John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to hold my nose at and to support this legislation. It just barely meets the standards in which legislation may be considered acceptable. It does so only because the matter is going to go to the Senate, where I hope that the very visible and very obvious remaining defects are corrected. There are a number of problems. First of all, the bill almost died because of flawed procedure. Subject to action by the committees after just one bipartisan meeting, which from all counts was constructive, Democratic staff were booted out of the negotiations on this bill, at the direction of the Republican leadership. This is not a surprise to me because it has happened on many other occasions. However, 2 weeks ago, the Committee on Agriculture majority staff started circulating drafts of legislation for Democratic review and comment. I salute them and thank them for that. The development of these events and the willingness of the Committee on Agriculture to make significant changes in the bill in response to our comments have made it possible for me to support the bill at this point in the process. I want to commend and thank both the majority and the minority on the Committee on Agriculture for the remarkable consideration and courtesy which was shown. This has gone from being an extraordinarily bad piece of legislation to being a bill which is worth moving to the next stage. It does not provide necessary investor protections, and it does not assure in the fullest that we will not have excessive speculation which will put the markets at risk in this country. For reasons not adequately explained, greedy brokers and banks are arguably relieved of selected statutory and regulatory restraints on their behavior. These must be addressed before the bill becomes law. But I support passage of this bill at this time as a step forward, and as part of moving the process forward, as it should be. But I want to make it very clear, I am still holding my nose. It will not be possible to support this bill if it is not significantly improved at the next stage of the process. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my principal concerns with this bill. First, I support legal certainty under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) for swaps entered into between professional traders and similar sophisticated parties who have the means to protect themselves. However, the Republican negotiations have produced a bill that also excludes retail swaps from the CEA. Brokers can sell swaps to retail investors (in this market that means investors with $5 million in assets) without the antimanipulation and antifraud protections that otherwise would apply under that Act. The bill does not provide any substitute protections. This needs more work. I would like to clarify for the record that it is the intent of Congress in passing this legislation that counterparties who may enter into transactions with retail ``eligible contract participants'' are subject for such transactions to the antifraud authority of their primary regulator. This bill should not be interpreted as declaring open season on investors. Second, Section 107 provides a redundant exclusion for a broad range of swap transactions. I would have preferred that this section be deleted and that we defer instead to the bill's carefully crafted exclusions for specific groups of products. However, as amended by the agreement we reached last night, I will support its inclusion. I want it clearly understood that the limitations on this exclusion are strict. To qualify for the Section 107 exclusion, each of the material economic terms of the swap must be individually negotiated, not passively accepted, by the parties. In contrast to the products for which the Section 107 exclusion is designed, exchange-traded products may have some terms that are standardized and some that can be negotiated on behalf of the purchaser or seller by an agent. Section 107 clarifies that exchange-traded products, such as security futures products, do not fall within the exclusion. Moreover, the Section 107 exclusion would not apply to an electronic system where a user passively could accept contract terms as opposed to actively negotiating every material economic term. Section 107 should not be construed to affect the applicability of other exclusions in the bill, such as the one found in Section 103 conditionally excluding certain transactions on electronic trading facilities from the CEA. Finally, Section 107 should not be construed to narrow or broaden the conditions that apply to such exclusions. Third, H.R. 4541 establishes a comprehensive regulatory system for the regulation of security futures products. It rests on a system of joint regulation by the CFTC and SEC, both of whom are assigned specific tasks designed to maintain fair and orderly markets for single stock futures and futures or groups or indexes of securities. Under this system, it is clear that intermediaries that trade securities futures products must register with the SEC as broker-dealers, although it allows futures market intermediaries that are regulated by the CFTC to register with the SEC on a streamlined basis as notice registrants. In the middle of the night, language was stripped from the bill with the result that banks would now be exempted from the rules that apply to everyone else. As a result a bank selling securities futures could register with the CFTC as a futures commission merchant but, unlike other entities, not have to notice register with the SEC. Effectively, half of the regulatory framework that we have negotiated over many months would disappear. There is no public interest to be served in eliminating SEC oversight over issues such as insider trading frauds, market manipulation, and customer sales practice rules just because a bank traded the security. I want to make the following observations about this seeming travesty: 1. There are not many bank FCM's left. 2. I do not believe any responsible financial services lawyer will recommend that the bank FCM not file a broker-dealer notice registration with the SEC. 3. Given the clear findings of the Congress, which has expressly concluded that a security future is a security, the SEC would be on solid legal standing should it proceed by rule to require bank FCM's to register as broker-dealers through the streamlined notice process. 4. Similarly, the CFTC would be on solid legal standing should it bar bank FCM's from selling security futures unless they have notice registered with the SEC. Fourth, also last night, language was added on page 227 of the bill that has the effect of creating a major competitive advantage for foreign futures exchanges trading single stock futures based on U.S. securities. That provision, a new Section 2(a)(1)(F)(ii) of the Commodity Exchange Act, permits any retail customer in the U.S. to purchase single stock futures on U.S. stocks sold by a foreign board of trade without regard to any of the regulatory constraints imposed on U.S. exchanges. Because of this change, U.S. exchanges will not face direct electronic competition on U.S. trading terminals from foreign exchanges that can cut margins, fees, and regulatory costs. This provision, for which no one will now claim responsibility, undoes much of the good work in this legislation to ensure fair competition and consistent market integrity and investor protections. This provision should be deleted from the bill. With these serious reservations, I support passage of this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4281, the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000. This is a good bill, which enjoys broad bipartisan support, as well as endorsements from the Administration, the animal rights community, and industry. H.R. 4281 provides statutory authority for the permanent continuation of the 6-year-old ICCVAM, or Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods. ICCVAM establishes guidelines and recommendations that promote regulatory acceptance of new and alternative toxicological test methods for use by Federal agencies and departments. ICCVAM's history goes back to the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, when the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) was directed to establish and publish criteria and processes for validation and regulatory acceptance of toxicological test methods. It has continued to function under the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods, within NIEHS ever since. All relevant Federal regulatory and scientific agencies are currently represented on ICCVAM, which receives advice from a scientific advisory committee. H.R. 4281 emphasizes ICCVAM's priority to review and recommend alternative test methods that will reduce, refine or replace the use of animals in toxicology testing, where appropriate. As stated by the Administration, ``the use of these alternative test methods will be contingent upon their effectiveness in generating data in the amount and of a scientific value that is at least equivalent to the data generated by the existing text methods they are meant to replace.'' ICCVAM provides a forum for this scientific review, and derives its strength by facilitating dialogue across scientific disciplines, Federal agencies and with the public. The composition and principle duties of ICCVAM and the Scientific Advisory Committee are delineated by this legislation. The legislation also establishes the relationship between ICCVAM and the Federal agencies that are required to conduct toxicological testing. The Administration has called ICCVAM a success and pledges to provide the necessary resources to sustain it. I support this legislation, and trust that my colleagues will do likewise.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the measure before us, S. 1402, the Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act. I would like to thank the work of Chairman Bob Stump, Representative Lane Evans, as well as their staffs for bringing this legislation to the floor. I'd also like to thank Chairman Specter and Senator Rockefeller for their assistance. In addition to many of the beneficial provisions in this bill, such as a badly needed increase in the basic Montgomery G.I. Bill benefit, S. 1402 includes language of considerable importance to the citizens and veterans of Southeast Michigan. For sixty years, the veterans' hospital in Allen Park, Michigan provided quality health care to those who answered our nation's call to arms. In the 1930's, this 39-acre property was given to the VA as a gift from the Henry Ford family. The deed that turned the property over to the VA, however, included a reversionary clause that spelled out that if the VA no longer used the property, the land would revert back to the Ford family. The VA operated a fully functional hospital on the Allen Park site until 1996, at which time a new VA hospital was opened in nearly Detroit. This new state-of-the-art hospital, which I am deeply honored is named the John D. Dingell VA Hospital, provides quality health care for the veterans of Southeast Michigan despite recent budgetary shortfalls which required the hospital to make unspecified efficiency cuts, usually resulting in staff cuts. At the time the decision was made to build a new hospital in Southeast Michigan in 1986, the VA envisioned converting the old Allen Park facility into a long-term care facility, creating a dual campus arrangement with Detroit. The dual campus plan, however, was abandoned because the Allen Park facility was no longer needed to meet veterans' needs in the area. Just to be certain, at the request of myself and my colleague Representative Joe Knollenberg, the VA conducted a study to determine whether the Allen Park facility, or the campus, was needed to meet area veterans' health care needs today or in the future. The VA found that not only was Allen Park no longer needed, but that two floors at the new hospital were currently vacant. The General Accounting Office verified the accuracy of the VA study. Currently, the Allen Park campus consists of perhaps 15 buildings, and is closed with the exception of a small corner of the old main hospital building, which is used as a part-time outpatient care clinic. Few veterans use Allen Park except to catch the VA bus to the Detroit facility. The VA operates this clinic only to keep an official VA presence on the campus, because if it failed to have a presence, the land would revert to the Ford family and the VA would immediately be responsible for paying enormous cleanup costs before the reversion could occur. These costs would have to be absorbed by the VA, and no doubt would eat up a significant chunk of the annual VA budget. Today, it costs the VA between $500,000 to $1,000,000, probably more, just to maintain the Allen Park clinic and campus, which fails to offer most health services, is in shabby condition and filled with asbestos. This money comes out of the budget intended specifically for VA health care in VISN 11. It is money poorly spent, which undermines the already cash strapped regional VA health care budget. It makes the veterans' health care system in Southeast Michigan worse. Given that the VA's Allen Park facility is no longer needed, the Ford Land Management Company would like to develop the Allen Park property. The VA would like to abandon it. Additionally, the City of Allen Park has long sought to see the VA campus developed and have the land placed on city tax rolls. This summer the VA conducted an environmental impact study and estimated cleanup costs. VA and Ford officials concluded that it would cost at least $21.3 million to clean up the site. Ford officials have offered to pay for all cleanup costs after $14 million, saving taxpayers at least $7.3 million. Ford will also save taxpayers' money because it will store the demolished materials in a nearby storage facility. No appropriation earmark will be required now or in the future. The VA will be spared having to fund a one-time, $21.3 million major construction project simply to demolish an obsolete building. Additionally, the VA will be able to use the $500,000 to $1,000,000 spent each year at Allen Park to better the veterans' health care system in Southeast Michigan. Finally, I am pleased that the Allen Park agreement also requires a flagpole and a plaque be maintained at the site in honor of the service of our veterans. Madam Speaker, the Allen Park provision of this bill is a good deal for veterans, a good deal for taxpayers, and a good deal for Allen Park. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation. I want to commend my colleagues who have had a part in bringing this legislation to the floor today. I want to pay tribute to my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for having withdrawn his amendment. That is going to make it possible for us to send it to the President for signature. I want to commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), for their leadership on it. We owe them a great debt. More importantly, the people in the country owe gratitude to these Members and all of the others, some 318 of them, who worked to bring this legislation to the floor. This is good legislation. Hardly a Member of this body, or indeed, a citizen walking down the street in this country, has not had his or her life touched by cancer, and hardly a citizen has not had a loved one who has had to confront this terrible disease. Like most other, I can tell stories of people in my family that I have lost to this disease. It has left permanent scars on the family. It has left permanent scars on me and on a lot of others. Having said that, this legislation is not only good, humane, important, but it is needed. Some years ago I was at a hospital in Michigan, a major hospital. And they say, Mr. Dingell, ``There is good news.'' I said, ``I am glad to hear it. What is it?'' They said, ``We now are able to examine women under Medicaid to find out if they are at risk from cancer of the breast and of other parts of the body.'' They said, ``But there is bad news.'' I said, ``What is that?'' They said, ``We can screen them for cancer, but we cannot provide the necessary treatment under Medicaid to remove the cancer.'' I said ``That is like telling a woman that she has cancer, that is the good news, and the bad news is, she is going to die.'' I think that was intolerable then, and I am happy to note that the legislation before us addresses that problem. Women are now able to know when this bill is signed by the President, as it will be, that there will be treatment for those women who are in the low- and moderate-income groups so that they will not know that when they get a government analysis of their health and are tested for cancer, they are going to know they have cancer, but they also will know they are going to die. The wonderful thing about this legislation is it is going to give lots of hope to Americans who have no other hope in the time when they have the greatest need, when they have cancer. I applaud the legislation. It meets a tremendous need in our society. These women will now know that they can expect to have at least a fighting chance to have decent treatment, and know that they have a chance to live for themselves and for their families and for those who love them. It is a humane, a necessary, a good piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rejoice that the House is considering this legislation today. I support it, and I am delighted that the matter will now go to the President for signature, because it is an important and needed piece of legislation, and should go so as speedily and as rapidly and as efficiently as we can possibly get it there for the signature of the President, so the money can begin to be spent on a terrible need of women who have no other hope for surviving a terrible disease.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her kindness, amongst many others, to me. Mr. Speaker, an otherwise acceptable bill has been very much hurt in the conference report by the drug reimportation provisions. In a word, they protect users of reimported pharmaceuticals very poorly if at all. They put them at severe risk and hazard. So I am going to tell my colleagues some of the things that are going to happen as a result of these provisions so poorly studied by the Congress and so ill attended to in committee. Soon, Americans will be taking substandard, adulterated or counterfeited imported drugs because of these provisions. These provisions will do nothing to help lower the price of prescription medicines and are no substitute for prescription pharmaceuticals to senior citizens under Medicare. Because FDA is already overwhelmed with inspecting foreign manufacturers, it will not be able to handle the vast new responsibilities being imposed upon it, and consumers will suffer and be at risk. In the coming years, FDA is going to be pilloried by politicians for failing to protect Americans from bad prescription drugs which are reimported under these provisions, when in fact the blame should fall squarely upon the politicians in the 106th Congress. Make no mistake. This reckless legislation never went through the committees with expertise or experience in these matters. It is going to lead to needless injuries and deaths. The world pharmaceutical market is a dangerous place, far more so than my colleagues understand. Congressional investigations showed this in the 1980s, and I know because I conducted those investigations. They will show it now. My written statement will elaborate on this point. My opposition to the drug reimportation provisions requires me to vote against an otherwise acceptable bill. I would note the American people want a decent prescription, not a placebo, and they want one that is safe and one which will help their health. This particular proposal will not. It puts Americans at risk. I warn my colleagues what they are doing. I hope they will listen.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I hope my colleagues will listen to what the gentleman just said because we are putting the Nation and the senior citizens and others at risk. Reimporting drugs is a dangerous and risky prospect. Doing so without adequate protections and controls for the protection of consumers is a still greater risk. I ask my colleagues to listen to what I say. There is danger here they are not observing. Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill. Although there are many very good provisions addressing major agricultural needs, there is also a very dangerous provision that would allow for the reimportation of prescription drugs from foreign sources. That is something I cannot support. During the 1980's, the House Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a lengthy investigation into the foreign drug market that ultimately led to enactment of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA). That investigation discovered a potentially dangerous diversion market that prevented effective control over the true sources of drug products in a significant number of cases. The distribution system was vulnerable to the introduction and eventual retail sale of substandard, ineffective, or even counterfeit pharmaceuticals. As the resulting Committee report stated, ``pharmaceuticals which have been mislabeled, misbranded, improperly stored or shipped, have exceeded their expiration dates, or are bald counterfeits are injected into the national distribution system for ultimate sale to consumers.'' The PDMA was designed to restore needed integrity and control over the pharmaceutical market, eliminating actual and potential health and safety problems before injury to the consumer could occur. Again, the Committee report was clear on why the PDMA was needed: [R]eimported pharmaceuticals threaten the public health in two ways. First, foreign counterfeits, falsely described as reimported U.S. produced drugs, have entered the distribution system. Second, proper storage and handling of legitimate pharmaceuticals cannot be guaranteed by U.S. law once the drugs have left the boundaries of the United States. I find nothing today that suggests that the problem with misbranded, adulterated, or even counterfeit foreign drugs has been solved, and if anything, the problem may be getting worse. I am thus concerned that in our haste to find a way to bring cheaper drugs to seniors and other needy Americans--a clearly important and laudable goal--we risk making changes to key health and safety laws we may later regret. On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing that underscored that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is already overwhelmed and underfunded, and thus unable to consistently undertake the many tasks now required to protect the U.S. drug supply. At that hearing, FDA Commissioner Jane Henney testified that FDA has insufficient post-market surveillance resources to keep pace with its current mandate. Consequently, the agency is lagging in conducting inspections of firms that ship drug products to the U.S., and this burden is only going to worsen in the future. The legislation in question today only exacerbates this already- serious problem. As envisioned by this proposal, FDA will newly be responsible for inspecting the entire custody chain between all parties and processes involved in the shipment of drugs back to the U.S. market. This could include repackaging and relabeling facilities, as well as the many storage firms that might be used in this process. This proposal would also ultimately require FDA to oversee the formation of new testing facilities, and develop regulations to address numerous safety concerns ignored by this proposal. In short, the reimport legislation will inundate an already overburdened FDA with new responsibilities. Worse, it will do so without any assurances that the agency will ever see the approximately $92 million it claims it needs to fully implement this plan. Instead, the bill only gives $23 million for a single year, or one-fourth of what the plan will ultimately require. Given the fact that the agency is already significantly underfunded, I see almost no chance it will see this money. But even if Congress were to provide the additional resources, I remain skeptical that FDA could even construct a global regulatory framework as safe as what is now in place. FDA was unsuccessful in preventing counterfeit and substandard drugs from entering the U.S. before the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) went into effect, and so I doubt it will be successful once many of its protections are undermined by this legislation. Moreover, it is particularly troubling that drug prices may not even be significantly lowered as a result of this proposal. There is nothing that guarantees that in this process of undermining our current regulatory system, lower priced drugs will become available to needy Americans. Wholesalers may not pass on any accrued savings to the public, nor is it clear that they will necessarily be able to access a steady supply for resale. In fact, this bill is riddled with numerous loopholes that will allow manufacturers to label or produce their products in a form that makes them either impossible or cost- prohibitive to reimport. The notion that this bill will create an abundance of cheap, properly labeled, and properly repackaged drugs, easily available to reimporters, is simply false. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill makes long-term changes to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, without the benefit of even a single legislative hearing. During the 1980's, the Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a lengthy multi-year investigation resulting in numerous hearings before any related legislation was drafted. There have been no public hearings regarding this legislation, as most of this process has involved closed-door proceedings. With the many implications this legislation will have on public health and safety, this process has ill-served the public and is indefensible. In conclusion, this provision represents the flawed implementation of a risky concept. Many of the Members supporting this legislation believe they are doing the right thing by helping Americans get access to cheaper medicine, and assume that medicine will, in fact, be safe. I agree that medicine needs to be cheaper, but disagree that reimported medicine will be as safe. We know too much about the kinds of drug manufacturing and distribution shenanigans that take place in other parts of the world to allow our system to be jeopardized by the legislation contained in this spending bill. It is flawed legislation that will, if passed in its present form, result in significant harm to the very persons we are trying to help. Thus, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this embarrassment that is called a piece of legislation, S. 2438. It does nothing to add to the safety of the American people or to ensure the safety of pipelines. There is little in this bill that cannot be done under existing law, and there is little in this bill that cannot be done by regulation at the Office of Pipeline Safety. It does little to correct the weakening that was done in the agreement which produced a bill which slipped through this House and through the Senate not long back and which resulted in significant weakening of the law with regard to pipeline safety. It is time that we did something meaningful in the area of pipeline safety. The results of inaction by the Office of Pipeline Safety, a very weak agency, and by this Congress, are that there are more than 15 people dead in the last 18 months, including seven children under the age of 10. The environment has suffered, too. In the first 9 months of this year, property and environmental damages from hazardous liquid pipeline accidents has already surpassed that of any other full year. Consumers have suffered from pipeline accidents on the Explorer pipeline in Texas and the Wolverine pipeline in my own State of Michigan. Those events helped drive the gasoline price to as high as $2.50 a gallon in parts of the Midwest this summer. Inaction has hurt people. It has killed people. It has hurt the economy. It has raised gas and oil prices. There is no friend outside of this Chamber to the legislation except the pipeline industry. They are the only people that want this bill. They are the only people that do not know it is a sham, because they know there is something in it for them. There is more inaction by OPS, there is more inaction by the Congress, and there is a weak law under which little, if anything, is going to be done to take care of the safety of the American people. This legislation is opposed by organized labor. The AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, PACE, the transportation trades, the building and construction trades, the plumbers and the pipefitters all have sent letters urging Members to oppose this bill. The bill is also opposed by environment and public safety groups, including the League of Conservation Voters, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Clean Water Action, U.S. PIRG, and the National Pipeline Reform Coalition. Finally, and most importantly, the families of the Bellingham, Washington pipeline disaster oppose this legislation. They sent a letter to the House of Representatives urging us to vote against this sham safety legislation. The bill, as initiated in the Senate, was named after the two 5-year-old boys in Bellingham who were killed last year. Those names were removed from the bill at the request of the parents of Wade King and Stephen Tsiorvas because, in their view, the legislation is so weak that it is unworthy of being named after their sons. Who does support the bill? Pipeline companies and their trade organizations. They are the only ones supporting the bill. Why? Because it is a sweetheart deal, because it is not going to do anything. My counsel to this House is based on years of experience with OPS and with pipeline safety and with the pipeline companies, and that is reject the bill. Nothing is going to happen other than the fact that we will save this House a little bit of time, and we will enable us to approach this bill in a more sensible way next year without the kind of, quite frankly, disgrace that we confront at this particular time. I would simply observe, no one is going to be hurt by rejecting a bill like this, which does so little. Everyone will be helped by passing a decent piece of legislation. We can do that next year. There is no need to make haste to pass this kind of an abomination. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, let us pass good legislation, let us strengthen pipeline safety, let us see to it that people are no longer killed by indifference and by poor legislation and by sweetheart deals cut which result in bad legislation coming to this House, and by weak organizations like the Office of Pipeline Safety, which does not do the job it should do in protecting the American people. I urge the legislation be rejected. We can do a better job next year. Certainly we cannot do a worse job next year.

Mr. DINGELL

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5164, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act. This is important legislation of which I was a cosponsor and it has bipartisan support. It was reported by the Committee on Commerce by a unanimous recorded vote of 42-0. Firestone's recall of 14.4 million tires which it announced in August of this year is the second largest tire recall ever. It is surpassed only by Firestone's recall of 14.5 million tires in 1978. The recent recall came about only after Ford Motor Company whose vehicles were equipped with many of the recalled tires was given access to Firestone's claims data in late July and was able to link 46 deaths and a large number of claims to accidents involving two 15-inch models of Firestone tires, the ATX and the Wilderness AT. Since August 9, the number of fatalities attributable to accidents involving the recall of Firestone tires has grown to 101 according to NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Mr. Speaker, I would note that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) deserve a great deal of credit for what has transpired here as does the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer). They have worked hard, as have a number of other Members too numerous to be mentioned at this time. In any event, the legislation is necessary. It needs to be adopted at an early time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5164, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act. This important legislation, of which I am a cosponsor, has broad-based, bipartisan support. It was reported out of the Commerce Committee by a unanimous, recorded vote of 42 to 0. Firestone's recall of 14.4 million tires, which it announced on August 9th of this year, is the second largest tire recall ever. It is surpassed only by Firestone's recall of 14.5 million tires in 1978. The recent recall came about only after Ford Motor Company, whose vehicles were equipped with many of the recalled tires, was given access to Firestone's claims data in late July and was able to link 46 deaths and a large number of claims to accidents involving two 15-inch models of Firestone tires--the ATX and the Wilderness AT. Since August 9th, the number of fatalities attributable to accidents involving the recalled Firestone tires has grown to 101, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Even today, countless Americans are on the road--picking up their kids, driving to work--and the last thing that should worry them is the quality and soundness of their tires. Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence. H.R. 5164 can and should be enacted into law this year. It directly responds to the problems that the committee's hearings uncovered in the Firestone tire recall case. The legislation directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop a plan for analyzing and using information it receives. This is important because the hearings showed that more than two years ago, NHTSA had information on 47 cases of tread separation involving the recalled tires, but failed to do anything with the information it already had. In addition, this legislation requires manufacturers to give NHTSA claims data and other information that proved to be so important in the Firestone case. If this legislation becomes law, manufacturers will have to notify NHTSA about recalls or customer satisfaction actions taken in foreign countries. Furthermore, new enhanced criminal penalties will apply to manufacturers and others, if they knowingly and willfully withhold or falsify information with the specific intention of misleading the Secretary concerning safety related defects that have caused death or serious bodily injury. Mr. Speaker, the criminal penalties provided in this legislation fit the requirements set out by Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater when he testified before the committee. At that time, Secretary Slater said the wrong kind of criminal penalties could slow down NHTSA's enforcement activities, and that he would only support criminal penalties for ``egregious activity'' and ``serious matters''. The criminal penalties provided in the legislation strike the proper balance between holding people accountable for their actions without discouraging voluntary reporting and cooperation with government agencies. We have adopted an amendment on criminal penalties which will ensure that the safe harbor provisions cannot be used by an individual if that individual had actual knowledge at the time of the violation that the violation would result in accident causing death or serious bodily injury, as the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin, stated in his explanation of the provision. Mr. Speaker, I also call to my colleagues' attention the fact that this legislation authorizes $9.1 million for NHTSA, the full amount that the Agency requested to deal with matters related to the Firestone tire recall. While budget cuts in the past may have hindered NHTSA's activities in important areas, it is clear that, at this time, Republican, and Democratic members of the committee recognize the importance of NHTSA's work. I would note, however, that we must move quickly, if we are to help NHTSA prevent a recurrence of the kind of problem that occurred in the Firestone case. Time is quickly running out for this Congress. While there is not enough time to solve every problem at NHTSA, we can, and we should, enact legislation to deal with the major problems uncovered in the committee's investigation of the recent Firestone tire recalls. Mr. Speaker, public concern is great, and not just about the dangers of driving on the recalled tires. The public rightly perceives that both Firestone and NHTSA failed to respond early on to information and warnings that should have alerted them to the problems with the recalled Firestone tires. Those failures caused consumers to be exposed to risks of injury and death far longer than should have been the case. Both NHTSA and the companies involved need to take affirmative steps to restore public confidence. Mr. Speaker, enactment of this legislation will help restore public confidence. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5164. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther).

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support H. Res. 163, which recognizes the debilitating effects of post-partum depression on new mothers, their babies and their families. I want to pay particular tribute to my friend and colleague, Representative Capps, as well as Representative Kingston, for their work on this matter. H. Res. 163 encourages health care providers to become more attuned to the signs of this common, treatable aftermath of pregnancy in order to detect the problem in its earliest days and offer appropriate interventions. This weeks' announcement that the Nobel prize in medicine is being awarded to three scientists whose discoveries have unlocked keys to the central nervous system, including the understanding the biochemical underpinnings of depression, underscores the importance of the mind- body connection. Depression is indeed a physiologic response, and there is no time in a woman's life when her physiology changes as markedly and as abruptly as it does with the delivery of a baby. Set against the excitement of a new birth, the emergence of an unexpected mood disorder, such as post-partum depression, can be frightening and confusing. Ironically, detecting this problem takes us back to the heart of the patient-provider relationship by employing our lowest- tech, most-highly valued tools, talking and listening to the patient. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists suggests that thorough medical history-taking as early as the first prenatal visit can assist providers in identifying those women at highest risk for post-partum depression. Post-partum depression can be diagnoses by simply asking a new mother about a number of aspects of here new life. Her answers and mood are keys to an early and correct diagnosis. This approach also provides an opening for a woman to discuss feelings she may finding shameful and frightening. With an accurate diagnosis, treatment can begin, benefitting mother, baby and family. As Congress today recognizes the research and treatment needs of women experiencing post-partum depression, we must also recognize that many of the women at highest risk for this condition live outside of the health care safety net, and therefore will not benefit from early detection and intervention. The Congress must work to solve these inequities. We must also work to assure that whatever reforms occur in the healthcare delivery system, providers must never stop talking with their patients. As the lines between medical and mental health problems blur, all health care providers need access to the most up-to-date information, so that opportunities to diagnose and treat problems such as post-partum depression are not missed. This resolution is one step in that direction.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 762, the Lupus Research and Care Amendments. I want to commend my good friend and colleague, Representative Carrie Meek for her steadfast advocacy for this excellent legislation. Lupus is a debilitating and sometimes fatal auto-immune disease that disproportionately afflicts women, particularly women of color. Today's vote brings help and hope to approximately 1.5 million Americans with lupus, and their families. H.R. 762 accomplishes two goals. Title I recognizes the National Institute of Health's (NIH) present research activities on the many facets of this disease through the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Autoimmune Diseases Coordinating Committee. It authorizes appropriations to expand and intensify these activities with emphasis on earlier diagnosis, better treatment, and an eventual cure. Epidemiologic studies and education about lupus for the public and health professionals will also be undertaken with funds made available by this bill. Title II 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 nonprofit health facilities for the provision of out-patient care and a breadth of support services to affect individuals and the family members who are involved in their care. The holistic treatment and support services provided by H.R. 762 will diminish the sense of isolation that is concomitant to chronic illness by weaving a safety-net of services. This an excellent bill and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage today.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize, honor and salute my dear friend Judge Roman S. Gribbs on his retirement from the Michigan Court of Appeals and for his many years of dedicated public service. Beginnings do not come much more humble than Roman's. He attended grammar school in a one-room schoolhouse in the Thumb area of Michigan, and in 1944 graduated, as salutatorian, from Capac High School. After serving in the United States Army, Roman graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Detroit in 1952, with a degree in Economics and Accounting. In 1954, he earned his Juris Doctor from the same school. Roman began his professional career as an instructor at his alma mater, the University of Detroit. He later served as Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor, Presiding Traffic Court Referee for the City of Detroit and Wayne County Sheriff. From 1970 through 1974, Judge Gribbs served as Mayor of Detroit, during which time he also was President of the National League of Cities. While working as a partner at the law firm Fenton, Nederlander, Dodge, Barris and Gribbs, P.C., Roman was also an Adjunct Professor at the University of Michigan. As though these many accomplishments were not enough, Mr. Speaker, my good friend has spent the last 23 years serving as a judge, first on the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan, then on the Michigan Court of Appeals. In addition to his vast professional accomplishments, Roman is an active member of many fine organizations including: the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Economic Club of Detroit, American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, the League of Women Voters of Michigan, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Michigan Youth Commission to name only a few. Mr. Speaker, as Roman leaves the public limelight to spend time with his lovely wife, Lee, and his five children, I would ask that all of my colleagues salute Roman and his leadership, hard work and caring heart.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 2311, the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000. This is an excellent bill and it deserves our immediate consideration and support. I want to take particular note of the way in which this bill has been developed. This bill comes to us by way of a remarkable bipartisan effort led by my good friend and colleague Representative Waxman and from the other side of the aisle, Representative Coburn. Given the complexity of the Ryan White program and the potentially controversial nature of the subject matter, the fact that we will pass a good bill at this time of year with a strong bipartisan vote is a tribute to them. Our colleagues in the other body have also worked hard on this bill and are to be congratulated for their effort. Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, and Frist have been solid partners in forging the legislation before us today. The CDC estimates that more than 900,000 persons in America are now living with HIV. Approximately one-third of these persons know they are infected and are receiving treatment. Another third know they are infected, but are not receiving treatment. Another third does not know they are infected. Another complication is that HIV infections are occurring in every region of the country and in every kind of situation. Underserved areas, such as rural areas, are having a particularly difficult time because they lack the infrastructure of proven prevention and treatment programs. In brief, S. 2311 keeps those programs that have withstood the test of time. Just as significantly, it makes changes where they were needed. The four titles of the Ryan White CARE Act contain a variety of grants and formulas that distribute funds at the state and local levels. As we all know, changing programs of this kind is never easy. In this case, we have successfully blended the need for change with the need for continuity of care for those areas that have been especially hard hit by the HIV/AIDS epidemic. On this point, let me note the great work of our colleagues Representatives Eshoo, Towns and Pelosi. I note, also, that a listing of all of the changes made to the Ryan White program by this bill is set forth in the statement of managers that will be included in the record of today's proceedings. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the work of ranking member of the Health and Environment Subcommittee, Representative Brown, and the Subcommittee Chairman, Representative Bilirakis. They have forged a solid working relationship on a variety of bills that have come before us this year and we are grateful for their hard work and cooperation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I commend two extraordinary persons, Camelia Anwar Sadat and Denise Brown, for their tireless efforts to raise the level of awareness of the serious problem of domestic violence. Over the years, both Ms. Sadat and Ms. Brown have been effective advocates for victims of domestic violence. They have committed substantial amounts of time and resources to help address this problem. I am pleased to welcome Ms. Sadat and Ms. Brown to Southeast Michigan when they will address the Arab-American domestic violence dinner sponsored by the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS) on October 11, 2000. Domestic violence has been a problem of great enormity throughout history. Six years ago, however, a bipartisan majority of Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWA was a giant step forward in our country's response to violence against women. It was the first federal law of its kind to recognize that gender-based crimes prevent women from being full participants in society. VAWA has had an enormous impact on many women and children through grants and federal prosecutions. VAWA expired on September 30, 2000, however, I am pleased to note that on September 26, 2000, the House of Representatives not only voted overwhelmingly to reauthorize VAWA, but also to expand the original law. I am hopeful the Senate will do likewise so this important legislation can become law. Violence against women must be stopped and every person must do their part. VAWA is playing an important step in ending this violence, but it cannot do so alone. It is vitally important that the public is educated about the effects this violence has on our society. Ms. Sadat and Ms. Brown are committed advocates and continually reach out and educate communities about domestic violence. I laud their efforts and accomplishments that are raising public awareness and helping purge domestic violence from our nation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I express my thanks to the distinguished gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I want to commend and compliment my good friends from the Committee on Appropriations. They have ``done good.'' The problem is, they have not done good enough. I want to express my respect and affection for the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). They are good Members, and I do not want them to take anything I say here today as being hostile to them. However, they have chosen to legislate without hearings; without opportunity to perfect. What those of us who oppose the rule want the House to do is to allow us to vote the rule down so that we may come up with a better piece of legislation, one which was approved by the House by an overwhelming vote. I refer to CARA, H.R. 701. It passed the House by a very heavy margin, 315 to 102. It is interesting to note that this was one of the most bipartisan bills that I have ever seen, but also certainly the single most bipartisan piece of legislation that has passed this Congress. Those of us who led that effort to pass CARA share a common passion, providing a meaningful and dedicated and continuing source of conservation funding for fish, for wildlife, for lands and waters, for recreation and open spaces, and to meet the concerns that confront so many of our States and our communities. Remember, we will not have many opportunities to pass a piece of legislation like this. This is an opportunity that will probably come once in a lifetime. In all the years that I have served in this body, never once have I seen an opportunity of this magnitude to do good for Americans, for conservation, for fish and wildlife that matched this. And never once have I seen anything which did so much to realize the hopes and the ideals of those of us who love the out-of- doors. Now, I have no doubt that the language contained in the Interior appropriation bill and this land conservation program was drafted with the best of intentions. It is again, I note, an effort by my good friends on the Committee on Appropriations to legislate well. And part of that legislating well is preserving the jurisdiction of that committee and part of it is in sidetracking CARA, something which that committee found to be highly offensive, as we had this legislation on the floor at an earlier time, because it did take away from the Committee on Appropriations the ability to function by whim and caprice, to deny new conservation money and, in effect, to supplant the efforts of the legislative committees around here which are strongly and deeply and sincerely conversed in this. The premise of CARA was to take Federal resource revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf to reinvest them for conservation purposes. And it was originally intended, when the Congress passed the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the 1960s, that this would be done. Since that time, the Committee on Appropriations has had the opportunity to do the kinds of things we are talking about today. Without the pressure of CARA, they never would have done them. So I say let us assist our good friends on the Committee on Appropriations. Let us help them. Let us see to it that we have an opportunity, if we are going to legislate, to legislate well. Vote the rule down. A new rule can be brought back, and we can have a full opportunity then to address all of the important questions that exist with regard to conservation, and with regard to spending proper levels of funds to save and protect open spaces and the conservation and environmental values that are so important to this country. The language of the conference report is quite clear. It says the program is not mandatory and does not guarantee annual appropriations. If Members need a reason to vote against this rule so that they can vote for something which is of more lasting and permanent character, this is the reason right here. This is what the Committee on Appropriations is saying to us. This is not permanent. I am sure that they have the best of intentions at this time, but within a year there will be new pressures upon the Committee on Appropriations which will tell the Committee on Appropriations that they should perhaps cavil just a little bit on the commitment that they make today and come forward with less money. Now, they will tell us about the violent crime reduction trust fund. That expired the other day, and it was never fully funded. They have always told us what a great thing it was. And it was great, and I commend them for it. But it did not come through a legislative committee and it did not have the supervision and the care and the attention that goes to it. And it also was not as fully honored as it could have been and should have been. Certainly we are going to meet the same situation, where the Committee on Appropriations will shave conservation values just is a little here and just a little there, because it is easy to do when the pressures are on to expend monies for other purposes. Again, I announce my respect for my good friends, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations; but they are not meeting the real challenges of greatness. They are passing aside an opportunity. They are urging this body to reject something which is perhaps the greatest piece of conservation legislation we can pass in this Congress or indeed in any other.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, more than 30 years ago, I was the co-author of one of the strongest federal laws to protect our air, water and lands. The National Environmental Policy Act recognized that many federal activities, and many federally supported activities, affect the quality of our air, waters, and lands. As a result, federal agencies have been required for more than three decades to report on their activities' impact on the human environment in environmental impact statements. NEPA was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Republican President. It has withstood years of attack from many special interests and has contributed greatly to improvements in our environment and human health. I have been a stalwart defender of NEPA throughout its history and even defended the Act when different administrations tried to undermine its intent. One continuing focus of concern was over the role of the President's Council On Environmental Quality (CEQ), about which I helped several administrations, including the current one, understand the benefits of having a single Presidential agency coordinate environmental policy for very diverse interests within the Executive Branch. I was proud to have fought on behalf of CEQ in the past. However, as occasionally happens with some government agencies, I have come to realize that CEQ has outlived its usefulness now that federal agencies have instilled a stronger environmental ethic in their decision making. I fact, CEQ's role has evolved from one of facilitation to one of obfuscation. It has become an assemblage of irksome meddlers who cost much and do little. In my opinion, their recent efforts on behalf of the environment have been counterproductive from the standpoint of sound conservation practices. Mr. Speaker, I am therefore proposing legislation today that abolishes the CEQ and leaves the protections of NEPA in place for coordination within each federal agency. This will allow the Appropriations Committee next year to have another $2.9 million every year for much more valuable conservation purposes.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4049, the ``Privacy Commission Act.'' We don't need a commission to study consumer privacy rights. Consumers either have the right to determine how personal information they gave others will be used, or they don't. In my view, consumers deserve this right. Spending 18 months studying privacy and $5 million of the taxpayers money will not bring us any closer to deciding this fundamental issue. Only Members of the Congress, not members of a study commission, can decide whether to protect consumer privacy. What consumers are demanding is a simple and clear statement from Congress that banks, insurance companies, securities firms, HMO's, and other entities cannot disseminate or use personal information in ways the consumer has not approved. That's not a complicated concept, although many who don't want to protect consumer privacy will maintain that it is. One hundred and thirty-eight of our colleagues are cosponsors of one such bill that we should have the opportunity to consider either as an amendment to the bill before us or on its own. That legislation, H.R. 2457, is sponsored by our colleague, Mrs. Slaughter, and prohibits genetic discrimination in determining eligibility for health insurance and employment. Polls show that more than 80 percent of those surveyed are afraid that genetic information could be used against them. One hundred and seventy-eight of our colleagues have signed a discharge petition to bring this matter to the floor for a vote. Outside medical professional groups, including the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, support the bill. The administration strongly support it, and the platforms of both major national parties include planks that call for legislation like H.R. 2457. Clearly, Members are ready to act on genetic privacy, yet the Republican House leadership says we can't. The chairman of the Commerce Committee has repeatedly rejected requests from Democratic Members to let the committee act on this important legislation. In fact, Republican leadership won't even permit an amendment prohibiting genetic discrimination to be offered to the matter before us. That's just plain wrong, and the Republican majority should not be allowed to cite passage of this meaningless commission bill as evidence that they have concerns for consumer privacy. If they truly were concerned about consumer privacy we'd be considering Mrs. Slaughter's bill, or others like it that are intended to legally protect consumer privacy, not just study it. At the very least, Members should have the right to amend this bill with proposals that provide consumers real and needed protection. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4049.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the Energy and Water Appropriations conference report. As Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee and its former Chairman, I have generally opposed attempts to legislate on these bills, regardless of the substance of the matter or the party affiliation of the Member proposing such provisions. However, the continued failure of this Congress to reauthorize the President's authority to operate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve prompted me to reluctantly support the efforts of House Appropriations Democrats to attach a simple reauthorization of the Reserve to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I also did not object to bipartisan efforts to attach legislative language providing the President the means to establish and operate a northeast heating oil reserve. Both these legislative priorities, which had passed the House overwhelmingly with the support of the Commerce Committee had been and continue to be held up in the Senate, so we attached these provisions to the appropriations bill as a last attempt to ensure their enactment into law. But the Republican conferees dropped these provisions that were strongly supported by the American people and, so it seemed, by not only Democrats, but also Republicans in the House of Representatives. Nonetheless, these same conferees found a way to retain a legislative provision in the bill that benefitted a few companies in the nuclear industry. Chairman Bliley and I along with Representative Tauzin, Bilirakis, and Oxley sent a letter to the Speaker objecting to the inclusion of this and other provisions relating to reauthorization of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the conference report. Currently, there are not one, but two bills pending before the House that would address this issue, and our letter indicated our support for having the House consider immediately NRC reauthorization under regular order. There was no reason to avoid regular order and there is no excuse for retaining a provision that benefits one special interest while dropping provisions like the petroleum reserve authorization which benefits the whole nation. Finally, I would like to point to three provisions in this bill that amend the Department of Energy Organization Act, a statute primarily within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, in order to make changes relating to the Nuclear National Security Administration (NNSA). These three provisions were also included in the Senate's version of the Defense Authorization Act and were part of the reason, Chairman Bliley, Representative Barton, and I were appointed as conferees on that legislation. In good faith we negotiated a compromise with our colleagues on both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees that saw two of these provisions, relating to ``dual- hatting'' of DOE employees and the term of the first NNSA Administrator, remain in the legislation. The third provision, circumscribing the Secretary of Energy's longstanding authority to reorganize parts of the Department, was dropped by mutual consent. However, this legislation does not honor the agreements reached by the committees of jurisdiction: it contains all three of the provisions that were the subject of the Defense bill negotiations. If those in charge of this institution can neither honor agreements in good faith, nor ensure that legislation is considered under regular order and rules, then it will be impossible to do the work of the American people. For all these reasons, I oppose the conference report.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House passed H.R. 5272, the inappropriately named ``Peace Through Negotiations Act of 2000.'' This legislation is unnecessary, ill timed and not in the best interest of our country or the Middle East peace process. I believe, like the Administration, that the Palestinian Authority should not unilaterally declare statehood outside the framework of a negotiated peace settlement. Unilateral actions by either the Palestinians or Israelis can erode, disrupt, and possibly derail a peace process that we all support and want to see to conclusion in order for future generations to be able to live a normal and stable life. For starters, this legislation was wholly unnecessary given President Arafat's recent decision not to unilaterally declare a state because it would jeopardize the peace process. Instead of acknowledging the fact that the Palestinian Authority acted with considerable restraint in making this decision, which I will note was not popular among the Palestinian people, we have unfairly and unnecessarily condemned the Palestinian Authority at the very time discussion between Arafat and Prime Minister Barak were underway. I ask my colleagues, have you read this legislation known as the ``Peace Through Negotiations Act?'' I have and that is why I am concerned, because while the message sent by H.R. 5272 was bad, its substance is worse. In particular, I am concerned that Section 4a(1) of the legislation supercedes a portion of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act and reverses a presidential determination on the national security of the United States. Reversing a standing law that has successfully guided our policy in the Middle East peace process should only be done after serious deliberations. Reversing a Presidential action that he determines is in the national security of the United States is even more serious. Both these actions are done by this legislation without a single hearing or public request for the President's views. Members of the International Relations Committee were given less than twenty-four hours notice of the mark-up of this legislation. The bill passed the Committee on Tuesday with barely half the Members present and voting. The full House passed it on Wednesday under restrictive procedures denying anyone the opportunity to amend it. This legislation is too important to be acted upon in such a rushed fashion. To have done so does not speak highly of the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives. Moreover, the legislation is flawed because it does not address unilateral actions of all parties. In my view, the unwillingness of the legislation to address unilateral actions of both sides puts our Middle East peace process negotiators in a terrible position. We in Congress should not take actions that make the efforts of American peacemakers more difficult. My hope is that our colleagues in the Senate do not follow the House's sad example and rush to action without sufficient consideration of all of the ramifications of this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to have major doubts about the wisdom of H.R. 1795, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Establishment Act. Because this rushed process has not resolved my doubts, I oppose this legislation. At the September 14 Commerce Committee markup on this bill, I expressed my long-standing concern about the administrative burdens and duplication that come with authorizing new Institutes at the National Institutes of Health. I understand that the intent of this bill is to bring together programs in biomedical imaging and bioengineering that support clinical research in other disciplines, thereby fostering basic research in the development of improved diagnostic technologies. This is a laudable goal, yet all Institutes come with Directors who appoint administrative personnel, and new Institutes create opportunities for needless duplication of existing work. NIH's budget is finite, and we must be careful to use it wisely. Do we need to spend more money on administrative bureaucracy or risk duplication of existing work to achieve the goals of this legislation? I think not, and neither does Secretary Shalala. Her attached letter to me, received last night, concludes that a newly created Office of Bioengineering, Bioimaging, and Bioinformatics ``ensures the most effective and efficient deployment of resources to foster research in this area.'' Are we prepared to say she is wrong, before the Office has a chance to work? Are we prepared to substitute our judgment for that of the National Institutes of Health? Are we prepared to take money from research to spend on administrative support? My answer to these questions is no. I cannot support this legislation at this time. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, September 25, 2000. Hon. John D. Dingell, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4365, the Children's Health Act of 2000. This bill, which now contains provisions from the Senate's bill, authorizes a variety of programs for expanding and intensifying children's health research. It also includes prenatal care initiatives (including the first formal authorization of the Healthy Start Program) that were included in the bill we passed in May of this year. The bill also covers a wide range of youth drug and mental health services programs that will strengthen America's communities. I am very pleased that this Congress is reauthorizing programs administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). These programs provide critical safety-net services for individuals and families with substance abuse problems and mental illness. I wish to commend a number of my colleagues for their fine contributions: Representative Diana DeGette, for championing provisions on pediatric organ transplants, juvenile diabetes, limits on the use of seclusion and restraints on hospitalized children, and a study concerning the use of children as participants in clinical research; Representative Strickland for his child mental health provisions and for bringing state-of-the-art services to residents of rural communities; and, Representative Capps for her efforts in this Chamber not only to make the SAMHSA reauthorization a reality, but for her fine provision on underage drinking. The ranking member of the Health and Environment Subcommittee, Representative Brown, has done a splendid job with this bill and he deserves our gratitude. Virtually every bill affecting public health bears the mark of my good friend and colleague, Representative Waxman, and this one is no exception. Many other of our colleagues made significant contributions to this bill, as well. Giving credit where it is due, this bill has been improved by our Senate colleagues. Childhood obesity, now a focus of the bill, is one of the Surgeon General's priorities for Healthy People 2010. I am also delighted to see the program for newborn screening for heritable metabolic disorders, an issue of great concern to my colleague, Representative Pallone. This provision would establish an advisory counsel to guide the Secretary in making timely and informed responses to rapid advances in genetic technologies. State and local public health departments will benefit from their provision as resources would be made available to improve programmatic uniformity, from laboratory infrastructure, to counseling, and healthcare services. Other new provisions for America's children will develop strategies for improving childcare facilities, increase funds for the early detection and treatment of childhood lead poisoning, and fund a longitudinal study of influences that shape child development. The new National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will track and identify causes of birth defects and developmental disabilities with the goal of creating effective interventions to prevent the conditions, or their secondary health impacts. But without the full support of our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee in fiscal year 2001 to build and operate the Center, and in successive years to sustain and expand it, the Center will only be a shell. Despite its many worthy provisions, this bill has been marked by a number of procedural irregularities. No bill of this scope and magnitude should proceed to the House floor without going through the committee process. No children's health bill worth its name should neglect such programs as: (1) supplementing S-CHIP and Medicaid to provide seamless access to state-of-the-art prenatal services to all pregnant women; (2) assuring equal access to pediatric specialists, medically necessary drugs and clinical trials for children with rare and/or serious health problems; (3) establishing guidelines for the administration of psychotropic medications to children under five, which is a major concern to my good friend Representative Towns; and, (4) addressing FDA regulation of youth tobacco use. Ironically, the provision promoting safe motherhood includes a public education initiative addressing the dangers of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use in pregnancy. Most women do not begin smoking during pregnancy; they begin as adolescents. Yet, our Committee was unable to even debate this issue this year. The provision on narcotic addiction treatment unfortunately fails to provide coverage for the majority of heroin addicts who cannot afford new drugs, such as buprenorphine, which were developed with taxpayer resources. Implementation of this provision, which exempts certain physicians from future guidelines for treatment with a not yet approved and labeled drug, will bear watching. Finally, it is unfortunate that at a time when our Nation has more than 120,000 children in the foster care and the child welfare system who need homes, the only provision in this bill addressing adoption is based on a very limited, heavily criticized, sixteen year old study of how women with unintended pregnancies are counseled about their options. It speaks volumes that not a single organization involved with special needs adoptions has written to express support for this bill. This provision is based on a pejorative assumption about our publicly funded primary health care system and it burdens the already extended community health centers and Title X family planning clinics. Our tax dollars would be better spent addressing the needs of the more than 120,000 children of this Nation who so desperately need loving, caring homes. I will vote for this bill. However, I want America's children to know that while H.R. 4365 is a significant step toward improving the quality of your collective health, we can do better. It now seems clear that the horizon of the 106th Congress will be rather limited with respect to health issues. I have great hope and great confidence that in the 107th Congress we will do better.