John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, health insurance coverage is a critical component of any economic stimulus package. Uninsured Americans have greater problems obtaining needed medical care. They are also less likely to get needed care. It is simply good medicine to ensure that families can keep their health insurance coverage. It is also, however, good economics. The uninsured pay more out-of- pocket for health care, reducing their consumer spending. If families have health insurance, more of their resources are freed up to meet other critical needs such as paying their mortgage or utility bills. Half of Americans who file for bankruptcy protection do so because of high medical expenses. An increase in the number of uninsured workers will lead more Americans into bankruptcy. We know that the number of uninsured will very likely increase during this economic downturn. That is why any responsible economic stimulus package must include meaningful provisions to prevent the number of families without health insurance coverage from increasing. The Democratic substitute does just that. This package provides a federal subsidy to allow workers and their families to remain covered under their former employer's policy for twelve months. Without this subsidy, bearing the full freight of their health insurance costs--on average $7,053 for family coverage--will prove too much for many families already struggling to make ends meet. The Democratic substitute also allows states the option of extending Medicaid coverage to those uninsured workers and their families who are ineligible for COBRA coverage. For workers in firms with fewer than twenty employees or for workers in firms that go out of business, this provision is particularly important as COBRA coverage is not available to them. By building on Medicaid, we are building on an insurance program that we know works and that states can use quickly and easily to ensure workers and their families have health coverage. A responsible stimulus package should recognize the importance of health insurance to good health and a good economy. The Democratic substitute will see that American families remain insured during this economic downturn. This package is the right approach for our economy, our workers, and their families.

Mr. DINGELL

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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have established a rather remarkable record of cooperation in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I want to express my appreciation and commendations to my good friend.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the legislation and to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), for his leadership on this matter. The bill was reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce by voice vote on October 3 and was developed on a bipartisan basis. This bill, the Bioterrorism Enforcement Act of 2001, is a good start on more comprehensive legislation to deal with aspects of the threat of bioterrorism which we are now unfortunately facing here in Washington, D.C., in Florida, in New York, in New Jersey and other places in this country. Recently the National Commission on Terrorism, headed by Jim Gilmore of Virginia, found that the Federal Government had insufficient controls of existing stock of terrorism-friendly pathogens such as anthrax and smallpox. Today, as the chairman has noted, it is perfectly legal for anyone to possess deadly agents like those, and no one needs to be told. In fact, although there is a law requiring persons possessing the select agents that could be used for biological warfare to register and take appropriate steps to protect against release when shipping, it only covers the transfer of agents, not the actual possession. As a result, the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, has only incomplete knowledge of who possesses these agents; and there is no real control over the ownership, use, or other things with regard to these agents. This bill addresses the very problem with serious criminal penalties. It requires that everyone who possesses select agents must register and must also meet CDC's safety and security standards. In effect, that means none of these agents can be possessed legally outside of an approved laboratory. Anybody else who has them will be subject to 5 years in prison. This provision will not allow anyone, whether they obtained the agent 20 years ago or 20 minute ago, to avoid registering their possession. This legislation not only closes that loophole, but makes it a felony to transfer select agents without registering and establishes criminal penalties for persons who use select agents in a manner that constitutes reckless disregard for the public health and safety and injures people. We can see in the ongoing investigation of the source of the anthrax that is found in Florida, New York, New Jersey, and now Washington, D.C., that law enforcement has been significantly hampered because there has been no national registry of who holds the various anthrax strains. A similar situation could arise with any kind of select agent, and could do so overnight. We have established an ambitious schedule for the Department of Health and Human Services to implement this rule, but the legislation needs to be implemented forthwith. The standards for possession are basically those already established for laboratories when they transfer select agents. Establishing a registry for dangerous biological agents and setting strict penalties for the unlawful possession of these agents is only a beginning in our war against bioterrorism. In the future, we need to improve our national health system to deal with any possible outbreaks of diseases caused by bioterrorism. I commend the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor and urge its adoption. I would make a couple of private notes here with regard to an experience I had last Saturday. I think it would be good for the House to consider these matters. Enactment of the legislation before us is only the beginning. I would note that the first line of defense is our police and local public safety officials, especially the firemen and people like that in the communities. I would note that there has been inadequate availability of funds on the local level, State level, and Federal level. I would note that there has been a significant failure of this Congress to ensure that monies which were given to States are passed through to local levels. I would note that there is an enormous deficiency in funding available to the local units of government to do this work. Mr. Speaker, the House should know it costs about $3,000 for each run that the local units of public safety spend when they make a call to address the problems of possible anthrax or other bioterrorism agents. I would note that all of the State and local units of government are running out of money. They also are running out of training, and they also are confronting a serious problem where there are no approved labs or insufficient numbers of approved labs to cooperate with them in providing the necessary safety and security or the identification of these agents which are so risky and so dangerous to all of us. I would note that almost all of them are running out of money. All of them are running into serious difficulty with regard to the Federal Government in view of the fact that the Federal Government does not have a program to address those matters and that the Federal Government does not support them financially. The States do not, either. The consequences of this are that if we have an outbreak outside of Washington or in other parts of the country, that there will be very, very serious effects and there will be enormous difficulty in identifying the agent, the hazard, the risk and probably failure to do so in sufficient time to see to it that there is not a significant and more broad outbreak of the disease which is carried by the specific agent. This is a serious matter which requires that the Congress should look into it. I commend my good friend the chairman of the committee for his leadership in this matter, but I warn my colleagues, we have only begun addressing a matter of the most enormous and serious concern to the whole of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we are considering under a very strange rule a very strange process which has resulted in a bill which is quite different than reported by the committee. I wanted to commend the distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking member for the superb work which they did in crafting what I thought was a very fine bill. Somehow last night we found ourselves with a bill on our hands which is quite different than that which was presented to the House by the committee, after very thoughtful and careful work leading to an overwhelming bipartisan vote. What we are doing today is not considering just a few simple questions like expenditures of money. We are dealing today with basic constitutional rights. Ordinarily these are matters of the highest importance and are considered with great care under a rule, in an open process, because, after all, these are the things upon which Americans rely for their personal security and for their understanding that their rights are protected. All of a sudden sometime, probably last night, the Attorney General snuck up here to have a meeting. The result is that the bill suffered some extraordinary changes, all of which deal with the basic, fundamental rights of Americans in ways very different and probably much more unfavorably than did the committee bill. This is not the way. The United States is not so threatened that we have to throw away our rights without careful consideration, and that we have to disregard the careful and thoughtful and fine work done by the chairman, the committee, and by my distinguished friend, the ranking minority member. I find this a distressing process, one which reflects very poorly on the House--and one which indicates a great distrust and dislike for the work of the committee, which was superb--and for the basic fundamental liberties of the people of the United States. I find it denigrating basic constitutional rights, and I find it to have been done in a sneaky, dishonest fashion. It reflects very poorly on this body. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for increasing security along our northern border. I would also like to commend the Judiciary Committee for the language in the bill it released that triples Border Patrol personnel and INS inspectors along our northern border. Unfortunately, I do not support the tactics used by the Republican leadership that has substituted an entirely different bill in place of the bipartisan House Judiciary Committee bill. Since September 11th, the heightened security levels have made us aware how understaffed we are along our northern border. This is a serious problem, it is unacceptable, and must be corrected in the short and long term. We must make sure that land, air, and seaports are adequately staffed across the nation. This must include our northern border. To our INS and Customs inspectors as well as our Border Patrol, I would like to commend them for their tireless efforts. Their efforts have helped greatly during the last month. However, with current staffing levels we are still encountering long lines at our ports of entry and continuing security concerns. In particular, trade has been seriously stifled with our Canadian neighbors. For several days following September 11th, there were up to 14 hour waits to cross between Canada and Michigan. Lines are still long, as waits run into the hours. While this was understandable given the gravity of the situation immediately after the September 11th attacks, it is completely unacceptable that our economy has been placed at risk due to insufficient numbers of border personnel. Automobile plants needing parts have closed, and hospitals have been understaffed because their employees have been unable to cross our ports of entry in a timely fashion. These are just some of the reasons why our border requires more INS and Customs inspectors. Over 82 percent of goods originating in Michigan are exported to Canada via truck. 70 percent of Canada-U.S. trade and 80% of Ontario-U.S. trade, by value, moves by truck. The largest portion (38 percent) of Ontario's exports by road is destined for Michigan. Without optimum force levels of Customs and INS inspectors, the State of Michigan will continue to pay greatly for the loss in trade attributed to long lines at our ports of entry, both to and from Canada. In addition, the economies of our neighboring states and Canada will suffer. I will work with other committees and appropriations that are seeking to secure our northern border and ensure that adequate funding is given to INS and Customs for optimum force levels along our northern border. Failure to address problems along our northern border in a comprehensive manner jeopardizes our security and economy. I urge my colleagues to act expediently in providing a remedy for the serious shortfall of INS and Customs officials in Michigan. Mr. Speaker, using the regular committee process that has served us so well, we can protect the nation from terrorists in a swift and orderly fashion. I am not sure this kind of action protects the peoples' basic liberties. We can protect the Constitutional rights of our people from the whims of the attorney general, the Republican Administration, and the Republican leadership of this House. A bill, which would have achieved overwhelming support by the Congress, has been cast into question by this irregular process, and basic American liberties are being put into question. However, despite this egregious breach of House procedure, these border concerns are so great that I support the PATRIOT Act of 2001.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, according to the Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, there is a need to protect food coming into the U.S. from foreign countries against intentional adulteration. I agree. For the last two congresses, most of the Democratic members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce have sponsored legislation aimed at improving the safety of imported food Americans eat. Today, I am reintroducing that bill together with amendments that give higher priority to, and that deal more directly with, concerns about the intentional adulteration of imported food that we, the American public, and the Secretary now share as a result of the recent tragic events in New York City and Washington. Although the legislation I introduced in the last two congresses has not received so much as a hearing, Congress's failure to act is not because there hasn't been a problem. According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), adulterated food causes 81 million illnesses and as many as 9,100 deaths each year. The important thing to know, however, is that these deaths and illnesses are also avoidable. We have the means to arm the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the authority and resources it needs to protect our food supply. There are exciting new technologies that have the potential to make tests for microbial and pesticide or other chemical adulteration easy to perform and affordable. Unfortunately, FDA does virtually no preventive testing under our current food import program. Food shows up at any one of 307 different ports of entry. An FDA inspector may or may not be present. And, even if an inspector is present, only about one percent of imported fresh fruits and vegetables are inspected and even fewer tested. The tests can take a week or more to yield results. In the meantime, the food is long gone and most likely consumed. Instead of pre-testing and verifying the safety of imported food before the American public eats it, the FDA waits for people to get sick or die before it tries to determine whether food adulteration is involved. The outrageous and wholly intolerable conclusion one must draw is that Americans are being used as guinea pigs. There are special problems with imported food that do not exist with food produced in the U.S. FDA lacks authority and resources to ``trace back'' the source of food borne illness beyond the border. It also does not have access to the points of production, processing, and distribution as it does in the case of U.S. food products. Furthermore, preventive detection is virtually impossible because FDA does not have tests available to detect pathogens on imported food in a timely manner. Finally, FDA cannot even account, in many cases, for what happens to imported fruits and vegetables that are adulterated and refused admission into the U.S. GAO has studied this situation and has concluded that the Federal government cannot ensure that imported food is safe. New resources, authorities, and technologies are needed for FDA to assure the American public, with confidence, that imported food has not been intentionally adulterated and is safe. More food safety inspectors are needed. FDA only has 150 inspectors who are spread thinly at 307 ports where food comes into the United States--less than half the number of inspectors needed to cover all ports on a full-time basis. On the other hand, meat and poultry that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must inspect comes into the United States at only 35 ports. Furthermore, USDA gets 80% of the food safety budget even though it has responsibility for only 20% of the food supply, while FDA that has responsibility for 80% of the food supply gets only 20% of the food safety budget. The Imported Food Safety Act of 2001, which I am introducing today, addresses each of these problems. It gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority to limit the number of ports where imported food may come into the U.S. Therefore, if FDA only has enough inspectors to cover 20 ports, instead of the 307 ports it now tries to inspect, the Secretary can require imported food to come through those 20 ports. The bill also authorizes such sums as the Secretary deems necessary to hire enough inspectors and to conduct enough tests so that the American public has confidence that imported food has not been intentionally adulterated. The legislation also provides additional resources in the form of a modest user fee on imported foods, and a ``Manhattan Project'' to develop ``real time'' tests that yield results within 60 minutes to detect E. coli, salmonella, and other microbial contaminants as well as pesticides and other chemical contaminants. Finally, the legislation gives FDA authority like USDA has for meat and poultry, to stop unsafe food at the border and to assure that its ultimate destination is not America's dinner table. Mr. Speaker, the time for action is now. Thirty-eight percent of all the fruit and 12 percent of all the vegetables Americans eat each year come from foreign countries. Over the last five years, the volume of food imported into the U.S. has almost doubled. FDA has acknowledged that it is ``in danger of being overwhelmed by the volume of products reaching U.S. ports.'' Let's do the people's business and improve the safety of our food supply. Let's hear from consumers, public health experts, and all others with an interest in the matter. I am confident that none will dare defend the status quo.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Monroe Business and Professional Women (BPW) on the occasion of its 75th Anniversary. The Monroe County Chapter of the BPW was founded in 1926 with Lydia Schmeising presiding as the first president. It would be hard to understate the success of the Monroe BPW in advocating on behalf of all women. The formal and informal networking, mentoring and resources the BPW provides its members has helped promote and advance the careers of hundreds of women throughout its 75 year history. The leadership the BPW has provided on issues such as gender and pay equity are but two examples of its effectiveness as a forum for advocating women's issues. One of the more subtle accomplishments of the BPW is the manner in which it has quietly persisted throughout its history. No one needs to be reminded of the difficult times in which we live or through which we have come during the past 75 years. And yet the Monroe BPW has continued on as both an anchor in times of turbulence and as a guiding light during times of prosperity for the women of the Monroe community. It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge and commend to your attention the enduring contributions the BPW has made to the greater Monroe community on the occasion of their 75th Anniversary, celebrated October 10, 2001. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting the accomplishments and the 75th anniversary of the Monroe Business and Professional Women.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed the comments that have been just made; and regrettably, they are useful, but only slightly so. This is a good amendment to a good bill. It is a good amendment that makes a good bill much better. The President had some words to say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle the other day. The administration noted that nearly half of the government payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of the farms, while more than half of all the other farmers have received only 13 percent. Now, where are the cuts that are made here, about which my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture complain so much in the amendment? They are to the commodity section. But interesting to note is that the commodity section is going to pay more than it has in the past to the American farmer. So the American farmer is going to do fine under this. LDP payments are increased. But where is the big increase? The big increase in funding under this legislation is to conservation. And it is going in a way which permits all farmers, especially the smaller farmers, to begin to draw an adequate opportunity to participate in funding for conservation purposes. It is noteworthy, I would tell my colleagues, that three out of four farmers have been turned away from the conservation programs because of a lack of money. Three out of four. This is going to give the little farmer a chance to participate in conservation, where there is an enormous benefit. The only conservation programs that have really received significant increases under the bill are those which have benefited the big farmers, not the little farmers. This switches it. This takes care of the hunters, the conservationists, the people who are concerned about wise handling of our lands and public resources. It sees to it the money goes into the hands of the little farmer, who will begin to spend money, which he does not now have for conservation, for the protection of fish and wildlife, for keeping our waters clean and safe. It is not going to benefit some of the enormous hog farmers, or the farmers who, and I am not sure we can really call them farmers, but people who put enormous numbers of hogs or cattle in feedlots and stuff them, producing unbelievable amounts of manure. We can use other laws to address those problems by making them clean up as polluters, if they in fact are doing that. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) increases the Wetland Reserve Program, it increases the Farm Protection Program, it increases the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, it increases funds for conservation of private grazing lands, it increases the Grassland Reserve Program, and conservation technical assistance. Those are things which we need to do in the interest of all. The Conservation Reserve Program, a program which will assist transition from conventional to organic farming programs, those are things which are important. I have listened to some of my colleagues tell me how the real conservation organizations favor the bill. Perhaps. But the real conservation organizations favor the amendment. The International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners, Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation. Every meaningful conservation organization. Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Unlimited. Those organizations support the amendment. What we are seeking here is an opportunity to benefit all of the farmers; to increase money going to the real farmer, to the family farmer, and to the little farmer to enable them to spend money for conservation, for programs which benefit everybody and which responsible farmers like. I met with some farmers who came in to see me the other day. They were complaining about my support of this amendment. I said, it is going to leave you with more money for your commodities programs. It is going to leave you with much more money and access to conservation programs that are good. What are your complaints? They really had no complaints. If this is explained properly to the farmers, they will understand and they will see that what we are doing is good. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Friends of the Opera of Michigan as they celebrate the opening of the city of Dearborn's wonderful new Ford Community and Performing Arts Center. The Friends of the Opera will christen this impressive new facility with its first opera on September 22, 2001. A performance of Verdi's Messa da Requiem has been chosen for this inaugural event. An impressive cast of international artists directed by the Friends of the Opera's own Quinto Milito will showcase their talents to an appreciative audience in Dearborn. Additionally, a statue of Verdi will be unveiled at the opening. Verdi stands as a monumental figure in Italian opera and his compositions are greatly admired by the large Italian-American population in Dearborn, the communities of Downriver and throughout metropolitan Detroit. We are blessed to have such a fine facility and such extraordinary talent available to us here in Dearborn. I am pleased to extend my best wishes to the Friends of the Opera of Michigan and to the Ford Community and Performing Arts Center for many years of beautiful performances.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize, honor and salute my dear friend Paul F. Marks on the occasion of his retirement from Michigan State University Agricultural Extension, and for his many years of dedicated service to our community. Paul began his career with Extension more than 27 years ago. Since that time, Paul has received numerous awards and citations, including the National Distinguished Service Award from the National Association of County Agricultural Agents. At heart, Paul is a teacher. He is recognized throughout the state for his expertise and skill in the areas of vegetable crops, fruit crops and beekeeping. In his professional capacity, he has developed and implemented a large number of award-winning educational programs in such areas as cider safety, agriculture employer seminars and pesticide certification. Paul's passion for teaching extends well beyond Extension. When working with kids in 4-H or the Junior Livestock Association, one can see Paul's gift truly shine. Paul's exemplary teaching efforts were again recognized when he received the Monroe County 4-H Alumni Award. Paul's leadership has also been outstanding in directing Monroe County's Ag Awareness Day that annually gives more than 1,300 county elementary students a better understanding and appreciation of agriculture. And when the County Fair rolls around each summer, you can be sure Paul will be there making sure that every kid has their animal ready for show. When Monroe County was added to my District in 1982, 1 gained a special knowledge of Paul's ability to educate. Knowing little about farming, I paid a visit to the Extension office and met a young Extension Agent by the name of Paul Marks. I asked him to do the impossible--teach a Polish lawyer from Detroit about farming. To his great credit, Paul was up to the task. Since then, I have come to rely greatly on Paul's advice and counsel on agricultural matters. More importantly, Paul has become a great friend. His expertise and knowledge will be greatly missed by all of us. Mr. Speaker, as Paul leaves behind a long and rich history as an Extension Agricultural and Natural Resources Agent to spend time with his beautiful wife Jeannine and his family, I would ask that all of my colleagues salute Paul, his excellent service to his community, his wonderful sense of humor and above all his earnest good will and compassion for his fellow man.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation before us. I note that it expresses sympathy for the innocent victims and their families. I support it because it expresses support and sympathy for the firefighters, police officers, emergency personnel, and their families, who have served and who have lost their lives in their attempt to save others. It is to be supported because it supports our country and our American ideals, and I support the President's efforts in implementing this. We are dealing here with an act of war. You know, Mr. Speaker, I am probably the only Member of this body who remembers the Declaration of War during World War II. I would note that less Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor than were killed yesterday in Washington and New York. This is a declaration of war upon the United States, and while it is that we do not know exactly for sure yet who it is that has done this, this Nation has a serious responsibility. The first is to find out who did it, and then to address this matter with all force and vigor, because without this, we will never know peace again. In addition to this, Mr. Speaker, it will be necessary for us to protect the civil liberties of Americans. We have some mistakes in our background: what we did to German-Americans in World War I, what we did to Japanese-Americans in World War II, and German-Americans and Italian-Americans in World War II. Those things cannot be done in this instance, and we must indeed see to it that we protect the great constitutional and indeed religious principles with regard to treating our fellow Americans well and properly. This is a time for national unity. This resolution expresses that unity. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say this: let us get about the great and the terrible business at hand. Let us identify the wrongdoers, let us punish them in all proper way. There will be no peace until such time as we have done so. God bless the United States and the people of the United States.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we both have?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. DINGELL. I will respect that, of course, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I think it is time for us to look at this as what it is. I am told by my good friend on the other side that the problem here is lawsuits. I am sure they have trouble with that. My problem is without some mechanism for the American citizen to think his rights are being properly protected in the courts of law, there is no sustainable right for that American citizen. I had a good friend who called me up not long back. He is a doctor of medicine, very much respected. He had been serving as an appeals officer for an HMO since he retired. He said, Dingell, you do not know it but they just fired me. I said, Doc, tell me why they did it. He said, They said I was making medical decisions instead of insurance decisions. That is the issue here before us. We want to see to it that we still have medical decisions being made in favor of, and on behalf of, the patients. This is to see to it that the HMOs are treated the same as anybody else, not given preferential and reverential treatment. That is what the Norwood amendment does. It shelters them against litigation. Worse than that it preempts State law; and in the process it jiggers the rules of evidence, the weight of the proceedings, the manner of proceedings, so that the hand of the Government is weighing heavily on the scales of justice against the citizen who has lost a leg or a wife or a husband or who has been injured by HMOs engaging in the practice of medicine. If an American citizen cannot go to court to get relief and help under those situations, the value of his citizenship has been shrunk, and it will be shrunk by the Norwood amendment if it is adopted. Just remember what I stated about my friend who was fired for making medical decisions instead of insurance decisions. Now, it does preempt the laws of the States now in existence; and it weighs the new proceedings against the person who wishes to complain to his government about having been wronged by an HMO. I have here in my hands a letter which I will insert in the Record at the appropriate time from the insurance commissioner from the State of Michigan, a good Republican official, who complains that the law of the State of Michigan is being usurped by the amendment offered by my good friend from Georgia. Protect my citizens, if you will not protect your own, against that kind of outrage. Office of Financial and Insurance Services, Lansing, MI, August 2, 2001. Michigan Congressional Delegation, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives: I am contacting you again with regard to an amendment that is being proposed to the patients' bill of rights legislation. It has come to our attention that the Norwood amendment contains a provision that would preempt all State internal and external review laws. States would not be allowed to certify and retain these laws. The internal and external review process would be federalized. I oppose the portion of the Norwood amendment that would preempt the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Services' ability to implement, oversee and enforce Michigan's statutory internal and external grievance procedures. Michigan was one of the first states to implement both an internal and external grievance procedure when it enacted its patient's bill of rights in 1996. Then again in 2000, the Michigan Legislature, with Governor Engler's support, enacted the Patient's Right to Independent Review Act (PRIRA-2000 PA 251) that provided sweeping changes to the external review procedure and shortened (considerably) the time frames for the internal review procedures. PRIRA took effect October 1, 2000. I am asking for your help in resolving this preemption issue as the process moves forward. The Senate bill allows states to certify state laws and therefore retain their internal/external reviews, so this issue will be a point of negotiation in conference. It would be very helpful if enough Members objected to this provision in the Norwood amendment so that it is highlighted for those conference negotiations. If States are not allowed to retain jurisdiction over the internal and external review process then their ability to oversee other protections will be severely limited. Very truly yours, Frank M. Fitzgerald, Commissioner.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the Senate last week spent a whole week in arriving at a decision on this legislation. It was a thoughtful debate, compromises were worked out on a bipartisan basis, and a good bill was sent here. Let us look at where we are and why. A Member in this Chamber went to the White House in a closed meeting and worked out a deal. That deal was not reduced to writing until this morning. He did not know what was in the deal at the time he appeared before the Committee on Rules. Nobody else knew. I do not know now. None of you know. I seriously doubt that the Member who cut the deal knows what he has done. I do not think that any Member can understand the ramifications of these curious transactions. In the Senate, the leaders were willing to forgo the Independence Day recess in order to work this legislation up. Here, without the vaguest understanding of what we are doing, we are now rushing to send a bill to the President. The doctors have a way of describing this thing. They say, First, do no harm. There is a plethora of amendments which have been added to this legislation under the rule. If Members vote for the rule, they are going to vote for a bill that has not been tested and that the author of the amendment cannot satisfactorily explain to himself or to us. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad process. I would point out that it sets up a whole new Federal standard for torts and for jurisprudence, something which has not been done for 300 years in this country. I ask my colleagues to note whether they can explain this or understand it, or whether they or anyone, or the author of the amendment, can assure us that this amendment does not foster mischief and misunderstanding and the potential for real trouble for the American public. I would note some other things for the benefit of this Chamber. This is an HMO bill. It is a step backwards in that it preempts State laws. It puts its finger on the scale of justice. Nay, it puts its whole fist or forearm on the scales of justice because it lays in place presumptions in favor of the HMOs. The HMOs are smiling today. No one else is. Members who vote for this amendment will not be smiling in a little while because the end result of that is going to be that they are going to have hurt their constituents, and have done the wrong thing. I will tell Members some additional things. The States are making fine progress in enacting patient protection laws. Those patient protection laws are making real progress. This bill would essentially preempt them and set aside all of that progress. States like Georgia, States like New Jersey, States like Texas, are going to see their laws superseded. Mr. Speaker, the amendment to this bill is titled the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act. It should be entitled, the Partisan HMO Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friends, Al and Tavi Cappuccilli, on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary. I have been impressed by a number of the Cappuccilli's accomplishments and achievements, but none reflects more highly upon them than the love and success of their five children and seven grandchildren. I have observed the affection and time Al and Tavi have spent and spend with their children, and how confident and well rounded they are as a result. The Cappuccilli's now delight in lavishing the same kind of attention on their grandchildren. Al and Tavi have done such a superb job of making their family their most important priority, that now the Cappuccilli children and grandchildren come home every Christmas Eve, without fail, to celebrate ``the real Christmas''. I am pleased to say that the Cappuccilli's have not confined their magnanimity to their children and family. Al and Tavi have faithfully and dutifully supported the Monroe community in a myriad different ways. For 23 years, Al was the Executive Director of the Monroe County United Way, where he was instrumental in establishing the Monroe County Food Bank in the early 1980s. Most recently, as Mayor, Al has presided over 10 years of growth and considerable progress. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, August 11, 2001, Al and Tavi Cappuccilli will return to the same church in which they were wed, and to which they have continued to belong, to renew the wedding vows they made to each other 50 years ago. On this momentous occasion, I wish to express my heartfelt esteem and congratulations to a wonderful couple who stand as a loving example for an entire community.