the best available science. Throughout this process, I have made in clear that EPA intends to strengthen the standard for arsenic by substantially lowering the maximum acceptable level from 50 parts per billion (ppb), which has been the lawful limit for nearly half a century. I can now report that the drinking water standard for arsenic will be 10 ppb, and we will maintain the compliance date of 2006. This standard will improve the safety of drinking water for million of Americans, and better protect against the risk of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. As required by the Safe Drinking Water Act, a standard of 10 ppb protects public health based on the best available science and ensures that the cost of the standard is achievable. Over the past several months, we have had the benefit of insight provided by national experts who conducted three new independent scientific studies--the National Academy of Sciences, the National Drinking Water Advisory Council, and EPA's Science Advisory Board. In addition, we have received more than 55,000 comments from the public. Nearly 97 percent of the water systems affected by this rule are small systems that serve fewer than 10,000 people each. I recognize the challenges many small systems will face in complying with this standard, given their higher per capita costs. Therefore I am committed to working closely with states and small water systems to identify ways to reduce arsenic levels at a reasonable cost to ratepayers. EPA plans to provide $20 million over the next years for research and development of more cost-effective technologies to help small systems to meet the new standard. EPA will also provide technical assistance and training to operators of small systems, which will reduce their compliance costs. EPA will work with small communities to maximize grants and loans under the existing State Revolving Fund and Rural Utilities Service programs of the Department of Agriculture. Finally, I have directed my staff to identify other ways that we may help smaller water systems reduce arsenic levels at a reasonable cost. Our goal is to provide clean, safe, and affordable drinking water to all Americans. I look forward to working with Congress; my colleagues in the Administration; state, local and tribal governments; and other interested parties as we move forward with this protective standard. It's not enough just to set the right standard--we want to work with local communities to help them meet it. Working together, we can ensure the continuing viability of small, rural water systems, and meet our common goal of improving water quality and protecting public health. Sincerely, Christine Todd Whitman.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend from Minnesota for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it is astonishing for me to see so many frequent fliers assembled in one place seeking to have the status quo continue. I would remind my Republican friends that more people were killed in the events of September 11 than at D-Day or Pearl Harbor. This is a serious matter. I would also note that Secretary Mineta has made this observation: he says that an unacceptable number of deficiencies continue to occur. Argenbright and others have had a number of problems before, during, and since the 11th. They have falsified records, they have been convicted, they have been find $1.5 million. They have subsequently found that they have continued the same violations and are now up for violation of probation. They have allowed everything from guns to box openers to knives to move through the checkpoints. How is it that we can say that we should continue the status quo, allowing the same kind of rent-a-cops to commit the same kind of outrages in terms of security? Let us get rid of them for good and put somebody in that is going to do the job right.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the 29 colleagues who have joined me as original cosponsors, I rise today to announce the introduction of an important concurrent resolution pertaining to the ongoing violence in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. As we all know, this violence not only endangers Israelis, Palestinians, and their neighbors, but it threatens the interests of the United States at this most critical time. In introducing this resolution--which is strongly supported by the Administration--my colleagues and I are sending a clear message that violence in this troubled region is unacceptable and serves no one's long-term interests. It stresses that the Mitchell Committee Report offers the best road map toward ending the current cycle of violence and restarting the peace process in the Middle East. It notes that U.S. leadership is vital to creating and implementing a just and lasting peace. Finally, it highlights the fact that peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is America's best interest now and in the future. In the past week we have seen violence beget violence. Assassinations do not serve the interests of the Palestinians. Unjust, aggressive acts do not serve the interests of Israel. Most importantly these acts do not serve American interests, particularly at a time when we are engaged in war and the delicate diplomacy of coalition building. These acts harm our ability to effectively meet and beat the forces of evil that we are fighting in Afghanistan. I would note that while neither party is beyond reproach, I am troubled by what is taking place in Bethlehem, Beit Rima, and elsewhere. I am deeply troubled that when we shared our concerns with the Government of Israel and asked that they refrain from escalating violence by occupying additional Palestinian lands, they refused. Mr. Speaker, as we wage war on terrorism, we must be careful to remember that while we have many allies, we must not allow any single country to use this conflict to justify any and all actions they take in their national interest. American interests overlap with the interests of other countries on many points, but they are not identical. American interests must be our priority and must prevail. The Israel-Palestinian conflict has left thousands dead since 1948, and hundreds dead in the last year. This conflict must be resolved. Both sides have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer if nothing is done. It is in the interest of our nation to encourage these parties to halt the violence and make peace. The Mitchell Committee was created by the mutual agreement of the United States, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Jordan, the United Nations, and the European Union at the conclusion of the Sharm el-Sheik Middle East Peace Summit on October 17, 2000. The Mitchell Committee studied the ongoing violence over a period of months, and the report they 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. The United States, the UN, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority endorsed the Mitchell Committee Report because it is the best blueprint as to how to get the peace process back on track. It was accepted because it is a fair and balanced report that highlights the fact that both parties are responsible for the starting and perpetuating violence, and both parties are responsible for stopping it. Mr. Speaker, the resolution I have introduced is balanced and fair, and merely expresses this body's support for the Mitchell Committee Report. Passing this resolution will send a message to both Israelis and Palestinians that the United States is a true partner for peace, and will work toward creating a just, lasting peace that will protect the interests of all parties. This resolution enjoys the strong support of the Bush Administration, and I submit a copy of an October 5, 2001, letter of support from the State Department. This letter notes the following: Passage of this resolution, without amendment, would make a positive and welcome contribution to the Administration's work with the parties to end the violence, implement the Mitchell Committee recommendations, and return to substantive negotiations. Mr. Speaker, violence between the Israelis and Palestinians only begets more violence. This needless bloodshed runs counter to the interests of all parties, including the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and demonstrate their support for peace and the Administration's efforts to resolve the Israeli- Palestinians conflict in a just, balanced manner. United States Department of State, Washington, DC, October 5, 2001. Dear Mr. Dingell: Thank you very much for your letter to Secretary Powell and for sharing with us the text of your Concurrent Resolution. Passage of this resolution, without amendment, would make a positive and welcome contribution to the Administration's work with the parties to end the violence, implement the Mitchell Committee recommendations, and return to substantive negotiations. We appreciate very much your support. As you point out, the Mitchell Committee recommendations represent a practical path back to productive negotiations between the parties. Before negotiations can begin, however, it is essential that the violence end and that both sides do everything possible to restore an atmosphere of calm. The meeting between Israeli Foreign Minister Peres and Chairman Arafat and the renewed security coordination which followed that meeting are important steps in this direction. It is important that both Palestinians and Israelis avoid actions that jeopardize this renewed dialogue. Both sides must engage in the fullest possible coordination on security issues to help ensure a lasting halt to violence and terror. The Israelis should refrain from provocative acts that can only escalate tensions and undermine efforts to bring about a lasting halt to violence. For their part, the Palestinian authority must take sustained and effective steps to preempt violence and arrest those responsible for planning and conducting acts of violence and terror. Further progress will not be possible without a significant reduction in the level of violence. Both sides now have an important opportunity to break from the events of the past year to begin to build a new relationship. Both sides must follow through on their commitments to fully implement the Mitchell Committee recommendations. The President and the Secretary have been deeply engaged and will continue to do everything possible to help the two sides end the violence and encourage the resumption of a meaningful political dialogue. Thank you again for your support. Sincerely, Paul V. Kelly, Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.