John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Omnibus Committee Funding Resolution. While the resolution does not include the full request of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which the Minority supported, it does recognize the increased workload facing our Committee. Each of the six subcommittees has more than a full plate, with issues such as patient protections, prescription drugs for seniors, and national energy policies, even before consideration of Administration proposals that will presumably be forthcoming. I note that the proposed budget is a significant improvement in its treatment of the minority. Although my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have previously spoken of a goal of a two-thirds/one-third split between the Majority and Minority in funding and staff positions, the Minority on the Committee on Energy and Commerce has never received even that modest allocation. Under this resolution, however, the minority members, who constitute 49 percent of the House and 45 percent of the Energy and Commerce Committee, will finally be allocated one- third of the funding and staff slots long promised by the majority party. More importantly, it is my understanding that an accommodation of the needs of the Minority has also been reached on the other Committees as well. Because of these improvements, I support this resolution and urge my colleagues to support it. I would note that this resolution is just a first step in the process; the House will need to allocate sufficient funds to make good on its promises. This resolution represents a good beginning, and I hope it carries over into more mundane matters, like office space, as well as into legislation on important policy questions.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I wish I could say I was shocked and dismayed at the budget proposal the Republicans have put before us today. Unfortunately, I am not shocked. It is a typical Republican budget which slashes funding for programs that help the elderly, women, children and the public interest in order to give a fat tax cut to their fat-cat buddies. Allow me, if you will, to give a brief synopsis of this draconian document: Cuts funding for land conservation; Cuts the budget for environmental protection; Cuts funding for the Department of Agriculture, including the field offices which are there to help our farmers, the engine of America's prosperity since founding of our Republic. This budget also fails to provide any emergency income assistance for farmers; Cuts funding for NASA; Cuts funding for renewable and alternative energy research and development. This is the very research and development that could hold the answers to today's energy shortage; Cuts funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, the builders of America's infrastructure; Cuts Federal support for the railroads; Cuts funding for the Small Business Administration; Cuts funding for Community Development Block Grants; Cuts funding for the Department of Justice, the agency charged with enforcing our laws; Cuts funding for the Legal Services Corporation; and Cuts funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Though that is the end of this year's cuts, it is not the end of the rascality Republican Christopher Smith, Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, and Republican Lane Evans, Ranking Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee, have stated that, ``$2.1 billion is the minimum needed to keep the promises made to care for those who risked their lives and answered this country's call in its hour of need.'' This budget falls $1 billion short of this minimum. The Budget only designates $135 billion for a prescription drug benefit and Medicare reform. I would note to you that Representative Billy Tauzin said, ``everybody knows that figure is gone.'' Additionally, CBO estimates that last years Republican prescription drug bill would cost well over $200 billion today. Now that I have told you what this scandalous budget does not do, I will tell you what it does do. Raids Medicare Part A's trust fund Threatens the solvency of Social Security and Medicare Mortgages our future based on a riverboat gamble. Make no mistake, the projected surplus is only a prediction 10 years into the future. This disgrace of a budget grossly underfunds programs which deserve full funding and which the American people have told us time and again are important to them. You may ask why the Republicans have created a budget which does not reflect America's priorities, why they have produced such a dim-witted ``financial plan.'' I will be happy to tell you why. Because they are determined to give a massive and fiscally irresponsible tax cut to their fat-cat buddies. Do not be fooled, it is not working families who would benefit from this tax cut, it is the top 1 percent. I would ask you to vote against this outrageous plan.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record. On Violence in America and Kuwait: The Kuwait-America Foundation (By John Duke Anthony) This past week's tragic incident in California in which yet another student at an American school killed his classmates was as senseless as all the similar acts that went before. It is no less tragic for the likelihood that, short of effective remedies, the phenomenon is destined to recur in the future. As with the earlier school killings, there will be much wringing of hands and soul searching among pundits and politicians in search of ways to cope with this ongoing blight on a significant segment of American society. In the debates that will ensue, much can be learned from a hitherto little known effort by the Kuwait-America Foundation that is helping to address this problem and others related to the violence that persists in the lives of Americans and Kuwaitis. Two weeks ago, the nonprofit and nongovernmental Kuwait- America Foundation (KAF) administered a multifaceted program to commemorate both the fortieth anniversary of Kuwait's independence and the tenth year since its liberation from Iraqi aggression. Over a period of several days, KAF manifested a growing phenomenon in international relations: the efficacy of having such organizations play pivotal roles in matters of global importance. Like innumerable other Arab and Islamic philanthropic associations, KAF has yet to become a household word in America. However, the day is fast approaching when it will be recognized as having become a respected albeit low-key activist in support of laudable objectives in American national life. Until ten days ago, KAF was not as well known in Kuwait as one might have thought. Many outside observers had believed, mistakenly, that Kuwait's government and private sector must have held annual commemorative events to honor the country's liberation from aggression ten years ago. A County's Yellow Ribbon Not so. The commemorative activities were the first of their kind. The previous national decision to forgo any annual outpouring of joy at the return of the country's internationally recognized government, and with it, the restoration of freedom and safety to the Kuwaiti people, was deliberate. The decision not to celebrate was, in essence, reflective of a people's collective preference instead for wearing a yellow ribbon in memory of hundreds of missing Kuwaiti and other nationals who have yet to return from the months-long nightmare that Iraq unleashed against Kuwait on August 2, 1990. For most, the idea of rejoicing with so many of their fellow citizens' still in Iraq was seen as premature and inappropriate. It was overshadowed by the ongoing grief over the country's hostages, its missing in action, and the fate of other nationalities abducted to Baghdad in the waning days of the war that have yet to be accounted for by Iraq. The Numbness of Numbers. In Kuwait as elsewhere, the process of coming to terms with the impact of an adversary's aggression and violence against it is considered by most to be an essential component of reconciliation. But among outsiders who have wanted to see reconciliation between Kuwait and Iraq occur sooner rather than later are many who appear to wonder whether the concern about those missing from Kuwait has been a Kuwaiti pretense or, at least exaggerated for effect. If so, many reason, could it not be little more than a carefully crafted device deliberately tailored to garner international sympathy for the country's ongoing deterrence and defense needs that might not be as effectively obtained in any other way? By the standard of Great Power populations, the number at issue, cynics seem prone to emphasize, appears to be minuscule. In noting that the total is 608, the tendency of some has been to think that this is a typographical error and that one or more digits must be lacking. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Kuwaiti citizens who vanished from their country in the course of being spirited off to Baghdad by Iraqi forces a decade ago are hardly faceless statistics. No Kuwaiti of this writer's acquaintance knows fewer than four who disappeared without, to date, there being a trace of what happened to them. By extension, most Kuwaitis know and regularly come into contact with an average of forty other Kuwaitis who long for the return of those missing. Because the population of the United States is so large, and that Kuwait is so small, it is difficult for many Americans to grasp the extent of the tragedy that befell the Kuwaiti people as a result of the Iraqi invasion and occupation. The following, however, provides perspective that may be otherwise hard-to-come by. In terms that U.S. citizens can relate to, the number of Kuwaitis missing in Iraq is equivalent to 270,000 Americans being incarcerated and unaccounted for in undisclosed sites in Canada or Mexico. In terms that the British and French can understand, it is as if 60,000 of their citizens had been forcibly seized, carted across the border, and, to this day, were still being held in a neighboring country. On a related additional Richter scale of human tragedy, the recent commemorative events in Kuwait, in which this writer was privileged to participate, revealed yet another daunting set of numbers. One of the highlights was the unveiling by Kuwaitis, former President Bush, and former British Prime Ministers Thatcher and Major, of a memorial to the war dead resulting from the country's liberation. Listed were the names of the 351 Kuwaitis and 331 Allied Coalition country and other nationals killed during Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Three hundred fifty-one. Some may say, `for an international conflict that dominated the headlines for more than half a year, that's not so many.' Those Killed: American Comparisons. Any in doubt as to ``how many is many?'' might ask a Kuwaiti. The number, again in terms equivalent to the population of the United States, is equal to 135,000 Americans having been killed. For further context and comparisons, consider that the United States lost 58,000 in Vietnam. Here, two points are especially pertinent. The first is that the proportionate number of Kuwaitis killed by Iraqis, is comparison with Americans killed in Vietnam, is almost three times as many. The second is that Iraqis killed this many Kuwaitis over a period of just seven months. The 58,000 Americans that died in Vietnam were killed over a 12-year period, i.e., a span of time nearly 24 times as long. The survivors of the Kuwaitis killed during the conflict, including their spouses, children, and other relatives of those missing and unaccounted for, were front and center recently in Kuwait. Former U.S. President George Bush, Sr., U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, former British Prime Ministers Dame Margaret Thatcher and John Major, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and many another KAF, Violence, and The Do The Write Thing Program. On display by KAF in the same ceremonies was another side of the same coin minted in the currency of violence. These were American grassroots leaders of KAF's ``Do The Write thing (DTWT) Program.'' The Program exists in a growing number of american cities that have long been plagued by exceptional levels of violence among their inner city youth. A range of civic, religious, and professional leaders from Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC were among the cities represented. In the aftermath of the reversal of Iraq's aggression, a great many Kuwaitis wanted to convey their gratitude to the United States in a way that would have practical meaning and great symbolic significance to what lay at the heart of a country and a people's violation. To this end, KAF spearheaded a one-of-a-kind movement to ensure that the lives of Americans and others that had fallen in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm were not in vain. Reaching Out to American Schools. KAF has reached out to American school districts where guns and acts of violence remain commonplace, where parents, with abundant reason, worry for the safety of their children, and where students and other children often live literally in fear of their lives. In so doing, KAF joined forces with national and local humanitarian and nonprofit associations, including the National Urban League, the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, the U.S.-GCC Corporate Cooperation Committee, and several other civic and professional organizations. Ever since, KAF has been working with leaders in America's urban centers in a way that, thus far, is unparalleled among non- governmental and nonprofit groups in other countries. Of direct relevance to what transpired in a California school last week, KAF has targeted a core constituency within which the incidence of acts of violence per capita in the United States remains all too frequent: intermediate and secondary school students. Working with school superintendents, principals, guidance counselors, and teachers, KAF several years ago initiated a bold and innovative program that has met with increasingly widespread appeal among American leaders concerned with curbing the incidence of crimes against youth. The program has inspired thousands of american students to write essays about the effect of violence on their lives and what they propose to do to bring about its end in their community. Paneled judges read the essays and select the finalists. The winners, together with their parents or teacher, get to visit Washington, DC. There they are recognized in an awards ceremony attended by national dignitaries, meet their Congressional representatives and officials at the Department of Justice and the Office of Education, and tour the cultural and civic highlights of the nation's capital. In arriving to this way of contributing something of meaning and lasting value to the United States, the citizens of Kuwait, through KAF, have unlocked a powerful positive force for good. The beneficiaries are numerous American metropolitan areas previously in a quandary as to how best to begin to loosen the grip of violence upon their communities. KAF, in essence, has provided hope for countless American youth who had all but given up hope that there was a reason to believe that they could make it to adulthood unscathed by the infliction of physical pain upon them or a loved one by someone in their community. It provides them a ticket to non- violence. A Recipe for Responsible Citizenship. Participation in KAF's Do the Write Thing Program offers American students a sure-fire recipe for instilling a significant measure of personal responsibility, accountability, leadership skills, and the means to responsible citizenship. And it does all this in association with the students' parents, teachers, schools, and a plethora of civic and professional associations within their communities. A student's right of entry to the DTWT Program is completion of a three-part essay. Students write about how violence has affected their lives. They suggest ways for ending this scourge upon the quality of life in many of America's inner cities. They express their resolve to do what they can to Sound schmaltzy? Not to the survivors of thousands of those gunned down in the prime of their life, like those in California, Colorado, Georgia, and elsewhere, Not to those who had previously despaired of having a reason to believe that they could make it through school without their or someone dear to them being killed or falling victim to bodily harm en route. Not to the unsung heroes and heroines among teachers who struggle daily and valiantly, often against seemingly insurmountable odds, to try to instill a sense of self-worth, values, and the pursuit of excellence among America's leaders of tomorrow. Not to school guidance counselors, leaders of youth associations, crime prevention and law enforcement officers, and civic as well as business, professional, and religious leaders committed to offering youth a range of opportunities for self-development no matter how disadvantaged their personal, home, and community situations might be. Not to former Kuwaiti Ambassadors to the United States Shaikh Saud Nasser Al-Sabah and Dr. Muhammad Salim Al-Sabah. Not to KAF Chairman Dr. Hassan Al-Ebraheem, KAF Vice-Chairman Anwar Nouri, and not to KAF co-founding board members Fawzi Al-Sultan and Daniel Callister. Not to Kuwait University President Dr. Faizah Al-Kharafi, Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science Director General Dr. Ali Al-Shamlan, and the Kuwaiti members of KAF's board of directors. Not to Administration and Congressional leaders who endorse President Bush's encouragement and empowerment of private sector initiatives that seek to reverse the emasculating effects of school and urban violence on our country's would- be future leaders. Practical Idealism. What KAF has done is help bring into being in an important corner of American national life the essence of practical idealism. It has done so through joining hands with the National Campaign to Stop Violence, the National Guard, the regional and local offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Council of Great City Schools, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the U.S. Department of Education, the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, and the U.S.-GCC Corporate Cooperation Committee. Each of these organizations supports KAF's Do The Write Thing Program. KAF's programs and activities also receive support from nearly a dozen Kuwaiti companies and leading American multinational corporations. In addition to the Marriott Corporation, the list of U.S. firms that support KAF's Do The Write Thing Program is impressive and growing. they include U.S.-GCC Corporate Cooperation Committee members Boeing Corporation, Booz Allen Hamilton, Bryan Cave, Ltd., Chevron Corporation, CMS Energy, ExxonMobil, General Dynamics, General Electric Corporation, Lockheed Martin, Lucent Technologies, McDonnell Douglas, Merrill Lynch, MPRI, Northrop Grumman, Parsons Corporation, Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Raytheon, SAIC, Texaco, and TRW. KAF Student, Teacher, and Parent Award Ceremonies. Anyone search for an injection of idealism would do well to attend one of the DTWT awards ceremonies. Present at each is an assemblage of national dignitaries and, in the wings, a significant number of journalists, television producers, and film crews. The opportunity to observe the press in such a setting is illuminative of the powerful impact that this program has on young and old alike. In few other settings are media professionals so predictably moved to tears as they are by the impact that the Do The Write Thing Program has on American youth, their teachers, and their parents. Each year during the filming of the annual awards ceremony, this writer has seen cameramen involuntarily reach for their handkerchiefs. They become caught up in their emotions from seeing, at the end of their lens, a mirror image of someone who could easily be their daughter or son. This is what invariably happens when one sees and hears the students read their prize-winning essays to appreciative adult audiences in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol and elsewhere. The stirring and uplifting scene happened again ten days ago in Kuwait instead of Washington, An added feature to the ceremonies commemorating the anniversary of the country's liberation was a recent KAF-commissioned film about the DTWT Program. The film premiered at the Kuwait-based The film's main actors were an unlikely collection of celebrities: former President Bush, former Secretary of State James Baker, former Secretary of Defense and now Vice- President Dick Cheney, current Secretary of State Powell, and General Norman Schwarzkopf. Each testified to the efficacy of the Do The Write Thing Program as a major contribution to the national challenge of ending the continuing pattern of violence in the lives of America's inner city students and children. A Symphony and Two American Teenagers. One of the many highlights of the several days' festivities in which this writer was a participant was a specially-produced symphony by a Kuwaiti artist that included strands of ``America the Beautiful.'' The symphony was performed by an ensemble of Kuwaiti musicians. At the end of the concert, young Rominna Vellasenor, a 13- year-old student from an inner city school in Chicago, took the stage to read her essay. One could barely see her head behind the podium as she hurled thunderbolts of insight about the phenomenon of violence in America. She was followed by John Bonham, now in university but earlier a student and resident of a crime-plagued neighborhood in Washington, D.C. Rominna, one of this past year's Do The Write Thing Program winners, was there with her mother. John was a prize-winner several years ago. Rominna's essay was cast in the immediacy of the here-and-now of a life that has been seldom far from crime in her school and community. John's was forged from the perspective of the rear view mirror, contrasting the downwardly spiraling life he had led before he participated in the program and the one hundred and eighty degree turn- around for the better that it has taken since then. Following their speeches and the film, there was not a dry eye in the audience, the President's included. KAF's Further Preparation of America's Leaders of Tomorrow. Only days before the anniversary celebrations began, a group of American university and high school students had visited Kuwait as participants in the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations' Kuwait Studies Program. What all had in common was their outstanding participation as delegates to one of the National Council's annual Model Arab League Leadership Development Programs, which are currently underway and involve 2,000 students and their teachers in Models in 18 cities across the United States. For years now, KAF, the University of Kuwait, the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science, and the American Embassy in Kuwait, headed by former Ambassadors Edward Gnehm and Ryan Crocker, and by current Ambassador James Larocco, have hosted the Kuwait Studies Program for promising American youth that have performed with distinction in the Model Arab Leagues. Considering that all of the participants to date are still in their twenties, the results, to date, are phenomenal. One of the program's alumni is currently assigned to a major U.S. government post that deals daily with pressing issues pertaining to the Kuwait-U.S. bilateral relationship. Another entered the Foreign Service and was posted to the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait. Another is a career military officer working full time on strategic U.S. defense planning relating to Kuwait and other GCC countries. Yet another alumnus of the program is currently a Rhodes Scholar. Others include the winner of First Prize for Best Master's Thesis on the Middle East at Oxford University last year, a former intern at the National Council and KAF who is finishing her Ph.D. at Stanford, and one of the best of a new breed of American foreign affairs specialists who is currently teaching tomorrow's military leaders and defense strategists at one of America's service academies. More than half a dozen of the Kuwait Studies Program and Model Arab League alumni have returned to Kuwait for a year of intensive Arabic language training at Kuwait University. Others are working in the United States for member companies of the U.S.-GCC Corporate Corporation Committee that have invested in Kuwait's economy. Each of these young American leaders of tomorrow has been exposed at length to a side of Kuwait culture and society quite different from any they could have imagined short of visiting the country and meeting with its people. KAF As A Bridge To The Future. In this way, KAF is helping to prepare a cadre of Americans that will manage the future bilateral Kuwait-United States relationship and America's ties to other Arab countries, the Middle East, and the Islamic world. This group of American youth that KAF has assisted is only a few years older than those mowed down by gunfire in the California school. Each acknowledges their debt to KAF and recognizes it as an organization that helped them, much earlier than most of their peers, to take responsibility for their actions and to do what they can to make a positive and lasting difference in the lives of others. For any nation in search of a cure for the phenomenon of violence and other behavioral excesses that plague its society, it is incumbent upon its leaders to look first and foremost to their country's own resources for solutions. This, to be sure, has been and will continue to be done by America's national, state, and local leaders. But here is a sterling example of how one can also learn much that is timely and relevant from the private sector and civic activist efforts of a dedicated group of Kuwaitis. These Arab allies, though geographically remote, are no less profoundly concerned than Americans are with funding the means to come to grips with the vicious cycle of violence cycle of violence visited upon their country and people. They are committed to doing something positive and lasting about it, both here and in Kuwait, in the course of working side by side with their counterparts in the United States. The efforts of the Kuwait-America Foundation to help American youth expand their horizons and break the barriers of violence have emerged from the horrors of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the deepening bonds of U.S.-Kuwaiti friendship spurred by Kuwait's liberation ten years ago. The spirit of understanding and reciprocal respect that these efforts represent are a testimonial to the wisdom, necessity, and mutuality of benefit that flow from closer U.S.-Arab relations.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill- conceived tax plan. Why, Mr. Speaker, do I so strongly object to this plan? Let me count the ways: 1. Process.--The Ways and Means Committee has rushed this tax cut through without allowing the Budget Committee to do its work. We have no idea how this cut meshes with our national priorities. As its name suggests, the Budget Committee is charged with coming up with our national budget, yet they and the Congress have not been given time to do so. Section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act states that the Congress may not pass tax cuts, or tax increases for that matter, without first passing a budget. Republican leadership is ignoring the law in order to rush this turkey through. Ignorance here is bliss. We haven't the least idea what the Congress is doing or how it affects the budget or the country. 2. The Surplus.--This entire tax plan is based on projected surpluses. I hate to milk a dead cow, but these are merely projections--we have not collected the surplus yet! Any honest count shows that the President's numbers don't add up. If we take the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds out of the projected $5.6 trillion surplus, we are left with $2.5 trillion. Now, if we subtract $1 trillion for the proposed ``rainy day fund'' we are left with $1.5 trillion. Take $1.6 out for the tax cut and we are $100 billion in the red. There is no money for helping hands, education, Medicare Reform, Social Security reform, debt reduction, increased defense spending, health insurance for the uninsured. We have been down this road before. In the 1980s we passed a reckless tax cut and a budget that did not add up. The result was that America was buried under a mountain of debt. 3. Fairness.--This is clearly an unfair and unfairly crafted tax cut. As usual, my Republican colleagues are looking out for their fat cat buddies. The top 1 percent, those making more than $900,000/year, gets more than 43 percent of the tax cut. That is $868 billion to the wealthiest Americans. The remaining 99 percent of the taxpayers get the crumbs left on the table, with over 85% of the taxpayers getting a tax cut far less than the $1,600 the President promised. 4. History.--Recall, if you will, the years 1981 and 1982. The Congress, at the urging of President Reagan, passed a massive tax cut. Within one year, when the debt began to pile up, we realized what a drastic mistake we had made. The next year, President Reagan signed a tax increase. George Santayana, whose writings and wisdom I have found to serve those in politics, counsels us: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. We must learn from the mistakes that fostered soaring inflation, and led us right into recession. In closing, I would remind my colleagues that we have been down this road before. This is not the correct path. Fiscal restraint should guide us, not the irresponsibility we saw in the 1980s. I would ask my colleagues to reject this rascality and vote no on this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this outrageous piece of legislation on which none of my Republican colleagues have the vaguest idea of what they are doing.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker. According to the most recent annual report of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), the shortage of organs for transplant is getting worse. Approximately 21,715 transplants were performed in 1999. The number of persons on the national transplant waiting list as of February 2001 was approximately 74,000. The number of deaths among persons who were on the transplant waiting list tripled in the decade of the 1990s. Although cadaveric and live donation rates have increased, the need for these organs has grown even faster. I applaud the effort of my colleagues to raise awareness of the need for more organ donations. I want to also pledge to work with Secretary Thompson on this important issue. He has indicated that he will make organ donation a priority of this administration. One interesting statistic he often cities is that two-thirds of Americans have not expressed their wishes about donation. Clearly, there is much that can be done to increase organ donations. The two measures before us today, H. Con. Res. 31 and H.R. 624, are steps in the right direction. I want to make particular note of the efforts of my friend and colleague, Representative Karen Thurman. She has made all of us aware of the need to act quickly and decisively to address a host of donation issues. Her resolution on organ, tissue, bone marrow, and blood donation deserves our enthusiastic support. H.R. 624 addresses both cadaveric and living donations. There are obvious limitations with respect to live donations, so we must attack the shortage on both fronts, cadaveric and live donations. Ninety-five percent of live donations are kidneys, with the remaining five percent involving the split liver technique. Cadaveric donations thus make up part of the supply of transplantable kidneys and livers, and the entire supply of hearts, pancreas, lungs, and intestines. H.R. 624 is an incremental step. It is not a comprehensive program. I hope this is merely a reflection of the process by which this bill comes before us today and does not reflect a limitation on our collective will to make lasting and meaningful progress toward increasing the supply of organs. There are many good ideas we should examine and I hope that in due course, we will. Finally, I remain wary of the bill's residency and ``covered vicinity'' provisions. I will be monitoring the implementation of H.R. 624 to be sure it does not stray from its intended purpose. With that Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these two measures.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001. H.R. 333 will neither prevent more bankruptcies from occurring, nor protect consumers. It will, however, sanction the continued predatory and abusive practices of the credit card industry. There is no bankruptcy crisis in America. Despite the rascality perpetrated by the credit card industry, including the solicitation of our minors, seniors and pets, personal bankruptcies are not increasing. In fact, even as the average household debt burden has continued to climb, over the past two years personal bankruptcies have dropped by more than 15 percent. Studies show that irresponsible and overly aggressive lending practices were behind the high level of bankruptcies in the mid 1990's. However, the industry has not learned its lesson. Even as the industry enjoys its highest profit level in five years, it refuses to take responsibility for its poor lending practices and continues to increase its marketing and credit extension. Last year, the credit card industry increased its mail solicitations by about 14 percent. Additionally, total credit extended, which included unused credit lines and debt incurred by consumers, approached three trillion dollars for the first time ever. This is outrageous behavior and it should not be rewarded. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership feels differently and has crafted a bill which encourages this despicable behavior at the expense of our most at risk citizens. Americans deserve better, especially at a time when the economy is slowing and more jobs are in jeopardy. As such, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this wrongheaded piece of legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleague and fellow veteran, Lane Evans, in reintroducing the Montgomery G.I. Bill Improvements Act. H.R. 1071 had the support of 160 of my colleagues in the 106th Congress, all of whom recognized, like our new Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi, that improving the military's primary education benefit, the Montgomery G.I. Bill, is wise policy for a number of reasons. It will reverse the military's deteriorating ability to recruit the number and quality of individuals it needs; it provides veterans the tools necessary to reenter the workforce; and, it expands access to higher education to the young men and women in uniform. In 1999, the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance, chaired by now Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi, recommended overhauling and greatly improving the G.I. Bill. Our legislation is modeled on the Commission's recommendation, and I am encouraged and hopeful that the new Administration will work with us to pass this important bill. Clearly, Sec. Principi's appointment is a positive development. America's military supremacy has been unquestioned since the end of the Cold War. In the Gulf War, Bosnia, and Kosovo we proved that our armed forces set the world standard for excellence. While much of our battlefield success has to do with the superiority of our weapons systems, weapons are only as good as the people who operate them. Our success on the battlefield boils down to the quality and ability of our troops. Today, Mr. Speaker, the military is having increasing difficulty recruiting the quantity and quality of troops it needs to meet today's challenges. Recruiting shortfalls are a serious problem, and as statistics have grown worse, recruiting budgets have soared. In addition to new advertising campaigns, the services have resorted to gimmicks, including sponsoring drag racers, deploying psychedelic humvees, and offering emergency cash giveaways. I do not criticize the armed forces for these efforts, but they highlight the need for a greater, more effective recruiting tool. The best recruiting tool is education, and we would best help our armed forces by modernizing the military's primary education benefit, the Montgomery G.I. Bill. The Department of Defense's Youth Attitude Tracking Studies (YATS) confirm that fewer young men and women are considering serving. This shouldn't come as a surprise. ``Money for college'' is the top reason young men and women choose to serve. College costs have quadrupled in the last 20 years, but the G.I. Bill hasn't. At the same time, more nonservice financial assistance has become available, which has benefited society but not the military. Today's G.I. Bill does not provide enough assistance to attract the number of high quality high school graduates the armed forces need, especially when considering the risks of service. This has forced the military to accept lower quality recruits. Statistics tell us that lower quality recruits, as measured by aptitude tests, have a much greater attrition rate. Troops that fail to make it through training or fulfill their service obligations cost taxpayers dearly. The Montgomery GI Bill Improvements Act ensures that our all volunteer armed forces have the ability to attract quality recruits, and provides veterans with skills to better our economy and their lives. In exchange for four years of service, our legislation would provide servicemembers a benefit covering the full cost of tuition, fees and books and provide a subsistence allowance. Those opting for a shorter enlistment or enrolled in the current program would earn a basic benefit of $900/month. Our legislation is not inexpensive, but we must invest to stay the best. The young men and women who will benefit from this legislation will have to earn it through service to our country. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in standing up for our armed forces, servicemembers and veterans by supporting this much needed legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Congratulations.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a great deal of talk about how this is going to be a new and a different and a better Congress. I have heard a lot of people tell me about how we are going to proceed to have bipartisanship and cooperation and conciliation. I would observe to the Members of this body that the system will work if we have cooperation, conciliation, and compromise. I would add to that one thing more: Consultation. It would be nice if the majority would talk to the minority about their plans and about what they are doing. It would be even nicer if they would let us talk to them about what we are doing here and to be consulted and to have an actual discussion about what rules are going to obtain. These rules are interesting. I have been writing rules in this place for a long time. I would note to my colleagues that in these rules are a number of interesting things, massive changes in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. No discussion with the minority on that matter whatsoever. No justification for what has been done here. We are simply informed, ``This is what we are going to do to you.'' I would observe that the jurisdiction that is being transferred from the Committee on Commerce is jurisdiction which was created by Sam Rayburn 60 or 70 years ago and that has been exercised vigorously and well by the Committee on Commerce all during those times. And that never has there been a scandal in that particular line of jurisdiction because the Committee on Commerce has always seen to it that the interests of the American investors were protected. I would note that the committee across the hall, the Banking Committee, has presided over some splendid scandals in the area of banking and savings and loans and has never understood what was going on. Taxpayers have ponied up at least $500 billion because of the incompetence and indifference of that committee. And now we are transferring the jurisdiction over securities to the Banking Committee so that they may conduct the business of the securities industry in precisely the same way they have supervised the business of the banking and the savings and loan industries. I would simply tell my colleagues, you have created the opportunity for splendid scandals and you have created something else: You have made your choice of fools, and I should say that you should now look forward to a splendid disaster. It is coming. The other things which have been done which I think are noteworthy here are that you have changed the rules on motions to recommit. I do not know whether you have done this for the same reason that you have made the changes in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. You did that to take care of one Member. One Member. Not the interests of the House, not the interests of the banking industry or the securities industry or indeed the interests of the investors of the United States. I hope there is a good reason you have done this other than to make it more difficult for the minority to express its will or to have this House have votes on matters of important questions. You have also done some other things. You have continued to constrain the minority in its ability to write reports critical of what they conceive to be wrongdoing or failures in legislation by saying to it that only 2 days will exist for the minority to come forward with complaints with the content of legislation. Is this the kind of good will? Is this the kind of cooperation, conciliation, and is it the kind of action that we are hearing when we are talking about having compromise and cooperation and bipartisanship? I think not. If we are to work together, and I would remind my colleagues on the majority side, there are only a few seats' difference between the Members on this side and on the other side. If you want to have a President who was elected by the narrowest margin in history and whose tenure as a legitimate President is, in fact, open to question because of the curious manipulations of the Supreme Court and because of the way in which the election in Florida was conducted and counted and handled to succeed and to be able to talk about bipartisanship and cooperation, this is not the way that you begin the affairs of this Congress. I did not intend to make an angry speech, and I would like my colleagues to know this is not an angry speech. This is a speech of sorrow and sadness because the majority is throwing away the good will that they are going to need to have a bipartisan Congress run with cooperation, conciliation, and compromise which the American people both need and want.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5660, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, despite the curious process that produced this final version of the bill. The critical investor protection and market integrity provisions approved overwhelmingly by the House in October remain intact, making it possible for many Democrats to support this important legislation. The fundamental purposes of this bill are to modernize the regulation of our futures markets, to provide legal certainty for the over-the- counter derivatives market, and to authorize the trading of security futures products, consistent with maintaining the innovation, efficiency, transparency, honesty, and integrity of these vital markets. Title I on commodity futures modernization places greater responsibility on contract markets and execution facilities to regulate themselves and their members. However, the CFTC is charged with supervising the exercise of this self-regulatory power in order to assure that it is used effectively to fulfill the responsibilities assigned to these organizations and that it is not used in a manner inimical to the public interest. The Congress intends that the CFTC use its oversight and enforcement powers to correct self-regulatory lapses where they occur. Although self-regulation has not always performed up to expectations, on the whole it has worked well, and we believe it should be preserved and strengthened under strong CFTC oversight. Title II creates a coordinated regulatory structure for SEC and CFTC regulation of securities-based futures. I have significant reservations about the efficacy and wisdom of single stock futures. These products will most likely be used by day traders and other speculators and raise concerns about excessive speculation and excessive volatility in the underlying securities markets. However, this legislation provides a strong framework for the prudential regulation of these products. We intend a high degree of cooperation and coordination between the SEC and CFTC. With respect to volatility, this bill provides that single stock futures are subject to the same rules that cover other securities, including circuit breakers and market emergency rules. With respect to excessive speculation and leverage, the bill requires that margin treatment of stock futures must be consistent with the margin treatment for comparable exchange-traded options. This ensures that margin levels will not be set dangerously low and that stock futures will not have an unfair competitive advantage vis-a-vis stock options. Most importantly, single stock futures are subjected by this bill to protections to curb the potential for market manipulation, insider trading, and other fraudulent schemes. We expect these requirements to be vigorously enforced for the protection of investors and to maintain the integrity and efficiency of these markets. One of the most important provisions of the bill, Title III, gives the SEC antifraud authority over securities-based swap agreements. By authorizing the SEC to apply Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to these swap agreements, the bill provides important additional protections to the vital and dynamic markets for these instruments. In extending these protections, the bill explicitly makes rules adopted under Section 10(b) to address fraud, manipulation, or insider trading applicable to securities-based swap agreements. Thus, the antifraud rules currently in existence--and those needed in the future--apply to such swap agreements to the same extent that they apply to securities. This permits the SEC to use its tested methods to enhance the protection in theses markets and to respond as necessary to developments in the future. The bill also explicitly makes judicial precedent relating to Section 10(b), as well as Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, applicable to securities-based swaps, to the same extent as it applies to securities. Thus, for example, cases establishing theories of liability and private rights of actions will apply directly to securities-based swaps. Section 4b is the principal antifraud provision of the Commodity Exchange Act. It is the intent of Congress in retaining Section 4b in this bill that the provision be given its broadest reading for the protection of investors and these markets. Thus, Section 4b provides the CFTC with broad authority to police fraudulent conduct within its jurisdiction, whether the transactions are directly with customers or involve a traditional broker-client relationship, whether occurring in boiler rooms and bucket shops, or in the e-commerce markets that will develop under this new statutory framework. The purpose of Title IV of this bill is clear: to clarify what is already the current state of the law that the CFTC does not regulate the traditional array of products that banks have been offering for years, or in the words of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley statute, identified-- banking products. These products are deposit accounts, savings accounts, CDs, banker's acceptances, letters of credit, loans, credit card accounts, and loan participation. The language of Title IV is very tightly worded. Title IV requires that, to obtain this bill's exclusion, a bank must first obtain a certification from its regulator that the identified banking product was commonly offered by that bank prior to December 5, 2000. This means that the product was actively bought, sold, purchased or offered--not just a customized deal that the bank may have done for a handful of clients. Also, the product cannot be a product that was either prohibited by the Commodity Exchange Act or regulated by the CFTC. In other words--a bank can't try to sneak futures contracts out of regulation by using this provision. With respect to new products, Title IV is also abundantly clear: the Commodity Exchange Act doesn't apply to new bank products that are not indexed to the value of a commodity. Again, the plain language is clear: Congress' intent is that no bank use this exclusion for products that are properly regulated under the Commodity Exchange Act. Lastly, Title IV allows hybrid products to be excluded from the Commodity Exchange Act if, and only if, they pass a ``predominance test'' that indicates that they are primarily an identified banking product and not a contract, agreement or transaction appropriately regulated by the CFTC. While the statute provides a mechanism for resolving disputes about the application of this test, there is no intent that a product which flunks this test not be regulated by the CFTC. Finally, I received a letter dated December 14, 2000, from the Chairman of the New York Mercantile Exchange stating that: ``The New York Mercantile Exchange has serious concerns regarding provisions . . . that would have the effect of removing energy trades conducted on electronic trading systems from nearly all public scrutiny and accountability.'' On December 12, 2000, a coalition that includes the Consumer Federation of America, the Derivatives Study Center, and the Economic Policy Institute wrote to Members of the Senate and the House, complaining that this bill ``goes too far in deregulating derivatives markets'' and ``recklessly reduces market protections.'' I want to assure these groups that I have heard their concerns. The changes made by this legislation do not need to yield the dire results that they predict. A great deal will depend on how the law is implemented and enforced by the federal financial regulators and the self-regulatory organizations. The importance of these markets cannot be underestimated. It is our intent, with the passage of this legislation, that these markets be regulated and supervised in the public interest. It is not the job of government to protect fools from themselves, but it is the job of government to protect the rest of us from the dangerous machinations of fools, knaves and scoundrels. I pledge my vigorous efforts to seeing that this legislation accomplishes that result.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend, Professor Eugene Smith, on the occasion of his retirement after nearly sixty years of teaching in some of the finest schools and universities in the country. Gene was a born teacher. After earning his Bachelor of Science in mathematics education in 1941, Gene began teaching junior and senior high school mathematics in Ohio's public schools. During World War II, Gene taught math, gunnery and tactics at the Officer Candidate Prep School at Fort Still, Oklahoma. After the war, Gene returned to Ohio where he served in the public schools until 1959. During that time, Gene returned to school himself to earn both his M.A. and Ph.D in mathematics education. Gene moved to Wilmington, Delaware, where he served as the Supervisor of Mathematics for their public schools from 1959-1961. It was in 1961 that Professor Smith moved to Michigan to join the faculty of Wayne State University as a Professor of Mathematics Education. Gene established the M.A. and Ph.D program in mathematics education and served as the department chair for 28 years. After 30 years of service at Wayne State University, Professor Smith held a part-time Visiting Professor position at the University of Michigan- Dearborn. After nearly sixty years of teaching our children, Professor Smith has decided to retire. During his tenure as a teacher and professor, Gene has held numerous leadership positions including President of the Columbus Council of Teachers of Mathematics, President of the Ohio Council of Teachers of Mathematics and President of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Gene's many honors include Ohio State University's Centennial Medallion for outstanding contributions to education and teaching, the Mu Alpha Theta Award for Wise Counsel and Leadership in Mathematics Education and, 1994, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics awarded Gene the Mathematics Education Trust Lifetime Achievement Award for Teaching. Mr. Speaker, as Gene leaves teaching after sixty years of service, I would ask that all my colleagues salute him and his leadership.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, recently, the House of Representatives passed legislation giving billions of dollars to Medicare providers, the bulk of which went to Medicare HMOs. This legislation did virtually nothing for providers under Medicaid. Yet, in almost every State across the nation, Medicaid payment rates are a fraction of what Medicare pays. The motion offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bentsen, insists that the conferees to the Labor HHS bill ensure provider payments in the Medicaid Program are adequate to ensure that the children, disabled, and working families covered by Medicaid have access to quality health care. I appreciate his commitment to readdress this in the next Congress. Medicaid covers 38 percent of all births in this country. It pays for 30 percent of all visits to pediatricians. The Medicaid Program insures more than 21 million children in this country. It also pays for a significant portion of nursing home care for the elderly. Medicaid is an insurance program that provides care for the most vulnerable in our society. By failing to ensure that Medicaid provider payments are adequate, access is jeopardized and we are failing our children, our elderly parents, and the disabled who depend on this program for their health care. In my home State of Michigan, I have worked to ensure providers get adequate reimbursement so that they will continue to participate in the Medicaid Program and provide quality care. But, the situation remains dismal. Medicaid payments for obstetric care in Michigan are less than half of the Medicare rate. Payment for primary care services is also barely half of what Medicare pays. This, at a time when the state has more than a billion dollars in budget surplus and will receive more than 300 million dollars this fiscal year in tobacco settlement money. In Michigan, what is becoming increasingly troubling is that the state is attempting, by expanding the use of HMOs in Medicaid, to wash its hands completely of any responsibility to ensure providers are paid adequately. The state is shifting beneficiaries wholesale into managed care, yet the state is failing to monitor aggressively the adequacy of HMOs' payments to doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes that provide care for beneficiaries. In Michigan, inadequate provider payments by managed care plans under contract with the state have resulted in disruption in care and difficulty for many in obtaining care. Particularly acute problems have surfaced for individuals with HIV and children with special needs. We have a responsibility to ensure provider payments are adequate for beneficiaries whether they are in fee-for-service or managed care. Nursing homes too, receive woefully low reimbursement to care for Medicaid beneficiaries. In 2000, it is projected that more than half of all nursing home care will be paid for by Medicaid. Yet, we know from research, much of which has been conducted by my colleague Henry Waxman and the Government Reform Committee Democratic staff, that conditions in many nursing homes do not meet even the most basic standards. Given that my colleague from Texas offered this motion, I would like to also mention a few facts about this problem in the state of Texas. A recent Government Reform Committee investigation in Texas examined the 1,230 nursing homes in that state which serve more than 86,000 Texans. Their investigation found that there are serious deficiencies in many of these homes. More than 80 percent of the homes violated federal health and safety standards during recent state inspections. More than half of the homes had violations that caused actual harm to residents or placed them at risk of serious injury. The State of Texas ranks 45th out of 50 states in terms of nursing home payments for Medicaid beneficiaries. In 1999, the average Texas per diem rate was a little over $80 per person. The majority of nursing home beneficiaries are the frailest and most vulnerable of all. We have a responsibility to ensure that the payments for the care of our parents are adequate; that the payments do not encourage facilities to skimp on care; and that there is ample staffing to ensure the health and safety of nursing home residents. Unfortunately, many states have not been meeting these responsibilities. Low provider payments also thwart efforts to promote dental health. A recent Center for Health Care Strategies report on increasing access to dental services in Medicaid noted: ``In many states, dentists are not participating in Medicaid programs, mainly due to the low Medicaid reimbursement rates. Dentists have little financial incentive to see Medicaid patients, and often have a disincentive--they lose money on each patient, as reimbursement rates in many states do not cover costs.'' If states are not even paying dentists enough to cover costs, how can we expect them to participate? A September 2000 study by the General Accounting Office confirms this problem: ``While several factors contribute to the low use of dental services among low-income persons who have coverage for dental services, the major one is finding dentists to treat them. Some low- income people live in areas where dental providers are in short supply, but many others live in areas where dental care for the rest of the population is readily available.'' In Texas in 1998, there were 8,656 active dentists in the state--only 1,923 of them--or 22 percent--treated Medicaid patients. This number is clearly not adequate to treat the 2,680,583 Medicaid patients enrolled in the state in that year. These low Letters from the National Governors' Association and the National Council of State Legislatures threatened cuts in state Medicaid programs and reductions in coverage if the motion were adopted. I am appalled by their callous statements. It is miserly and uncompassionate to say that, in this time of record prosperity, states cannot afford to pay providers so that the most vulnerable, sickest, and frailest members of society can be assured decent care. Especially when on average nearly 60% of every dollar of Medicaid spending is contributed by the Federal Government. Perhaps what the Republican governors who support the NGA threat mean is that they would choose to allocate their money differently. My home state of Michigan has managed to provide tax cuts for the rich in three of the past four years. Last year they enacted a $300 million tax cut, yet they have done little to address the inadequacy of provider payments in Medicaid. Many Republican governors, it appears, would rather help their wealthy friends, than spare a dime to help children, elderly, and pregnant women who depend on Medicaid for their health insurance coverage. Some members that oppose ensuring adequacy of Medicaid payments argue that we voted for the repeal of the so-called ``Boren Amendment'' in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) and now we're reversing our position. I would just remind my colleagues that we voted for a lot of provisions in the BBA. Many of us also voted for Medicaid provider cuts. Now, however, we recognize the deep impact on these cuts on providers and beneficaries--both in Medicare and Medicaid. We recently passed a bill that added billions to Medicare provider payments, but the Republican Leadership stripped out many of the provisions helping Medicaid providers. Medicaid providers must be paid adequately. How can we expect providers to remain committed to providing quality care and continue treating patients in Medicaid if their reimbursement does not even cover their overhead costs? About 20 percent of children in this country are covered by Medicaid, as are about four million seniors. They don't have legions of well-paid lobbyists roaming the halls of Congress, and they don't contribute large sums of money to political campaigns. But they need and deserve our help.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support S. 1880, the Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act of 2000. I urge all of my colleagues to approve this much needed and long overdue legislation. We have before us a bill aimed at one of the most significant challenges in health care research and education. The existence of disparities in all aspects of health care is well documented. Reports published by the Institute of Medicine and in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association are just a few of many that point clearly to the need for quick enactment and implementation of the legislation that is before us today. The Commerce Committee's hearing on this subject highlighted the fact that there are massive differences in the frequency, severity, and survivability of many health conditions among different members of our diverse population. Unfortunately, where you live, what you earn, and the color of your skin make a big difference in health care quality and access. Great care has been taken in drafting this legislation so that it responds to the panoply of disparities issues without running afoul of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Indeed, the Department of Justice has concluded that the bill does not trigger strict scrutiny under applicable tests for the validity of laws and programs aimed at addressing inequities that fall, in some cases, along racial and ethnic lines. Disparities occur for a variety of reasons, so it is not surprising that legislation aimed at identifying and eliminating disparities has several facets. First, S. 1880 addresses biomedical issues through the establishment of a National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities at the National Institutes of Health. Next, this bill directs the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality to carry out activities to address disparities in health care quality and access. S. 1880 also addresses quality and access issues through the Public Health Service Act's health professions programs. This legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support. I wish to take particular note of the fine work of my colleagues, Representatives Lewis, Jackson, Thompson, Towns, Strickland, Norwood, Watts, and Whitfield. I know that many other of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle contributed to the effort of getting this bill before us today and I am greatful to all of them. Our colleagues in the Senate, particularly Senators Kennedy and Frist, also made significant contributions to this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic amendment to be offered by Mr. Moakley if the vote on the previous question is defeated. This amendment would make vast improvements over the legislation offered by the Republican leadership. In my home state of Michigan and in every other state across the country, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and providers are looking to Congress to address the program cuts enacted in 1997. The Republican leadership offered a bill last week that was woefully inadequate--it omitted key beneficiary protections, shortchanged providers, and dumped billions of dollars to HMOs without requiring any accountability. The Democratic alternative includes the good provisions of the Republican bill, but makes up the difference where the Republican bill fell short. The Democratic amendment includes program improvements for seniors, the disabled, working families, pregnant women, and children. The bill improves outreach and enrollment for low-income seniors in cost-sharing assistance programs; allows families to keep health insurance coverage as the transition from welfare to work; allows states the option to provide health insurance coverage to legal immigrant children and pregnant women; and provides working families the opportunity to buy-in to Medicaid coverage for their disabled child. The Democratic amendment also includes additional assistance to providers who are still reeling from the cuts they took in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act--providers like home health agencies, nursing homes, and hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of the low- income and uninsured. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. Our providers and beneficiaries back home are counting on it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, facts are awfully hard to quarrel with. What are the facts? Last year, we gave the HMOs $2 billion and more. This bill gives them $34 billion and more. HMOs have pulled out. Last year they pulled out and left about a half a million Americans without coverage. They have pulled out on almost 1 million more this year. The motion to instruct says one thing, and that is, if you are going to take this money, stay for 3 years. What is so hard for my colleagues on the Republican side to understand? This is simply about accountability. They are going to get a lot of Government money, and they ought to stay to take care of the senior citizens. Now, perhaps that is hard for my Republican colleagues to understand; but it is not hard for the GAO or for the Inspector General of HHS who said that the HMOs are now being overpaid. They have got more money than they need, but they do not have enough to satisfy them. Now, some of the statements that were made on this side of the aisle have really touched my heart, and I would be much impressed if they were true. They talked about these important unfortunate HMOs. Well, these poor HMOs are pulling out on America's senior citizens and leaving them without coverage. That is what they are doing. The motion to instruct says, you are going to take a lot of Federal money, some $34 billion or $36 billion last year and this year, so stay around for a while and provide services. What is so hard for my Republican colleagues to understand about that simple fact? Now, if I were crafting this bill, I would do it to really help the senior citizens. I would see to it that we put in a decent program for prescription medicine so that they have it. HMOs could take this money, they do not have to do anything for it, except put it in the pockets of their executives or to see to it that it goes into the bottom line in dividends. I would see to it that it goes to hospitals, to home nursing, and to nursing homes, so that we can really help those who need it. That is how we do the job.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for this motion. I want to urge my colleagues to support it. But I want to say a few words about energy policy. I keep constantly hearing from the other side of the aisle, and I say this more in sorrow than in anger, that this country needs an energy policy. The simple fact of the matter is we have an energy policy. That energy policy is the energy policy that was crafted by Mr. Reagan, by Mr. Bush, and by a group of Republican Presidents, with the support of their Republican colleagues in this Chamber and in the other Chamber. The simple fact of the matter is, it is a free market policy. It is one which says, let the market go to whatever levels that it will go to, to rise or to fall, without government interference. That is the energy policy of the United States. To implement that energy policy, which I think is probably, in good part, unwise, my Republican colleagues have sought at different times to cut money for SPR, to sell off SPR. It has shown itself in budget and appropriation actions led by my Republican colleagues. They have also opposed energy conservation measures, the use of alternative fuels and programs which would enable this country to move, not in absolute terms totally towards independence, but at least in good part. It should be noted that it is not long back that my Republican colleagues were criticizing SPR as taking oil out of one hole in the ground and putting it in another hole in the ground. More recently, they have come out and have criticized SPR and have tried to cut back on it. They have tried to sell it off. They reduced the amount of money which we have put into this thing. They have generally been critical of that program. Having said this, the policy is there. It is a policy that was crafted by Reagan, by Bush, and by their Republican colleagues up here. It is a policy which does not consider the good needs and the important concerns of this country, to have a ready supply of emergency oil available through SPR. It is also a policy which does not consider the need to have conservation measures in place functioning and working. My Republican colleagues over there have consistently sought to prevent this country from having fuel efficiency standards for appliances, for refrigerators, for water heaters, for air conditioners. The curious thing about that opposition is that it was done in opposition to the policies that were stressed by that industry, which recognizes, not only their social responsibility to have a good energy use in the appliances which they create, but also that the country needs that kind of thing because it is necessary for the conservation of energy and for the readiness of the United States in times of crisis.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2498, the Public Health Improvement Act. This is an excellent package of public health measures, and I am pleased to see this Congress act on this legislation before it adjourns. H.R. 2498 contains several broadly supported, non- controversial provisions that amend the Public Health Service Act. Title I, ``Emerging Threats to Public Health,'' is of particular interest to my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Stupak. This provision strengthens America's capacity to detect and respond to serious public health threats and emergencies through several initiatives. On a local level, public health departments and agencies will be provided the resources to update their laboratory and electronic communication equipment, readying them to combat an infectious disease outbreak. They will also be able to engage in planning rapid response strategies and train personnel. On a national level, the often antiquated facilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--our nation's first line of defense against biological threats--will be revitalized to meet the demands of the 21st century. This legislation also authorizes activities to combat antimicrobial resistance and protect the nation from bioterrorist attacks, both of which are issues of long-standing interest to my colleague Mr. Brown of Ohio. The World Health Organization, and more recently the CIA's National Intelligence Council have named resistant infections and bioterrorism as major threats to global security. This provision will put the public health infrastructure of the United States in the best defensive position, should such an outbreak occur. Title II, ``Clinical Research Enhancement,'' directs NIH to expand the nation's clinical research capacity in response to a documented need for such activities. Clinical research translates basic science discoveries into medical interventions that can be used for patient care. This provision strengthens America's clinical research infrastructure by expanding facilities and faculty of the NIH-supported General Clinical Research Centers. It also sets forth three career investigator grant award programs, and provides a loan repayment option for young investigators wishing to dedicate their careers to clinical research. This provision endorses no specific clinical research agendas or priorities; rather, it facilitates a breadth of activities that can be carried out by a variety of scientists and health professionals, including qualified social science researchers and nurses. A separate provision in H.R. 2498 authorizes specific clinical research and training award programs in Alzheimer's disease. We are grateful to our colleague, Mr. Markey, for his work on this matter. While a number of provisions in this bill respond to the research and treatment needs of our nation, advances in these areas are often hampered by the facilities in which the activities occur. Title III, known as the ``Twenty-First Century Research Laboratories Act,'' authorizes funds for construction and modernization of our nation's biomedical and behavioral research laboratories and facilities, including the purchase of new laboratory equipment. Title IV of this bill, the ``Cardiac Arrest Survival Act'' passed the House on May 23rd. This provision directs the Secretary to develop guidelines for the placement of automated external defibrillators in Federal buildings. It also promotes public and health professional education in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the use of defibrillators in order to save the lives. I commend my colleague from California, Ms. Capps, for managing this bill when the House passed it earlier this year. I also commend my colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind, for shepherding through a related provision providing access to defibrillators and emergency devises to residents of rural areas. Title V is based on the H.R. 762, the ``Lupus Research and Care Amendments,'' introduced by my colleague from Florida, Mrs. Meek. Lupus is a debilitating and sometimes fatal autoimmune disease that disproportionately afflicts women, particularly women of color. This title addresses research on this disease and it authorizes appropriations to expand and intensify activities that focus on earlier diagnosis, better treatment, and an eventual cure. Significantly, a companion section of the provision addresses on-going primary care and treatment needs of poor and uninsured individuals with this expensive- to-treat and debilitating disease. It authorizes the Secretary to award care grants to local governments, community hospitals, health centers, and other non-profit health facilities for the provision of out-patient care and a breadth of support services to affected individuals and the family members who are involved in their care. This bill previously passed the House by a vote of 385-2. Title VI, addresses the growing problem of prostate cancer in Americans males by revising and extending the CDC's prostrate cancer screening preventing health program, and reauthorizing the National Institutes of Health prostate cancer research programs. I am pleased to see this provision also addresses the needs of underserved and minority populations with prostate cancer. H.R. 2498 concludes with an organ donation provision that includes asking all Americans to recognize this Thanksgiving day as ``Give Thanks, Give Life Day.'' As families sit down together this Thanksgiving day, they are encouraged to spend a moment thinking about the thousands of Americans in need of organ transplants, and discuss openly their own decisions to donate organs or tissue in a forum where relatives can be made aware of their wishes. There are many more things I had hoped to do for the health of the American people during the 106th Congress. These include: enactment of a real Patients' Bill of Rights; restoration of federal jurisdiction to control tobacco use by America's children; access to prescription drugs for senior citizens; long-term care for the elderly; access for America's children with rare and/or serious health problems to pediatric specialists, medications and clinical trials; adequate protection for human research subjects; protection of predictive genetic information from discrimination by health insurers and employers; and enhanced protection of confidential medical records. For those of my colleagues who will be returning next year, I look forward to working with you on these issues.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It is going to be vetoed. It ought to be defeated. Today, we are voting on a conference report which provides significant relief only to a favored few health care providers from cuts enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The majority has turned its back on the bipartisan Committee on Commerce bill, choosing to strip out Democratic priorities and is rewarding its fat-cat industry friends instead. This should come as no surprise, though, that the Republicans would choose to devote billions to the insurance companies and to the wealthy, leaving working Americans, disabled children, seniors and immigrants with little, if anything, at all. The Republican leadership has spent all year fighting its Medicare prescription drug benefits, against the strong enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights, and against meaningful expansions of health care for working families. Why should we expect any less at this hour? At every turn, the Republican leadership has blocked meaningful health care legislation; yet, now they are passing a bill that gives only massive tax cuts for the rich, without any financing for Medicare prescription drug coverage that seniors desperately need. It gives billions of dollars for HMOs, more than one-third of the money, $30 billion over 10 years going to HMOs, with no guarantees that seniors will see increased access to plans or increased benefits. It gives billions of dollars for tax deductions for health insurance that will erode existing employer coverage and will not reduce the number of uninsured. The facts are clear. This is Republican pork, a rich reward to undeserving fat-cat friends at the expense of beneficiaries and vulnerable providers. No wonder this was done in the dead of night. Democrats have fought, will continue to fight, for a balanced bill that fairly allocates money for beneficiaries, providers, and HMOs. We believe in making sure that Medicare is always there for seniors and that in the absence of universal coverage, there is always a strong safety net that will provide high-quality health care to the uninsured and those of low income. If this is not bad enough, not only has the Republican Congress failed to pass a real Patients' Bill of Rights, but they have also passed something else, what they are calling a Medicare Patients' Bill of Rights. It is as phony as a $3 bill and does not have any real protections that are needed. I know the real Patients' Bill of Rights. I wrote it, along with my Republican colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and others. It passed this House by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. This is no Patients' Bill of Rights nor Medicare. In fact, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and I wrote a letter to the Speaker urging him to delete it. This is a Republican provision which puts our seniors at risk and at the mercy of health plans. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this shameful piece of legislation, so that we can have either an opportunity to sit down in a bipartisan basis and craft a balanced bill before or after the veto that the President is assuredly going to give and that will reflect the important bipartisan priorities for seniors, low-income families and children and will serve the interests of this country.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2413, the Computer Security Enhancement Act of 2000, contains modest but important changes to the legislation as it was reported by the Committee on Science. These changes to section 12 and other provisions of the bill were made at the request of the Committee on Commerce, and, as a result of their adoption, I have no objection to this bill. I want to thank and commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Science Committee, Representative Bart Gordon, and their staffs, for their courtesy and cooperation in this matter. The changes made clear that, as in the case of the Electronic Signatures Act that recently became law, the Federal Government will not establish a one-size-fits-all standard for electronic authentication technology that must be used by government agencies and those entities that report to them. Federal agencies and their committees of proper, legislative jurisdiction must be unconstrained in their ability to see that electronic authentication technologies that best serve their statutory and regulatory purposes are adopted. As a result, this legislation only asks that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) serve as a resource for federal agencies on electronic authentication technologies, and any guidelines and standards NIST develops are to be both advisory and, very importantly, technology-neutral. In fact, a provision of the bill as it was reported by the Science Committee would have required NIST to report to Congress within 18 months after enactment, evaluating the extent to which electronic authentication technology being used by federal agencies conforms to NIST standards. That provision of the Committee-reported bill as been deleted. Instead, NIST is only asked to report to Congress concerning progress federal agencies made and problems they encounter in implementing electronic authentication technologies. In addition, a new provision of the bill provides that a study on electronic authentication technologies to be completed by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences may not recommend any single technology for use by government agencies. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Science Committee has focused attention on an important issue, and I thank them for their hard work. I have no objection to suspending the rules and passing this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Basic Access to Secure Insurance Coverage Health Plan (BASIC) Act which builds on existing health insurance programs to provide all uninsured Americans, regardless of age or family status, the opportunity to get health insurance. The BASIC plan would create a universal guarantee for health insurance for all Americans. While we are experiencing unprecedented prosperity and a strong economy, yet there are still 43 million of Americans who are uninsured. Being uninsured is not a ``Washington problem.'' It is a human problem, as those 43 million people understand. In any given year, one-third of the uninsured go without needed medical care. Eight million uninsured Americans fail to take medication their doctors prescribe, because they cannot afford to fill the prescription. A new study published this month in the Journal of the American Medical Association confirms the serious health consequences of lacking insurance. Long-term and short- term uninsured adults were more likely than insured adults to face cost barriers to care and forgo needed care. Lack of health insurance can have serious financial consequences as well. An uninsured family is exposed to financial disaster in the event of serious illness. Unpaid medical bills account for 200,000 bankruptcies annually. Over 9 million families spend more than one fifth of their total income on medical costs. The BASIC Health Plan Act builds on two successful federal-state health insurance programs: Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The BASIC plan would extend these programs to all individuals and families with income up to 300% of the poverty level through a multi-year phase in. Other uninsured individuals may buy in to the program by paying the cost through premiums. Since nearly three- fourths of the uninsured have family incomes below 300 percent of the poverty level, this expansion is targeted at those who need it. This bill also includes a number of provisions to ensure that families can easily access health insurance through the BASIC program. First, it simplifies and streamlines the application and enrollment process for these programs to make them seamless. Second, the bill would make it easier for states to identify and enroll families in coverage. Third, the bill improves upon the CHIP benefit package to guarantee all children receive adequate preventive services and treatment. Additionally, since 82 percent of the uninsured are workers or dependents of workers, this bill seeks to use families' connection to employment to facilitate access to health insurance coverage. Employers will not be required to provide coverage or contribute to the cost of coverage, although they may if they so wish. However, they will be required to facilitate access to the coverage by withholding any required premium contributions from the employee's periodic pay, just like they do for taxes today. I believe the BASIC Health Plan Act is an excellent starting point for providing health care coverage for every American. Over the past few years, Congress has lost focus on addressing this pressing issue. This time is upon us again to place health insurance at the forefront of our agenda. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and the Senate on the BASIC Health Plan Act to help provide health insurance coverage to many of the millions of Americans who are currently without health insurance. Need for Legislation and Summary of the ``BASIC'' Health Program: Universal Access to Affordable Quality Health Insurance America is the only industrial country in the world, except South Africa, that does not guarantee health care for all its citizens. The number of uninsured declined last year for the first time in more than a decade--but 43 million Americans remain uninsured, and any slowdown in the economy is likely to send the number up again. The vast majority of the uninsured are workers or dependents of workers. The consequences of being uninsured go far beyond vulnerability to catastrophic medical costs. The uninsured often lack timely access to quality health care, especially preventive care. They suffer unnecessary illness and even death because they have no coverage. Growth in the Uninsured The number of the uninsured has grown from 32 million in 1987 to 43 million this year. Except for a brief pause in 1993 and 1994, the number of uninsured has consistently increased by a million or more each year until this year. Even these figures understate the number of the uninsured. During the course of a year, 70 million Americans will be uninsured for an extended period of time. Characteristics of the Uninsured The vast majority of privately insured Americans--161 million citizens under 65--receive coverage on the job as workers or members of their families. But the uninsured are also overwhelmingly workers or their dependents. Eighty-two percent of those without insurance are employees or family members of employees. Of these uninsured workers, most are members of families with at least one person working full- time. Most uninsured workers are uninsured because their employer either does not offer coverage, or because they are not eligible for the coverage offered. Seventy percent of uninsured workers are in firms where no coverage is offered. Eighteen percent are in firms that offer coverage, but they are not eligible for it, usually because they are part-time workers or have not been employed by the firm long enough to qualify for coverage. Only 12% of uninsured workers are offered coverage and decline. The uninsured are predominantly low and moderate income persons. Almost 25 percent are poor (income of $8,501 or less for a single individual; $13,290 or less for a family of three). Twenty-eight percent have incomes between 100 and 200 percent of poverty. Eighteen percent have incomes between 200 and 300 percent of poverty. Almost three-fourths have incomes below 300 percent of poverty. Consequences of Being Uninsured An uninsured family is exposed to financial disaster in the event of serious illness. Unpaid medical bills account for 200,000 bankruptcies annually. Over 9 million families spend more than one fifth of their total income on medical costs. The health consequences of being uninsured are often as devastating as the economic costs: In any given year, one-third of the uninsured go without needed medical care. Eight million uninsured Americans fail to take medication their doctors prescribe, because they cannot afford to fill the prescription. Thirty-two thousand Americans with heart disease go without life-saving and life-enhancing bypass surgery or angioplasty, because they are uninsured. Twenty-seven thousand uninsured women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. They are twice as likely as insured women not to receive medical treatment until their cancer has already spread in their bodies. As a result, they are 50% more likely to die of the disease. The tragic bottom line is that 83,000 Americans die every year because they have no insurance. Being uninsured is the seventh leading cause of death in America. Our failure to provide health insurance for every citizen kills more people than kidney disease, liver disease, and AIDS combined.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 3514, the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection Act. I say reluctant because this bill is still not supported by the Administration, which has raised a number of concerns. I include with my statement a letter to me from Dr. Ruth Kirschstein, Principal Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH). H.R. 3514, which is clearly well intended, will consume millions of dollars of funding from the Health and Human Services' (HHS) budget to establish and maintain a sanctuary system for the lifetime care of chimpanzees that have been used, bred for, or purchased for research conducted or supported by the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, or other agencies of the Federal Government. H.R. 3514 has the support of many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. Many of these surplus chimpanzees have hepatitis and HIV infections, and are a danger to uninfected animals, as well as their caretakers. This bill establishes how the sanctuaries will be administered and operated through a partnership with a private, non-profit entity, that includes the highest level of veterinary expertise. It also sets forth guidelines for the care of these animals and the limited conditions under which they can be returned to research. Whether chimpanzees not used in Federally-funded research should be accepted into the sanctuaries is somewhat controversial, but it is permissible under this bill. Beyond the humane intentions of this bill on behalf of these surplus chimpanzees, I am concerned about the message we are sending to the American people about our priorities in the waning days of the 106th Congress. Many important public health issues before this Congress languish. These include: enactment of a real Patients' Bill of Rights; restoration of federal jurisdiction to control tobacco use by America's children; access to prescription drugs for senior citizens; long-term care for the elderly; access for America's children with rare or serious health problems to pediatric specialists, medications and clinical trials; adequate protection for human research subjects; protection from genetic discrimination by health insurers and employers; and enhanced protection of confidential medical records. Providing chimpanzees with housing in a protected environment that is sensitive to their social needs, along with long-term health care and medications, is all well and good for the chimps. However, America's human citizens also deserve these benefits. It is time for this Congress to examine the public health policies it is legislating for animals, such as the comprehensive facilities for the one-to-two thousand surplus chimpanzees that are covered by H.R. 3514, and use them as models for caring for our most valued resource, America's human citizens. I respect the valuable contribution to science made by our evolutionary forebears. The majority has given new meaning to the notion of incremental reform. Perhaps we can do for humans in the 107th Congress what we will do for chimps in the 106th. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Bethesda, MD, October 16, 2000. Hon. John D. Dingell, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I do thank my good friend, the gentleman from West Virginia, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very sad opposition to this legislation out of respect for my dear friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, who is one of the great chairmen of the history of this institution, particularly of the Committee on International Relations. I am satisfied that those who have spoken for this resolution do so in the best of good faith, and I express my respect and my affection for each of them, Mr. Speaker. But this resolution is not in the interests of the United States. It is not in the interests of Israel. It is not in the interests of the Palestinians, and it is not in the interests of peace. I think that the United States has to look to see what its purposes in this area of the Middle East, which has had so much trouble for so long, are. The United States has one goal and one purpose here, peace, and, very frankly, the continued existence of the state of Israel. But without a recognition of the role which we must play in this area, there will be no peace. And unless the United States has the courage to recognize that we have to be an honest broker in the area, trusted by all parties there and visible working for peace in the most objective and fair fashion, there will probably be no peace and we will see to peace and there will be no success for the United States in carrying out this great purpose. The simple fact of the matter is, if we look at this legislation, the language of it makes it very plain, it condemns one side. I am not going to rise to say who is at fault here. I think that is something that needs a greater amount of time and debate. I want to rise to urge my colleagues to recognize the proper function of the United States, that of an honest, impartial respected, independent, honest broker. Unless we accept that responsibility, we will not be able to achieve the necessary trust in the area. As I speak and as we sit here and as this matter is debated, the Middle East, Israel and Palestine are slipping towards a war. That war is not in the interests of the world, in the interests of Israel or in the interests of the Palestinians, and it is assuredly not in the interests of the United States. I would urge my colleagues, reflect, first of all, as to whether it is in the interests of the United States to take sides in this matter, and very much so, whether it is in the interests of the United States to take sides in a matter on which we are the only Nation in the world who can speak as honest brokers, who can convene the parties to work together to eliminate a threatened war and a conflict. Hundreds of people have already died. More will die unless this country does something about it. But to take sides, to ship weapons, to engage in support or castigation of one side, is not the way that we serve our purpose, the purposes of the world, the purposes of peace or the purposes of the Palestinians or the purposes of the Israelis. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand really for peace, to recognize the responsibility of the ability and the interests of the United States require us to be an honest broker, not a partisan, not a participation in castigation of one side or another, but rather leader in an attempt to see to it that the parties convene and talk. Ask yourself if someone were to put out a resolution like this when we had a border difficulty with your neighbor, if that would engage you to accept them as the impartial mediator of the differences between you and that neighbor. I think the answer is very simple. It would not. If we have listened to the discussions today, the discussions have said one thing amongst those who support the legislation, and, that is, that the supporters of the legislation as well as the resolution castigate the Palestinians. Ask yourself if that works for peace, ask yourself if that enables us to function as honest brokers. Ask yourself if that is going to enable us to speak with the respect and the trust of both sides to them about the need for peace, and ask yourself whether you could expect to function as an honest broker and to encourage the parties to work together. Mr. Speaker, there is little enough goodwill in the area now. There is hatred and ill will on both sides, and people are dying. I am not going to say who is at fault in this matter, because I do not believe that that is the function of this debate, nor is it in the interest of the United States to get ourselves in a position where we are obvious partisans of one side. But, if we read the language, if we listen to the remarks, ask ourselves, have these discussions talked about how we can, through this resolution, fulfill the great purposes and functions which can be those of the United States, by working for a meaningful, lasting peace; by achieving the trust of both sides; by holding the willingness of both sides to work together to resolve the differences. It is with a very heavy heart that I see the killings over there, and I observe the numbers of people who have died. It is also with a very heavy heart that I see how many people are going to die, and when I see how the United States is throwing away, with this kind of resolution, the opportunity to achieve lasting peace for Israel and for the Palestinians, for the Middle East, and for the United States. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the legislation before us. I do not question the sincerity of the authors of this resolution. Like me, they watched the bloodshed in the Occupied Territories and Israel with heavy hearts. However, this legislation seems much more to do with the American electoral process than with the crisis in the Middle East. I do not want any of my colleagues to think that by opposing this legislation you oppose Israel. This is not a referendum on the American relationship with Israel. Viewed objectively, this legislation is simply not in the best interest of the United States, Israel, or the Palestinians, and is damaging to the prospects of peace in the Middle East. It focuses on assigning blame for violence rather than stopping it. It is unfair and biased, and in condemning only one side of this conflict, it jeopardizes the American ability to negotiate peace as a fair and honest broker. It also endangers American lives and economic interests, and places our Arab allies in a precarious position. It is precisely reactionary measures like the one before us that builds up so much ill- will toward America, the only nation with the ability to negotiate peace between Israel and its neighbors. This places Israel in a much more dangerous, isolated position. Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible to be debating and voting on this measure as President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak and President Arafat work to end the violence. It will already be difficult enough for Barak and Arafat to calm their people; this resolution throws rhetorical fuel on the fire that is dangerously close to burning out of control. When the violence abates, the Palestinian Authority, Israel and the world will rely on the United States to get the peace process back on track. We must not let our personal emotions cloud our judgment. It is our duty, and our government's duty, to work as a peace facilitator, not as a judge or partisan. The Palestinians and Israelis have much to resolve without fighting for the sympathy of the American government and public. The Israelis must realize that the Palestinians have a legitimate right to an independent state and to return to their homes, just as the Palestinians must realize Israel has a right to exist and desires safety and security. Both sides must recognize that the status of Jerusalem is profoundly important to Palestinians and Israelis alike, and that the holy sites are sacred to Jews, Muslims, and Christians. It must be known that the sanctity of life is a shared value. America can help the parties understand their differences and similarities only if all parties trust us. I do wonder why this legislation, in pinning blame solely on the Palestinians, fails to explain why Palestinians are angry, mention Ariel Sharon's provocation march through al-Haram as-Sharif, or note the tactics employed by Israeli soldiers, who have been criticized by the United Nations and the Israeli press for responding to rocks with bullets. We must not treat this as a black and white issue. The jobs of President Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Yasser Arafat are not easy. I do not envy them. As Yitzhak Rabin stated moments before he was assassinated, ``Without partners for peace, there can be no peace.'' President Clinton must, despite all that has been said and done, keep Barak and Arafat together as partners in peace. Barak and Arafat must convince highly skeptical publics that the other is a partner. We must not undermine their efforts by passing this resolution. I would urge my colleagues to act responsibility for the sake of the United States, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the peace process. Vote down this resolution.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the statement accompanying this conference report contains language which directs the Environmental Protection agency (EPA) to take no action to initiate or order the use of dredging or invasive remedial technologies where a final plan has not been adopted prior to October 1, 2000, or where such activities are not now occurring until the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, which Congress required, has been completed and its findings have been properly considered by the agency. The language further provides that remediation plans which include dredging or invasive technologies are not to be finalized until June 30, 2001, or until the agency has properly considered the NAS report, whichever comes first. It is important to note that the language provides for exceptions to this limitation on the initiation of dredging or invasive remedies, and these exceptions include instances in which a party may voluntarily agree to the remedy, or ``urgent'' cases where ``contaminated sediment poses a significant threat to public health.'' As in years past, this language speaks to the importance of obtaining information on the various technologies for addressing contaminated sediments. I hope that the NAS will complete this study as soon as practicable, and sooner than the date by which the conferees encourage its completion. However, I wish to clarify, as my colleagues in the Senate have noted, that this language is not an amendment to the Superfund statute. This language is not a product of the regular order of legislative business that may result in an amendment to our laws, after full and fair consideration by the authorizing Committees. The statutory criteria by which the EPA selects remedies, the regulatory criteria promulgated under the statutory authority, and applicable guidance are not changed by this language. When the NAS study becomes available, the language directs EPA to ``properly consider'' the study. The language does not direct the agency to confer deference to the study, nor to adopt its recommendations in remedial decisions. I note that the Chairman of the Subcommittee in the Senate has concurred with this interpretation of this language. My colleagues in the Senate also have clarified that the terms ``urgent'' and ``significant threat to public health'' as used in this language should be defined within the discretion of the EPA. I note that the EPA has specific authority governing its ability to issue orders under the Superfund statute, and I reiterate that this language is not an amendment to a statute. In keeping with the spirit and intent of the statute, the EPA should not interpret this language to limit the scope of its authorities to address threats posed to human health and the environment. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues Messrs. Towns, Oberstar, and Borski request that I state their concurrence with this statement.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 271: ``Expressing the Sense of the Congress for Activities to Increase Public Awareness of Multiple Sclerosis.'' This resolution, introduced by Mr. Weygand, addresses a disease that can strike any American. Multiple sclerosis is an often debilitating, chronic disease of the central nervous system, which strikes individuals in their third, fourth and fifth decades of life. Its onset can be elusive, and the course of the disease unpredictable; symptoms come and go, and can range in severity from mild numbness in the limbs to paralysis. However, the toll of multiple sclerosis on America's public health is real. H. Con. Res. 271 identifies the need for varied approaches to fighting this still somewhat mysterious disease. It highlights the need for an increase in Federally-funded research into causes and treatments of multiple sclerosis, including identification of genetic factors and development of more effective therapies. The bill also recognizes the importance of getting the most up-to-date medical information to health professionals and the American public. These initiatives may enhance the quality of patient care, which is the third part of the equation. H. Con. Res. 271 promotes increased and equal access to quality health care for all individuals diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. This is something I endorse for our entire nation, and setting up model programs around diseases as ravaging as multiple sclerosis is an excellent place to start. I support this resolution, and hope my colleagues will do so as well.