John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It was only introduced 10 days ago. Copies of the legislation have never been made available to the minority, because the bill has been changed significantly between the time it was introduced and between the time that we are now considering it. No hearings have been heard. No one has been able to comment efficiently on this. There have been no comments requested from the administration or any other interested parties. Now, I, like my colleagues on this side of the aisle, favor proper legislation that would establish an exemption from Superfund liability for any person or company, large or small, if they could establish that they sent only a small amount of toxic waste to a site. We have followed established precedents and put the burden on persons who had the facts and records available to show that the toxic waste they sent was less than a threshold amount. That is the proper way. That is how it should be done. In short, then, the person seeking the benefit from that exemption must demonstrate that he or she qualifies for the exemption. That is how it should be for toxic waste such as dioxins, PCBs, and other noxious and harmful materials. The legislation before us, unseen, unheard by any committee of this body, turns legal precedents on their head. It creates incentive for businesses or entities to destroy or lose records, or to engage in other rascality, to achieve a preference at the expense of all of the American people. As a result, the other parties at the site, the State or the Federal Government, would have to bear clean-up costs under this legislation, whether the person who was getting the exemption on the basis of a burden imposed upon the Federal Government has achieved a relief from the requirements of law. This is, I think, why the Business Roundtable, the Justice Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the entire environmental community and the New York Attorney General have written in opposition to this legislation. They know that it is neither fair nor proper and they know that it has not been properly heard by any committee of the Congress, and no person has been invited to appear here before us to tell us the facts with regard to this legislation. The legislation is not the legislation which was introduced. The only thing that has been presented to the minority is this curious document, which is not the document which is before us, but which is somewhat changed. This is the way in which we achieve a bad reputation for this body, by bringing legislation to this Congress which is not properly heard and without proper opportunity for consultation or careful consideration. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, it is opposed by almost everyone who has had the opportunity to view it: The League of Conservation Voters, the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Attorney General of the State of New York, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Water Action, Friends of the Earth, Environmental Defense all oppose this, both because of the procedure and because of the unfair and improper substance.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership of the 106th Congress has brought some asinine proposals to the floor. A trillion- dollar tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, a prescription drug proposal that subsidizes HMOs, not seniors, and a ``managed care'' bill that protects the insurance industry rather than patients. However, today marks a new low-point, even for this Congress. Mr. Speaker, today we have a bill on the floor which would revoke the Federal Charter from the Boy Scouts of America. Let me repeat myself. Today the Congress will vote to revoke the Boy Scouts of America's Federal Charter. Mr. Speaker this is an outrage and it must be stopped. The Boy Scouts are an American institution and one of America's most patriotic organizations, dedicated to serving God and country. Scouts are a shining example to the world of what is good about America. In 1916, the United States Congress granted the Boy Scouts a Federal Charter, because it recognized the valuable contributions that Scouts make to America. The Scouts are one of the most important civic institutions we have in this great nation, devoted solely to building character in boys and young men. The Scouts have led drives to increase blood, organ and tissue donation. They have pioneered youth anti-drug efforts. Scouts have fought against hunger, child abuse and illiteracy. Scouts were there for America. Yet now, the sponsors of this legislation would turn their back on the Scouts. Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. I am proud of my association with the Boy Scouts. The Scout Troops in Michigan's 16th District have a long and distinguished tradition of community service, from Dearborn to the fine young men in Monroe. I have joined with Scouts on many occasions during my service in Congress in community efforts, from river clean-ups to assistance for the needy and less fortunate. They represent the best of what America is and strives to be. This effort, to revoke their Federal Charger is an insult to the Scouts. It is no small wonder that the public's confidence in this body plummets each year thanks to ridiculous, unnecessary and foolish legislative endeavors such as this, which helps no one and angers many. The Boy Scouts develop and cultivate the best characteristics of American citizenship: self-reliance, leadership, and patriotism; love of the outdoors, pride in America, conservation and individualism; Americanism, dedication to the Constitution and to the Declaration of Independence. These are good, meritorious ideals. For the benefit of my colleagues supporting this legislation, let me recite the Scout Law, the principles upon which Boy Scouting is based: trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. These are the values that this Congress should be supporting, not discouraging. Vote no on this preposterous idea.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the gentleman from North Carolina's resolution honoring James T. Broyhill, a good friend and honorable man with whom I had the privilege of serving in this body for almost twenty-three years. Moreover, I was pleased to have had the opportunity to work with Jim Broyhill in his capacity as Ranking Member of the House Commerce Committee while I was Chairman. As a Member of the House and Senate, Jim Broyhill was a dedicated and tireless public servant. He capably and honorably represented his constituents and they rewarded him time and time again with their continual support for him as their representative. Jim Broyhill was also a good friend and true gentleman. I can think of no more honorable man in this institution and his contributions as Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee were of the highest quality. Jim Broyhill was a workhorse, not a show horse. He did not seek the spotlight, but worked vigorously to ensure that the committee passed effective legislation for the good of this country. Jim Broyhill was well respected by both constituents and colleagues for his integrity, kindness and ability to get things done. Renaming the Lenoir Post Office in honor Jim Broyhill is a proper tribute to a good man and public servant who did much for his state and country.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the gentleman from Michigan's resolution, and in honor of a fellow Michigander, William Broomfield, with whom I had the privilege of serving with in this body for thirty-six years. William Broomfield was born in Royal Oak, Michigan and represented it in Congress with distinction. It is only fitting that the city's post office be named in his honor. William Broomfield was a man of principle and foresight. Moreover, he was a dedicated and tireless public servant who honorably represented residents of Michigan in our State legislature and, most notably, in the U.S. House of Representatives for most of his adult life. William Broomfield's capable service to his constituents was rewarded time and time again by their continual support for him as their Representative. William Broomfield was also a mainstay of the Foreign Affairs Committee. As Ranking member for fourteen years, he was a workhorse rather than a show horse. He did not seek out the spotlight, but worked tirelessly, often behind the scenes, to help craft important legislation that was amiable to both sides of the isle and in the best interests of our great country. Naming the Royal Oak Post Office Building in William Broomfield's honor is a proper tribute to a man who vigorously served his constituents and honorably served his country in doing so. As such, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support this resolution and join me in honoring a good man and public servant who did much for his state and country, William Broomfield.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the gentleman from Alabama's resolution. It is both fitting and appropriate to recognize my former colleague, Carl Elliott, by naming a public building in his honor. Because not only was Carl Elliott a good and decent man, but a dedicated and capable public servant who gave much to Alabama and his country. It was just last week that we debated federal aid to libraries. I would remind my colleagues that it was Carl Elliott who began the crusade for library funding, and it is he who is responsible for the Library Services Act. Carl Elliott was a man of principle and foresight. He was a tireless advocate on behalf of education, working to secure federal assistance for low income, poverty-stricken school districts and students across Alabama and the United States. In doing so, he helped give poor students access to higher education and job opportunities based on their ability and merit rather than economic background. But his thoughtfulness and humanity on racial issues is noteworthy. At a time of great tumult in the South and Alabama over racial issues, Carl Elliott chose to be on the right side of history and do what was just rather than what was politically expedient. Long after the debate was over and their own political futures were secure, many public officials in the South expressed regret for their positions in opposition to civil rights and race issues in the '60's. But it was people like Carl Elliott who bravely faced the political winds and surrendered their offices, yet not their principles. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support this resolution and join me in honoring a good man and public servant who did much for his state and country, Carl Elliott.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Capps, Mr. Brown, Mr. Strickland, Ms. DeGette, and others as original cosponsors of legislation to reauthorize programs administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Established by Congress in 1992, SAMHSA has built on Federal-State partnerships with communities and private organizations to provide a safety net of services for individuals and families with substance abuse problems and mental illness. In 1995, the last year for which statistics are available, drugs and alcohol cost the American public $276 billion in unnecessary healthcare costs, extra law enforcement, auto accidents, crime, and lost productivity. The bill introduced today recognizes the challenges of SAMHSA's comprehensive mission and builds upon its successful programs with over a dozen new provisions, a number of which include prevention initiatives that target risk factors contributing to substance abuse and mental illness. An important aspect of this bill is its extension of the Secretary's flexibility and authority to create programs of regional and national significance in the areas of substance abuse prevention and treatment, and mental health services. This bill affords the Secretary new opportunities to respond to changing societal trends and tomorrow's needs through knowledge development grants, enhancing expertise of service providers, and implementation of regionally sensitive, community-specific programs on an as needed basis. This bill also places a special emphasis on programs for our Nation's young people, aimed specifically at fostering a generation of drug and alcohol-free youth. This past December, when HHS released its annual report of illicit drug use among teenagers, ``Monitoring the Future,'' we learned that overall marijuana and other illicit drug use among 8th, 10th and 12th graders had leveled off; but, decreases in crack cocaine use among 8th and 10th graders were offset by increases in the use of ecstasy among 10th and 12th graders, and steroid use among 8th and 10th graders. This is not good enough for America's next generation. Therefore, this bill provides funding to: strengthen families; prevent underage drinking; deter methamphetamine and inhalant abuse, particularly by adolescents; create developmentally appropriate early intervention and substance abuse treatment programs; help young people cope with exposure to violence; and permit re-entry into society from the juvenile justice system with appropriate wrap-around services (aftercare and mental health counseling) in place. These are model programs of which we can all be proud. The bill also improves coordination of services to children of substance abusers and provides new help for children and adults with fetal alcohol syndrome. According to SAMHSA's 1998 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Statistics Source Book, of the 52 million Americans between the ages of 15 and 54 who experience a substance abuse or mental health problem, 8 million, or more than one in seven, have both a mental health and an addiction problem. This represents nearly 5 percent of all Americans in this age group. The bill introduced today acknowledges the common co- occurrence of these conditions by establishing best practices for treatment strategies, and by significantly expending and improving access to those services for both individuals and families. SAMHSA has been the payer-of-last-resort for millions of Americans with mental health and substance abuse problems. Disorders of the brain are perhaps the most complex challenges we face. While stigmatizing, they are treatable and often preventable. This bill identifies and addresses the broad range of issues contributing to the complex concerns of substance abuse and mental illness. It creates new Centers of Excellence which will lead by example and represents a major step forward for America by providing compassionate and responsible solutions.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2634, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act. I want to acknowledge the leadership and effort on this issue that has been put forth by my good friend and colleague from the other body, Senator Carl Levin. His longstanding interest and acknowledged expertise in the development of effective treatments for drug addiction have been important influences in my deliberations on this matter. I thank him. Indeed, the language before us contains a number of changes to the bill reported out of the Commerce Committee. These changes reflect provisions adopted and passed by the Senate and represent improvements in the bill. Mr. Speaker, none of us should leave here thinking that we have done as much as we should to tackle the scourge of drug addiction in this country. Statistics on heroin addiction alone show that interdiction is not completely effective. The advent of narcotic treatments such as buprenorphine are important tools in the panoply of strategies to meet and defeat the drug addiction problem. The bill before us is a modest measure and I challenge us to do more, much more, before we adjourn this session. Mr. Speaker, my colleague and good friend, Representative Capps has introduced legislation to reauthorize programs administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). I urge swift action on this bill. SAMHSA provides the crucial safety net of programs for those who lack the means to obtain treatment elsewhere. Importantly, SAMHSA's programs address virtually all addiction issues and are not limited to the heroin alone. SAMHSA also provides important prevention programs, unlike the bill before us today. SAMHSA's programs also address co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders. Finally, SAMHSA provides the resources necessary for many of those who are in the ``treatment gap'' to obtain needed services. Today we will hear about stigmas and red tape. In my view, the most significant factor in the treatment gap is lack of adequate resources for those who need treatment. The promise of buprenorphine will be lost on low income persons unless we provide access to treatment for them. The bill before us does not address this important issue, however, Representative Capps' bill does, so I hope we will move as expeditiously on that legislation as we are on this legislation. Chairman Bliley and Chairman Bilirakis both promised action on SAMHSA during the hearing and markup of H.R. 2436. Today I remind them of that promise and express my hope that they will take up Representative Capps' bill as soon as possible.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very important consumer protection measure. My congratulations go to Representatives Green and Wilson, who together have crafted a solution to this insidious problem on the Internet known as ``spam.'' Spam, or unsolicited commercial e-mail, is no longer a mere nuisance to the 40 million Americans who use the Internet. It has rapidly become an abusive practice whereby innocent users are bombarded with commercial messages over which they have no control. Worse, the content of these messages is often pornographic. So-called ``teaser'' images often appear out of nowhere, inviting the recipient to visit one adult site on the Web or another. For many people, especially families who share a computer, these spam messages are more than an intrusion, they are a personal assault. Spam also imposes real economic costs on Internet users. Many consumers, particularly in rural areas, pay long distance charges when connecting to the Internet. The time spent downloading these unwanted messages translates into real dollars and cents paid by the consumer. And, of course, the slower the Internet connection, the greater the tab. The consumer also pays for spam through higher costs incurred by Internet Service Providers, or ``ISPs.'' The exponential growth in spam leaves ISPs with no choice but to expand their server capacity to accommodate the heavier traffic. These investments pose a significant, but unavoidable, burden on ISPs that many must pass along to consumers. H.R. 3113 is a common-sense approach that will go far to putting an end to this practice. First, it permits an ISP to legally enforce its own policy with regard to whether it will accept spam or not. This protects ISPs and consumers alike. Second, it allows consumers to opt- out of receiving spam from individual senders. And finally, it empowers consumers to ``just say no'' to receiving future messages from a particular company when he or she has had enough. Mr. Speaker, again I want to commend my colleagues for their diligent efforts.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill before us. I am particularly disappointed that it allocates only a paltry amount of money to aid and assist Lebanon at a time when significant events have transpired in that country in recent months. In May, Israel withdrew the last of its troops from south Lebanon. Prime Minister Barak made a wise decision to withdraw from the country his troops had occupied since 1977; it will do much to improve the prospects of negotiating future peace accords in the Middle East. The Administration has rewarded Israel for its withdrawal, stating that $50 million of Israel's aid package for the coming year will go to assist Israel as it redeploys its forces along the Lebanese border. I do not oppose this proposal. I would note, however, that Israel's total aid and assistance package provided by the bill before us is $2.9 billion. Including Wye funds allocated through the supplemental appropriation, Israel will receive $4.1 billion this year. Mr. Chairman, Lebanon is in dire need of assistance. The bill before us provides only $18 million to Lebanon, which is an improvement over last year's figure, but is woefully insufficient considering the changes that have taken place in Lebanon. This spring alone, an estimated $85 million in damage was inflicted on Lebanese infrastructure as a result of Israeli attacks. Lebanon has endured a prolonged civil war, foreign occupation, and an influx of refugees. The Lebanese government must have the ability to rebuild infrastructure damage earlier this year, reestablish order and the rule of law by civilian authorities in south Lebanon, and prevent further bloodshed from occurring along the Lebanese-Israeli border. I believe a six-year, $300 million aid package would be appropriate. Mr. Chairman, Metro Detroit is the home of nearly 220,000 Arab Americans, many of Lebanese descent. Many have come to the United States since 1975, seeking to escape the mayhem that so long gripped Lebanon. And though these recent Lebanese immigrants have become an integral part of Southeast Michigan, they maintain a passionate love of their homeland. They are hopeful that Lebanon will continue its efforts, begun at the close of the civil war in 1990, to rebuild and reclaim its place as a regional leader in finance and commerce. Disputes between the Lebanese government and Israel, and numerous militias in south Lebanon and Israel, are still unresolved. However, without stability in Lebanon, peace is impossible, and without peace or stability it is likely that renewed violence along the Lebanese-Israel border will occur. Peace comes at a price, yet building a lasting, comprehensive peace in the Middle East is a key foreign policy goal of our country. American assistance to Lebanon at this time would be a wise investment and work toward fulfilling this goal. Clearly, Lebanon, a long-troubled country, must be stable if a lasting peace is ever to take root across the Middle East.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, last evening I voted against the prescription drug import amendments offered by my good friends and colleagues Representatives Crowley and Coburn. I want my colleagues to know that I wish to work with them to craft legislation that achieves the goals they seek, while ensuring that the prescription drugs that Americans consume are as safe as possible. I see no reason why the Commerce Committee cannot roll up its sleeves and mark up good legislation for presentation on the House floor shortly after the August recess. Mr. Speaker, the Crowley and Coburn Amendments block a key provision of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA). This law came into being after an investigation revealed serious irregularities with respect to imported drugs. As stated in the April 1987 report of the Commerce Committee, ``[t]he purpose of the legislation is to protect American consumers from mislabeled, subpotent, adulterated, expired, or counterfeit pharmaceuticals. . .'' Recent investigations of Internet web sites indicate there is still cause for concern. In fact, the U.S. Customs Service recently reported a more than 400 percent increase in the amount of pharmaceuticals being shipped into this country via the U.S. mail, and that in many cases, the origin, purity, or history of the drugs being shipped is indeterminable. These are drugs with major health implications. A May 22 letter from Commissioner Kelly addressed to me and Representative Klink noted the following: ``[a]mong the most common types of pharmaceuticals seized by Customs are Diazepam; Tylenol with Codeine; Mathandienone; Alprozolam; Xanax; Valium; Codigesic; Lorazepam; Fenfleuramine; Thyroid tabs; Panzatazocine; Cetabon; Andriol; Premarin; and Rohypnol, a powerful sedative sometimes described as a `date rape' drug.'' Commissioner Kelly said that ``[i]n most of the mail seizures that Customs encounters, the brand name and manufacturer of the products are not identifiable because the original packaging has been removed and repacked into containers that bear no marks or identification.'' These are the same sorts of mislabeling and repackaging shenanigans that the Subcommittee first identified when it investigated this issue more than a decade ago, and led to the PDMA. Equally alarming are the findings of a hearing held just last month by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on the potential dangers of counterfeit bulk drugs, and the global problems they pose. Chairman Upton, in his opening statement, said: ``[t]he international community is also increasingly concerned. Just last month, the World Health Organization and international pharmacists and international drug manufacturers publicized their concerns about counterfeit drugs. Some have estimated that 50 to 70 percent of the drugs in some developing countries are counterfeit.'' Why is it that we don't believe these drugs can find their way into countries where U.S. consumers may wish to purchase their medications? This is particularly troubling given the FDA's confirmation later in the hearing to Representative Burr that it has information that there were injuries to American citizens associated with counterfeit products. Chairman Bliley has also documented potential serious dangers with drugs from foreign sources. In a lengthy May 8, 2000, letter to FDA Commissioner Henney he suggests that not only have Americans possibly been injured or even killed from foreign-made pharmaceuticals, but that ``[d]evelopments from this investigation require the Committee to intensify its examination and request that the FDA consider taking certain actions to protect the American public.'' First and foremost, the PDMA is a public health and safety law. We should therefore tread carefully before changing it. I am greatly concerned that the amendments adopted by the House lack the care and craftsmanship needed to ensure both access to less expensive prescription drugs and assurance of safety for the consumer. The investigation that led to the PDMA discovered a ``diversion market'' that prevented effective control over the true sources of merchandise in a significant number of cases. The integrity of the distribution system was insufficient to prevent the introduction and eventual retail sale of substandard, ineffective, or even counterfeit pharmaceuticals. As the 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 the integrity and control over the pharmaceutical market necessary to eliminate actual and potential health and safety problems before serious consumer injury results.'' The Committee report specifically outlined the concerns PDMA was intended to address: ``Reimported pharmaceuticals threaten the American 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.'' The PDMA is not perfect. But I dare say that the PDMA has saved a lot of lives. Now let us note why legislation to modify the PDMA in a responsible fashion is an idea whose time has come. Foreign drugs are often less expensive than domestically available products. Notwithstanding the range of safety risks they pose, many Americans seek them out because of outrageously high domestic prices that make drugs unaffordable for many Americans, particularly the elderly. I am open to a careful review and revision of PDMA for the purpose of creating a paradigm for drug importation that is safe for our consumers while facilitating access to the international market prices at which many commonly prescribed prescription drugs are available. Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge beneficial aspects of the amendments to which these comments are addressed. An overwhelming majority of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle are now on record for the proposition that the price Americans pay for prescription drugs is too high. Lack of access to medically necessary prescription drugs is a real problem faced by millions of Americans. Let us do better and give consumers access to lower priced prescription pharmaceuticals that are safe.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my old friend for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. It shifts the balance back to the point where it is fair to the doctors and to the HMOs by whom they are employed. I think it is time that we do this. It is simple justice and simple equity, and it will improve a situation which has grown increasingly intolerable from the standpoints of doctors, of patients, and, very frankly, if they were smart enough to know, also the HMOs. Mr. Chairman, managed care has dramatically changed health insurance in the past 30 years. Once upon a time,it actually managed the care a patient received and because that was more efficient, it actually saving some money. But, managed care has taken this cost-saving ability to new levels and as a result has made the relationship between doctors, patients, and insurers more complicated. The balance of power has tilted away from the doctor and the patient to the insurer. Insurance companies hold supreme power over both payment decisions and treatment decisions, potentially compromising the quality of care along the way. The Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses providers' concerns with their unequal bargaining position with insurers--a problem which hurts the quality of care patients receive. For that reason, Congress should act to restore balance to the provider-insurer relationship. However, passing H.R. 1304 does not relieve us of our responsibility to restore the balance to the patient-insurer relationship by enacting a meaningful, enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights that covers all Americans. The House of Representatives passed such a bill on a bipartisan basis last October. The Norwood-Dingell bill provides a fair, independent, and expeditious appeals process, and guarantees that doctors, not accountants, are making medical decisions. The bill ensures that patients have basic rights such as access to specialists, access to emergency care, access to ob-gyn care, and access to needed drugs. It also ensures that patients can hold their HMO accountable for acting irresponsibly, if those actions cause injury or death. More than nine months have passed, the conference has failed, and Congress still has not delivered a bill to the President. The Quality Health Care Coalition Act is one step toward leveling the playing field for doctors, but Congress must finish its work for patients and get a meaningful, enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights to the President. I hope that we will see both bills signed into law this year.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). She is joined in her opposition to this bill by Americans for Democratic Action.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). She is joined in her opposition to this outrageous bill by the AFL-CIO and the UAW.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), to discuss matters he was denied an opportunity to discuss in our committee.

Mr. DINGELL. Am I incorrect in that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is customary to refer to a Member as the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) to discuss matters that he was denied the opportunity to discuss in this strangled proceeding in our committee.

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the Chair for observing the regular order. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), since he was denied an opportunity to discuss this matter in our committee.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) to discuss matters which she was denied an opportunity to discuss in any appropriate proceeding in our committee.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). He is joined in his opposition to the Republican bill by the National Council of Churches of Christ in America.