John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle). (Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an organization that is near and dear to my heart. They are celebrating their 30th anniversary this year and on July 25, 1998, they will celebrate another triumph over adversity as they cut the ribbon to re-open their resource center which was badly damaged last year by a tornado. This civil and human rights organization was created by my beloved friends Father William T. Cunningham (1930-1997) and Ms. Eleanor M. Josaitis, and since Father Cunningham's passing, Ms. Josaitis has valiantly continued their work assisting those in need in our community. Its name is Focus: HOPE, and it unites our multi-cultural community with common efforts to overcome injustice and build racial harmony. This organization is an important part of our great city of Detroit promoting social justice and practical solutions to the problems that plague our inner-cities like: hunger, economic disparity, inadequate education, and racial divisiveness. Focus: Hope combats these problems with technical training, educational and corporate partnerships, and food programs. These are not handouts but a helping hand to give people the tools and means to rejoin society. This wonderful organization came into being as a result of the riots of 1967 which caused such turmoil in our community. Out of all this Focus: Hope was created like the Phoenix rising from the ashes to turn a city that was ravaged by civil disturbance and racism into a city that has so much to offer for everyone who lives within its borders--a city I am proud to call home. Focus: Hope's food program helps feed and provide nutrition to pregnant women, post-partum mothers, children from infancy to six and senior citizens 60 years and older. It pays particular attention to at- risk mothers by providing free food, nutritional education and food demonstrations on how to prepare various dishes for the mother and her baby with the monthly food they receive. Academic skills and job training are an important aspect of Focus: Hope's mission. Fast Track and First Step are two successful programs which help people get back on their feet and learn to advance into good paying technical jobs. First Step works to upgrade the math, communications and computer skills of trainees so that they may enroll in Fast Track or the Machinist Training Institute. Fast Track focuses on academic skills and the disciplines of high school to give folks the tools they need to pursue further technical training or higher educational pursuits. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by reading Focus:Hope's mission statement that describes so well what they have done, do and will continue to do hopefully for many more years to come. ``Recognizing the dignity and beauty of every person, we pledge intelligent and practical action to overcome racism, poverty and injustice, and to build a metropolitan community where all people may live in freedom, harmony, trust and affection. Black and white, yellow, brown and red from Detroit and its suburbs of every economic status, national origin and religious persuasion we join in this covenant.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask that all my colleagues join me in paying tribute to this wonderful organization which gives people a second chance and also, gave the city of Detroit a second chance.

Mr. DINGELL

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that we are discussing global warming. The Obey amendment addresses an important question, and that is whether or not EPA should be lobbying and should be pushing a treaty that has not been ratified by the United States Senate. I think that to allow EPA to do certain intelligence informational services that do not violate the laws against lobbying makes good sense, but I think to allow them to go further makes very poor sense. I want to commend the author of the language in the Committee Report and the bill for having done this. I do not know whether there is going to be global warming or not, and I do not know anything about climatology. I would, however, observe that I have been studying this question for a long time. I probably know about as much as anybody else in this Chamber who does not know anything about it either. I would observe that I was over at Kyoto, and over there nobody knew anything about it at all either. Some of the scientists who came forward to talk about global warming just a few years ago were predicting a new age of glaciation in which the world was going to get colder. I guess they found that it is more profitable to be on the side of global warming. That appears to be the more popular view. I think that we ought to look at this from the standpoint, first of all, of the Constitution, of our proper responsibilities to see what the real situation happens to be. The real situation is that until the Kyoto agreement is ratified, it does not mean anything. It also ought to be observed that the Senate of the United States has told this administration, by a vote of 95 to nothing, that they are not going to ratify. By the way, that is bipartisan because there was nobody who voted against it; everybody voted for it. They made it very plain they are not going to ratify it until it is very clear that that particular treaty affects everybody and that the United States is not going to be the only nation in the world which is compelled to cut back as much as 30 percent on our use of energy, to sign a treaty which is going to bind nobody else the same way it binds us. The Europeans say, well, we are going to be bound and the British are going to get out in some neat devices because they have gone to North Sea natural gas. The Germans are going to point out how they do not have to comply very much because they have the fine situation where they have taken over and closed a bunch of old, inefficient fuel systems. The Soviet Union says, we will not be bound. Most of the former Soviet bloc countries say we will not be bound and we will not sign. Nobody in Africa and the developing countries will be signing, and they will not be bound. It is interesting to note that India, which is a massive emitter of CO-2, is not going to be bound. It is also interesting to note that our friends in China have told me, in a discussion I had with our delegates, that they will never be bound; they are always going to be a developing country. So that leaves Uncle Sap, the United States, which proposes to be bound by a treaty which is going to cause enormous economic hardship. This is not going to be ratified by the Senate. We can just bet our bottom dollar on that particular point. So, first of all, there should be lobbying by EPA in favor of this. The Obey amendment makes splendid good sense, and I would hope that everybody here who is interested in the well-being of their constituents and the continued economic development of the United States would take that same view. But the hard fact of the matter is that EPA ought not and the administration ought not and the other agencies of the Federal Government ought not be able to move forward to implement a treaty that the Senate of the United States is not going to ratify, because 95-to-0 they found it is not in the interest of the people of the United States or the economic and other welfare of the people of this country. So I would urge this body to cease a debate which is without significance in the proceeding before us, about global warming, which has not yet been proven, and about adoption of a treaty, which is not going to be adopted, and simply adopt the Obey amendment, see to it that we curtail lobbying and other activities, including implementing by regulatory or statutory action a treaty which is, A, not in the interest of the United States and, B, which is not ratified and not going to be ratified. That is the voice of good sense, and I hope that my colleagues will listen to it, not because it is me saying it, but simply because if my colleagues reflect on the interest of their country they will come to that conclusion. I urge adoption of the Obey amendment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is for the bill and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) is for the bill. They are going to share the time equally, half the time over there and half the time to the supporters on this side? I am curious, is that a fair ruling?

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, how is the time to be divided and why we are doing this?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as Yogi Berra said, this is deja vu all over again. In 1995, my Republican colleagues came up with a splendid idea that we should close the courthouse door to innocent investors who had been wronged by scoundrels, rogues and rascals. They found that there was a loophole, however. That loophole is that, guess what, could investors still go to the State courts. But that was exactly what the citizens were told they could do when we passed that earlier legislation. Now we are closing that loophole and we are going to nail shut the courthouse doors of the State courts so a citizen wronged cannot now go to a State court. The 1995 act imposed extraordinary pleading standards, a stay of discovery so that special facts necessary to meet those heightened pleading standards could not be reached, and an unreasonably short time limit or statute of limitations for filing a fraud claim, and no ability existed under that law to fully recover from professionals such as accountants and lawyers who aided and abetted in stealing funds from innocent investors. Those same standards are now extended to State courts by fiat of the Federal Government. I am curious why it is my colleagues on the Republican side, who talk about States rights, are so diligently imposing this kind of mandate on investors and upon the States. There may be no real ability now, if this passes, for innocent investors to procure the relief that they are entitled to, and. The Chairman of the SEC wrote that: ``it is too early to assess with any confidence the important effects of the Reform Act and, therefore, on this basis, it is premature to propose legislative changes.'' The assessment of what we did in 1995 is going to take a long time, but it is very clear that now Federal courts are ruling so restrictively that they threaten almost all private enforcement. The SEC has filed complaints with the courts pointing out in amicus curiae briefs the evils of this situation. What are we doing today? Nailing shut the State court doors, and we are fixing it so that no little investor can expect much relief in State courts any more than he can in Federal courts. We do this at a time when the market is at an all time high. We also do it at a time when securities fraud is up, way up. The New York Attorney General has reported that investor complaints have risen 40 percent per year in the last 2 years. The U.S. Attorney in New York City has stated that she has witnessed an explosion of securities fraud; and organized crime has now infiltrated Wall Street. Why then are we passing legislation to give immunity baths to wrongdoers and also to aiders and abetters? Finally, I note that Members have not had adequate time to review the committee report. I want to commend my good friend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) for their part in this. We narrowly avoided a train wreck over the last 2 days because there was an effort made to insert language into the committee report that would have made the plight of investors totally hopeless, and I do commend my friend, the chairman of the committee and of the subcommittee, and the bill's sponsors for blocking that effort. During the hearing before the subcommittee, the SEC expressed clear concern about District Court cases interpreting the 1995 pleading standards. All 10 Courts of Appeals have considered that question and held that recklessness gives rise to liability. I note that the legislative history for H.R. 1689 will not seek to alter the standard of liability under the Exchange Act. Mr. Speaker, I include copies of important letters from the White House, the SEC, the leadership of the Senate Banking Committee on this matter, as follows: The White House, Washington, April 28, 1998. Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato, Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Phil Gramm, Chairman, Subcommittee on Securities, U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Christopher J. Dodd, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Securities, U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman D'Amato, Chairman Gramm, and Senator Dodd: We understand that you have had productive discussions with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about S. 1260, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1997. The Administration applauds the constructive approach that you have taken to resolve the SEC's concerns. We support the amendments to clarify that the bill will not preempt certain corporate governance claims and to narrow the definition of class action. More importantly, we are pleased to see your commitment, by letter dated March 24, 1998, to Chairman Levitt and members of the Commission, to restate in S. 1260's legislative history, and in the expected debate on the Senate floor, that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 did not, and was not intended to, alter the scienter standard for securities fraud actions. As you know, uncertainty about the impact of the Reform Act on the scienter standard was one of the President's greatest concerns. The legislative history and floor statements that you have promised the SEC and will accompany S. 1260 should reduce confusion in the courts about the proper interpretation of the Reform Act. Since the uniform standards provided by S. 1260 will provide that class actions generally can be brought only in federal court, where they will be governed by federal law, it is particularly important to the President that you be clear that the federal law to be applied includes recklessness as a basis for pleading and liability in securities fraud class actions. So long as the amendments designed to address the SEC's concerns are added to the legislation and the appropriate legislative history and floor statements on the subject of legislative intent are included in the legislative record, the Administration would support enactment of S. 1260. Sincerely, Bruce Lindsey, Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel. Gene Sperling, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) on title 3 of the bill that will strike language placing limitations on the brownfields program. This is one of the most successful programs we have. It is a program desperately needed by our cities. A bipartisan report from the mayors of our cities say that brownfields sites represent pockets of disinvestment, neglect, and missed opportunities. They are often found in poorer communities and neighborhoods that are desperately in need of economic investment and job creation. The brownfields grant program protects human health by helping to assess and remove environmental poisons from our neighborhood, and, at the same time, encourages redevelopment of abandoned or underutilized property. It also tends to halt urban sprawl, something which is a massive problem. The Nation's mayors recently surveyed their Members and found that lack of cleanup funds is the number one impediment to brownfields redevelopment. Yet the members of the majority party, by limiting funding and prohibiting revolving loan funds, would go in exactly the opposite and wrong direction. Limitations currently contained in this bill would cripple one of the most successful urban programs we have. I do not understand the hostility of my colleagues on the Republican side, but let me cite what it is the Inspector General of EPA had to say about this program. He said, ``EPA has been instrumental in bringing together numerous Federal agencies to work cooperatively towards removing barriers to the redevelopment of brownfields. Our review showed that the cities have been able to leverage millions in private brownfields investment. The agency has accomplished a great deal in a relatively short time.'' One of the remarkable things is this amendment and the prohibition on these expenditures would make a massive step backwards in terms of local efforts in this area. It would even impinge in a very severe and unfortunate way on the efforts of banks to increase lending in these areas. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. Like a lot of other Members, in the enthusiasm of the early days following the last election I supported the idea that we should constrain the rights of new Americans and permanent residents to participate to the fullest in our election process. That was a mistake. It was wrong. These are not citizens but they are people who have been permitted to come here. They will become citizens almost without exception in the orderly passage of time. They serve in our Armed Services. Indeed, there are better than 20,000 of these permanent residents who now serve the United States in our Armed Services. I would say that we ought to permit them to have full participation. After all, it is the main thesis of my good colleagues and friends on the Republican side of the aisle that the giving of campaign contributions is an exercise of the right of free speech. Indeed, the Valeo case says so. Why then is it that we should deny these people who have come here, who have entered the country legally and who are for all intents and purposes, from tax paying to serving in the defense of this Nation, acting almost completely as American citizens? Almost without exception, they intend to become American citizens. Almost without exception, they have a great reverence and love for this country. I think there is nothing wrong with permitting them to have that additional right of participating in our election process by making campaign contributions under the same basis that any other person who resides legally and permanently here. I would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by my friend and colleague on the Republican side. I would urge them to err in this matter, if we do err, and I do not believe so, on the side of seeing to it that the fullest of participation of citizenship in this important aspect is extended to those who are permanent residents of the United States. With regret, I say this is a bad amendment. With regret, I say let us vote it down. And let us then proceed towards the enactment of the Shays-Meehan bill, which is a good piece of legislation in the public interest, and let us allow permanent residents, legally entered into the United States, to participate in the full exercise of free speech, looking to the day when they can become citizens and can actually have the right to vote.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3605. His name was mistakenly added to the list of cosponsors. I regret the error, and I express my apologies to him.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and my colleagues the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for the good work which they have done on the commission amendment, something which I believe will be helpful to the legislation. I believe that their dedication and effort in this matter does them great, great credit. I particularly want to pay tribute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the remarkable courage, fortitude and diligence which she has shown in this matter. It was, I would observe, Mr. Chairman, yesterday that I chose to vote ``present'', with great regret, against the amendment which I had hoped to offer in the form of a commission substitute. I did not vote this way because I believed that the commission was no longer a viable idea but, unfortunately, because of the rather extraordinary rule structure making the commission bill a possible roadblock to passing desperately needed comprehensive campaign reform in the form of the Shays-Meehan proposal. This is something which we must do in the public interest, because I think almost every Member of this Congress, and certainly the public at large, is disgusted with the regrettable situation we find with regard to financing our campaigns. I originally joined with the other lead sponsors to create a device which would bring about a quick assured vote on a responsible proposal. We have that before us in the form of Shays-Meehan. I would observe that it is a proposal which is endorsed by both my good friend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and I want to commend them for their effort on this matter and thank them for their assistance to us in this undertaking. The amendment that is offered by the gentlewoman from New York and I not only strengthens the Shays-Meehan substitute, but it will study campaign reform ideas that are not already addressed in Shays-Meehan. It should please any Member that believes Shays-Meehan does not go far enough. The commission will clearly have the authority and the ability to study and address any additional improvements needed in our campaign system, consistent with the policies in the Constitution. I should note that this is a good proposal. It enhances, it expands, it enriches, and it benefits the system that we would find under Shays- Meehan. And I would note that yesterday a large number of my colleagues voted for this. I would note that they now have an opportunity to vote for it and Shays-Meehan both, and I urge them to do so. That is in the public interest and is what the public wants.

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Imported Food Safety Act of 1998 which will give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) new authority and much needed resources to protect American consumers from unsafe imported food. I am very pleased to have 15 of my Democratic colleagues on the Commerce Committee joining me as original cosponsors in introducing this important legislation. It is my sincere hope that many more Members, including my Republican colleagues, will soon join us in responding to consumer concerns over the safety of the food we eat. U.S. food safety standards are among the highest in the world. In spite of this fact, millions of Americans each year are unknowing victims of illness attributable to food-borne bacteria, viruses, parasites, and pesticides. According to a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report, as many as 33 million Americans each year become ill from the foods they eat. We also know that many cases of food-borne illness are not reported. GAO, therefore, estimates the total number of food-borne illnesses to exceed 81 million each year. Among these cases, more than 9,100 result in death. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service estimates ``the costs for medical treatment and productivity losses associated with these illnesses and deaths range from $6.6 billion to $37.1 billion.'' Increased media attention on food-borne illness outbreaks has turned, once unfamiliar scientific names, into household words. Recently, an outbreak of food poisoning from salmonella in cereal was reported in 11 states. E. Coli 0157 has been found in apple juice and hamburger, cyclospora in raspberries, Listeria in ice cream, Cryptosporidium in water, and viral Hepatitis A in frozen strawberries served in a school lunch program. The population of our country is growing and changing. Exposure to food-borne pathogens is particularly dangerous for the most vulnerable members of the public, such as children, pregnant women, the elderly, those with HIV/AIDS, cancer and other persons whose immune systems are compromised. The number of food-borne illness outbreaks has increased in recent years, and so has the volume of foreign food imports coming into our country. In its recent report, GAO said that the Federal government cannot ensure that imported foods are safe. The FDA, itself has acknowledged that it is ``in danger of being overwhelmed by the volume of products reaching U.S. ports.'' The volume of imported food has doubled over the last five years, while the frequency of FDA inspections has declined sharply during this same period of time. More than 38 percent of the fresh fruit and more than 12 percent of the fresh vegetables that Americans now consume each year are imported. Most Americans would be alarmed to learn that just a small fraction, less than two per cent, of the 2.7 million food entries coming into this country are ever inspected or tested by the FDA. Even fewer, only 0.2 percent of food entries, are tested for microbiological contamination. In a recent letter, however, FDA said that it ``has no assignments for monitoring imported fresh fruits and vegetables for presence of pathogenic microorganisms.'' In fiscal year 1997, all of the 251 microbiological samples FDA collected that year, were in response to food-borne illness outbreaks. None were for preventive detection. The outrageous and wholly intolerable conclusion one must draw is that American consumers are being used as guinea pigs. FDA has stated that there is a ``critical need for rapid, accurate methods to detect, identify and quantify pathogens. . . .'' The testing methods currently being used at FDA can take up to two weeks to isolate and identify pathogens in food samples. What is needed are quicker detection methods, or ``real time tests'' that yield results in approximately 60 minutes, to identify pathogenic contamination, especially at busy ports of entry. But currently, FDA is not funding research to develop these tests, nor do they have plans to develop these tests in the future. It is clear that FDA is lacking the necessary resources to regulate the global food marketplace. Unlike the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), FDA does not have the authority to deny product entry at the border or to permit imports only from agency approved suppliers in foreign countries. The GAO reported that FDA's procedures for ensuring that unsafe imported foods do not reach consumers are vulnerable to abuse by unscrupulous importers. According to GAO, some importers ignore FDA's orders to return, to destroy or to re-export their shipments. By the time FDA decides to inspect shipments, in some cases, the importers have already marketed the goods. In response to this crisis, the President has said FDA needs increased resources, more authority, and improved research and technology. The Imported Food Safety Act of 1998 addresses each of these points. This legislation provides additional resources in the form of a modest user fee on imported foods to increase the number of FDA inspectors at ports of entry in the U.S. Proceeds from the user fee would also be used for a ``Manhattan Project'' to develop ``real time'' tests (results within 60 minutes) to detect E. Coli, salmonella, and other microbial and pesticide contaminants in imported food. Without tests that produce quick results, there is no way FDA inspectors can detect pathogens in imported food before it is distributed to consumers. Finally, the legislation gives FDA authority, comparable to that of the USDA with respect to imported poultry and meat, to stop unsafe food at the border and to assure that is ultimate disposition is not America's dinner table. The Imported Food Safety Act of 1998 focuses on these three key areas: authority; research; and resources. Increased Regulatory Authority for FDA The recent GAO study of the imported food safety program points out that: ``In some cases, when the Food and Drug Administration decides to inspect shipments, the importers have already marketed the goods.'' ``[W]hen the [FDA] finds contamination and calls for importers to return shipments to the Customs Service for destruction or reexport, importers ignore this requirement or substitute other goods for the original shipment. Such cases of noncompliance seldom result in a significant penalty.'' FDA currently lacks the authority to impose criminal penalties on importers that circumvent FDA's import procedures. FDA reliance on the importers' bond agreement with Customs, has left the agency without an adequate economic deterrent to the distribution of adulterated products. Current penalties, namely the forfeiture of a bond, are inadequate and are regarded as a cost of doing business. Under the current bond system, GAO reports that ``even if the maximum damages had been collected, the importer would have still made a profit on the sale of the shipment.'' This bill would subject such behavior to tough penalties that will be a strong deterrent to circumventing the current regulatory system. These penalties are the same as those used by USDA in their imported meat inspection program. The bill would also prohibit an importer from commercially distributing foreign-produced food, without FDA approval. An importer whose food is refused entry by FDA would be responsible for the disposition of re-exportation of such food products. Failing to do so would make the importer subject to penalties under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Development of ``Real-Time'' Laboratory methods to Test for Pathogens to be Used in Border Inspections FDA wrote in a January 16, 1998 letter that there is a ``critical need for rapid, accurate methods to detect, identify and quantify pathogens in a wide variety of environments . . .'' The methods for detecting a wide range of bacterial, viral, and parasitic pathogens in or on fresh fruits and vegetables are limited . . .'' This bill would provide additional funds for research and development on test methods to detect E. coli, salmonella and other disease-causing microorganisms and pesticide residues in imported food, as it enters the U.S. and before it is distributed to the public. The bill requires FDA to devote resources to developing such tests within three years of the date of enactment. This funding will be in addition to FDA appropriated funds and will be collected through a modest, $20 per entry, user fee on imported food. User Fee for Imported Food This legislation also provides for a modest user fee to be paid to the FDA for each entry of foreign food imported into the U.S. It is clear that the current Majority in Congress is not prepared to appropriate funds needed to protect Americans from unsafe food. Funds for the President's food safety initiative were recently zeroed out at the Senate Appropriations Committee and in the House, the President's initiative received only a token funding level. A user fee on imported food, like the user fee in the Imported Food Safety Act, would ensure that FDA has much needed resources to protect American consumers from unsafe imported food. The proceeds from this user fee would be used to fund much needed research efforts on ``real time'' test methods for detecting pathogenic contaminants in food and to fund increased FDA efforts to inspect foreign fresh and packaged foods coming into the country. The U.S. imports approximately 2.7 million entries of food each year that are valued at approximately $36 billion. The bill provides that a per entry fee of no more than $20 would be imposed on food imports. This fee is not based on the value of a shipment of imported food. Instead, it is an amount based on the cost of processing and approving food imports, including the cost of sampling and testing. Country-of-Origin Labeling Finally, this bill requires country-of-origin labeling of all imported foods. Restaurants and other prepared-food service establishments are exempted from complying with the country-of-origin labeling requirement. We often forget that the toughest, and many times the best, regulators are America's consumers. This bill gives consumers information that allows them to make informed choices with respect to the conditions under which the food they buy is produced. Maintaining public confidence in the safety of the food supply is of paramount importance. People must be confident that the food they purchase and provide for themselves and their families is safe. Country-of-origin labeling will empower consumers, giving them greater information on which to base their food purchasing decisions. This is especially important in view of the now all too frequent outbreaks of food-borne illness. We need to focus our efforts on eradicating food-borne illness in this country. As our consumption of imported food continues to grow, we must find ways of ensuring that foreign produced food meets our health and safety standards. It simply is no longer acceptable for government to blame its failures on the increased volume of imports or the fact that detection methods are not available. FDA must be given the authority, the resources, and the responsibility to ensure that foreign produced foods get to the consumers of this country, if, and only if, they meet U.S. health and safety standards. The Imported Food Safety Act of 1998 would give FDA, for the first time, the authority, resources, and responsibility it needs to tackle this problem in a meaningful way. This is good public health policy, and the American people deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the amendment before us is a good one. And I want to commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) for their efforts on behalf of this, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). They had the vision to understand that this is a good approach. It is one which affords us an opportunity for doing something. Unfortunately, the way the situation has been crafted, we now find that we have another very important opportunity, and that is one which, in my view, is a better opportunity to address quickly the real problems we confront in terms of campaign financing. For that reason, I am going to vote ``present'' on the amendment that is offered by my good friends, and I do it with a great deal of regret. I have never done this in all the years that I have had the privilege of serving in this body, and it is with profound regret that do I that. But it is my view that Shays-Meehan is the best and most immediate tool that we have that is possible for us to use to correct the serious problems that we confront with regard to campaign financing. A little history: When I first ran for Congress some 40 years ago for $19,000, I beat 23 candidates, one of whom was former mayor of Detroit, and a sitting city councilman, a past Commander of the American Legion, and a large number of other influential citizens. Ten years later I beat an incumbent in his own district with $35,000. There is no way on God's green Earth, unless we reform this intolerable situation of campaign financing, that anybody will ever have that opportunity to do those kinds of things again. One of the most disgusting and degrading events that takes place in our life is the tremendous amount of money that we have to raise to hold this job. That is not something which I applaud. I think all my colleagues find this same thing equally distressing. I would tell my colleagues I intend to vote for the rule when it comes up, and I intend to support the idea that we should be able, at that time, to offer the commission bill to Shays-Meehan. Shays-Meehan offers us, with that amendment and without it, a superb opportunity to do something immediate about cleaning up the mess that is campaign financing in the United States. I want to commend my colleagues who worked with me on the commission bill. It was a bipartisan effort. Shays-Meehan is a bipartisan effort. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan effort to clean up the campaign situation in this country at the earliest possible moment and to do so through the device of supporting Shays-Meehan and then later to also support the rule and to support the bill with an amendment which we will offer, which will be supported by its sponsors, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to add the commission to it so that we can expand further what needs to be done in terms of cleaning up the campaign situation in this country. I do not want any of my colleagues to feel that in any way they are demeaned by this. This is one of the unfortunate choices that Members of Congress have to make because of the way the rules work in a situation where we have a large body, where the process is disorderly, and where, unfortunately, constraints and time are necessary in order for us to serve the public good.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad budget. It is a bad amendment to a bad budget. We Democrats are grateful that our Republican colleagues would bring up something like this, because it makes clear the differences between the parties: cuts in education, cuts for senior citizens, cuts in health, cuts for the environment, cuts for the protection of natural resources, cuts for things that are important to the little people of this country. That is what is in the budget that comes from over here, and that is what is in the substitute. It is only 51 days that we are late bringing this up. I can understand my Republican colleagues were probably ashamed to put this kind of travesty before this body. It is, however, something which makes very clear the difference between the two parties. It shows where our Republican friends are coming from. They are not interested in maintaining the agreement which we had last time on the budget, which has helped give us perhaps the greatest level of prosperity which we have had. They are not interested in preserving programs which are helpful and of value to the little people of this country. They want to cut the things which are investments in the future of this country, like education, protection of our natural resources, and things of this kind. We have not worked very hard this session. I think, perhaps, given the way this budget reflects the behavior of my Republican colleagues, that is probably a very good thing. There are a lot of things that we could be doing which would be helping the people. We could deal with the managed care problem. We could address the problem in Superfund. But, no, we are out here today cutting programs which are important to the people.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Istook Amendment. The First Amendment already guarantees the Nation religious freedom. Do we really need another guarantee? The Istook amendment is both unnecessary and dangerous. This Amendment is an attack on the balance struck by two centuries of jurisprudence on the separation of church and state. Indeed, this amendment would put American religious liberty at risk. It seems to me that the Founding Fathers thought a thing or two about religion. And they felt so strongly about it being a good thing that government should leave it alone--that it is a personal matter. Indeed, they told us that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' But today, proponents of this amendment want to make some law on the subject by changing the Constitution. I can only assume that many of the supporters of this language desire to further the Founding Fathers' notion that religion is good. However, that is where they part company. The Founding Fathers realized that an important, if not the most important aspect of any faith, is to have the freedom to pursue it as one desires. Indeed, it is curious to me that advocates of the virtues of this amendment would go about advancing religion in a fashion that would effectively force religion on Americans in many settings, including our students in their classrooms. Compulsion controverts freedom. Freedom is vital to our democracy. And that freedom is what has allowed religion to prosper here for all these years. Moreover, what seems to be most religiously constructive is for an individual, if at all, to come to a belief on one's own accord. This amendment would permit an opposite result. The result of this amendment would be that teachers, judges, generals, and wardens could hold prayer sessions with their respective audiences and limit such prayers to their own or the majority faith of the surrounding community. And it doesn't take much to see that, under this amendment, some actions would be permitted which heretofore have been limited by other powers under the Constitution. For example, could a group of high school students engage in sexual activity on school grounds because their particular faith has taken a literal interpretation of the Biblical passage in Genesis instructing humanity to go forth and reproduce? The answer under current law is clear: No. With the amendment, litigation could result because the students' acts might be protected from ``infringement'' or ``discrimination'' by this legislation. On the matter of prayer in the classroom, government-supported school prayer would make strangers of children who do not share the same beliefs as are being prayed in their own schools. Religious minorities, especially, would suffer. As a practical matter, it is nearly impossible for students who wish not to participate to feel comfortable leaving the classroom. Students will be whip-sawed: excuse yourself and feel ostracized or stay and feel uncomfortable. The prayers could be lead by government officials. Whose prayers could be required for your children? Bahai, Baptist, Catholic, Jewish, liberal, conservative, or Orthodox, Greek or Russian, Muslim, or Mormon. Already, current law allows for prayer and other religious expression in public schools. This amendment is unnecessary. Students' religious rights are already protected. They can pray individually or in groups and discuss religion in groups. In addition, under the Equal Access Act Congress passed more than a decade ago, schools must give extra- curricular student religious organizations ``equal access'' to space, time, and resources that is provided to non-religious groups. Regarding religious institutions, this amendment would permit, if not require, government funding. This is not a proper role of government. Government should not be medding in the affairs of institutions of faith or religion. It would violate the conscience of the American taxpayer who would not choose to support the religions that are aided in such fashion. Already, organizations that are religiously affiliated, like Catholic Charities, but which are not pervasively sectarian, can and do receive government grants for social programs as long as they do not advance religion or discriminate or the basis of religion. The amendment would allow taxpayer resources to go to persively religious institutions that would be able to use the funds for their own purposes. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution should only be amended in rare circumstances and only where necessary. My Republican colleagues view matters differently and propose amendments like this one for political purposes, after only one day of hearings. The reasoned and better approach is not to dismantle our Founding Fathers' wisdom in the Bill of Rights with this amendment. Ours is a proud experiment that has permitted religious freedom to flourish in this country, and we should not change that with a politically-motivated attack on that very freedom.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 3990, the ``Anti-Cramming Protection Act of 1998'' to protect the American public from those that perpetrate the unfair and anti-competitive outrage known as ``cramming.'' Crammers are companies that impose phantom charges on customers' telephone bills without their knowledge or consent. In this information age, consumers are increasingly turning to their telephones not only to communicate with their friends, family, and business associates, but as a device for engaging in electronic commerce. With this legislation, we can ensure that consumers have protections from those who would swindle them simply because they use their telephone. This legislation entitles consumers to have crammed charges dropped from their telephone bills if they dispute the charges within 90 days of receiving their telephone bill. The bill authorizes State Attorneys General to sue crammers under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act to protect consumers in their States from crammers. The bill requires the FTC to write rules to outlaw unfair and deceptive acts and practices in connection with billing for products or services on telephone bills. These rules would ensure that such charges are authorized by the consumer and are easily identifiable on the consumer's telephone bill. Also, subscribers would be permitted to block telephone billing of miscellaneous products and services at their own election. Finally, telephone companies would be authorized to discontinue billing on behalf of known crammers. Cramming is a spreading problem. Cramming is one of the most frequent sources of consumer complaints at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Moreover, since cramming is a relatively new breed of consumer fraud, existing law is inadequate to provide consumers needed protection. Since the FCC began recording cramming complaints in December, it has processed nearly two thousand complaints. Local telephone companies also have received thousands of complaints, and that number is rising rapidly. Worse, since crammed charges are usually undetected by the consumers who are victimized, many cases go unreported. Without tough legislation, the number of victims is certain to rise, and legitimate competition will be stifled. How do crammers get away with this trickery? Their creativity is boundless. For example, when a consumer dials a number to learn about a product, get sports scores, or hear their horoscope, their home telephone number is often captured through a number identification system. Crammers then use the telephone number to submit bogus charges to the consumer's local telephone company. Worse, crammers are not limited to finding victims through incoming calls. The white pages directory lists their potential prey in alphabetical order. Again, the crammer simply selects telephone numbers at random and submits bogus charges for billing. Some crammers use names on telephone bills that intend to mislead or confuse the consumer. They will call themselves ``F.C.C.'', for example, in an attempt to be mistaken for a government agency. Or they will use a name like ``Enhanced Services'' that may be mistaken for other legitimate charges the consumer has ordered. In addition, there is often a middleman involved that submits billing to the local telephone service provider on behalf of multiple vendors, further complicating matters for consumers who want to dispute a charge. These charges are typically in the $3 to $5 range in an attempt to fall below the consumer's radar screen. Of course, these charges add up. Many more choices are available to consumers today to make purchases of goods and services they want and need. Unfortunately these benefits also create many more opportunities for consumer confusion and fraud. Mr. Speaker, we need tough legislation to stop bad actors who are cramming bogus charges onto our constituents' phone bills. The ``Anti- Cramming Protection Act of 1998'' provides the tools needed to solve this problem.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure. This bill provides the vital funds necessary to rebuild Michigan's crumbling roads, bridges, and interstates, and I congratulate and thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for their work. This legislation also includes provisions within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. They address important public health and safety matters, and do so in a manner that is fully bipartisan. I want to commend and thank Chairman Bliley, Mr. Tauzin, and Mr. Bilirakis for their efforts on these issues. H.R. 2400 contains provisions reauthorizing the activities of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The legislation contains the funding level requested by the Administration, and does two other important things. One, it establishes a rulemaking for the next generation of motor vehicle occupant protection systems. This is designed to address the tragic problems we've seen with the current generation of airbags. Second, the legislation corrects some flaws and anomalies in the formula used for calculating the domestic parts content of motor vehicles. This provision will give consumers more accurate information about the origin of their vehicles. H.R. 2400 contains one other provision of special note. It will give States and communities certainty regarding the implementation of the new national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. These legislative provisions do not change Administration policy, nor do they address fundamental questions regarding these standards and their impact. They simply ensure that the Administration's schedule for these standards is met and that the necessary monitoring data will be gathered expeditiously without imposing any financial burden on the States. In addition, we included language in the Statement of Managers to ensure that Administrator Browner carefully considers the recent recommendations of the National Research Council regarding the national fine particle monitoring network which will be developed and deployed over the next two years. This group of independent scientists urged EPA to ensure that the plans for this monitoring program are thoroughly peer-reviewed at an early date, while such a review can still inform the monitoring-network design and operation. The Statement of Managers endorses this reasonable and prudent step and I fully expect EPA to take the necessary steps to ensure that all aspects of the development of this monitoring network are in fact subject to peer review. Beside making several minor technical changes, the Conferees made only one significant change to the original Inhofe Amendment as passed by the Senate. And that was to address an issue raised but not resolved by the Senate provision. Section 4102 not only calls for the establishment of a national network of fine particle monitors, it provides that areas will not be designated as nonattainment until States have the opportunity to review three years of data from these monitors. This guarantee was established by the President and adopted by EPA last summer. State submissions of programs to control fine particles are also delayed since they are triggered by the nonattainment designation process. However, EPA's proposed regional haze program could short-circuit this timing by requiring States to make decisions regarding the control of fine particles before the necessary technical information from the monitoring network is available. Why? Well, as Administrator Browner has testified: ``Like the new ambient air quality standards for fine particulates, the proposed rule for regional haze would similarly require the control of fine particulates.'' So since the two programs control the same pollutant and rest on the same technical information, even EPA has recognized that the two programs must be harmonized. To again quote Administrator Browner, ``it is our intention to manage the two together'' and ``not to have regional haze go first, but to actually combine them.'' These comments have been echoed by the Administrator and other EPA officials in other forums and in the Agency's official writings. However, there is a statutory glitch in EPA's efforts to harmonize the two programs. A provision in the Clean Air Act's visibility section requires State plans within one year after the visibility regulations are final. To address this statutory deadline, the Conferees added language to guarantee that the State submissions on regional haze will coincide with the State's fine particle submissions. As such, the provision implements EPA's stated policy regarding the timing issue. (I would add that the provision is not intended to endorse or ratify EPA's proposed regional haze program and the Conferees took no position on the legality or prudence of any portion of the proposed regulations.) Mr. Speaker, the Inhofe Amendment as modified by the Conferees represents a modest initial step to deal with the many issues raised by EPA's new air quality standards. I must promise with regret that this will not be the last time we will be before the House with legislation on this topic. Until that date, I urge members to support this first step.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation, as amended in response to an agreement between Chairman Young, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and myself. As agreed to, H.R. 512 will codify several existing practices of the Fish and Wildlife Service to make absolutely certain that property owners, local governments, concerned citizens, and Members of Congress are brought into the public comment and review process when a new wildlife refuge is added to our National Wildlife Refuge System using Land and Water Conservation Act funds. The compromise before us today is substantially different than the bill as reported by Committee. Had the reported measure been presented here for debate without amendment, I would have fought vigorously against its enactment. However, I am pleased to report to my colleagues that the bill as presented today does not create needless roadblocks in creating new refuges, will not tie the hands of the Fish and Wildlife Service in proceeding with land acquisition, and does not establish a new Congressional review and approval process for the creation of new wildlife refuges. Instead, H.R. 512 would enact a requirement that all environmental analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) be completed prior to acquisitions of new LWCF refuges, and that Members of Congress in affected areas be notified early in the acquisition process. Last year, through the sustained efforts of my dear friend, Chairman Young, Ranking Member George Miller and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, Congress approved long-overdue legislation to specify the mission and management direction of the Refuge System. The original text of H.R. 512 was deliberately left out of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act because of intense and broad opposition to what was rightly viewed as tying the hands of our Nation's refuge managers. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service has acknowledged isolated cases in which its personnel could have acted with more sensitivity and accountability to the local citizens and property owners within refuge acquisition boundaries. The Service has indicated to me that it has strong public participation policies in place when new wildlife refuges are created. I urge the Director and her subordinates to place a high priority on responsiveness in such cases, so that answers are provided, fears are allayed, and property owners can count on a positive relationship with their refuge system neighbors. Mr. Speaker, while the legislation before us today will not prevent every future complaint or problem, it will hopefully be a gentle reminder that citizens have every right and expectation to fair, prompt and just treatment by the Federal agencies that serve them. I hope that the passage of this bill will eliminate the need some have felt to legislate solutions to rather confined sets of problems on our National Wildlife Refuge System. As a Member of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, I take great pride in serving this body to assure that our wildlife refuges live up to the vision of their founder, President Theodore Roosevelt, when he created the first refuge almost a century ago. When writing legislation, we must keep the best interests of the whole system in mind. Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that the Fish and Wildlife Service is a modest-sized agency with a large and important mission, and that we are fortunate it provides the American taxpayers with a group of highly skilled, dedicated and motivated employees who take pride in preserving our Nation's ecological heritage. To my colleagues who never have visited a wildlife refuge in your home states, I urge you to do so, to meet your refuge managers and express your interest in helping form a strong partnership between your constituents and those who manage their wildlife refuges.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is a most curious exercise. We have a bill on the floor which says that any time we pass a law, we have to have a special vote in this House as to whether we are going to consider it if it is going to impose any unfunded mandates on any citizen. That means if we are going to tighten the law with regard to protecting people under the Food and Drug Act from unsafe food, drugs, cosmetics, or if we are going to deal with the problems of Superfund or brownfields, or if we are going to deal with the problems of water pollution, because it is going to cost money, we are going to have to have a special vote before we can consider those questions. It means any time that we do something that the people want that is going to protect their health, safety, or welfare, or any time we are going to do anything that is going to make life better for the people of this country, we are going to stop and have to have a special vote. Somebody over here, I think, assumes that this is going to be very helpful to them politically. Then along comes this curious amendment which says if you are going to do that, you do not have to have the vote if you have a tax cut in the bill. That is very strange. It does not say the tax cut has to go to the people. We are going to pay the cost. All it says is you are going to have a tax cut of approximately the same amount. Hardly good sense. It sort of smells of blackmail or something of that kind. But the hard fact of the matter is, it is not going to do anything that is going to be of any particular merit. It is just going to have another vote. The practical result of this legislation is that, where something is necessary to be done, we will probably have the extra vote. The process will be delayed. We will have a point of order, and we will have a huge wrangle about it, but nobody is going to be better by the result of this. The tax cut, which supposedly, if it is going to occur, can go to anybody. You give it to all the millionaires and say, millionaires, you do not have to pay any tax; and that way, we will have benefited the economy to offset a change in the food and drug laws to protect people from unsafe food, drugs, and cosmetics. The gentleman from Massachusetts is smart enough to have recognized this and to have offered an amendment which would address this. I hope that the House is wise enough to accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. It will benefit the legislation somewhat. The legislation will have less of a curiosity to it. It might even look a little better. But it is not going to benefit the operation of the House particularly, even as amended. The practical result of the amendment is going to be simply to eliminate a little bit of the obfuscation and, quite honestly, the stupidity of the bill as amended. The practical result of all this is going to be, however, that we are still going to have a bad bill. I know the House is probably going to vote for this because my Republican colleagues are going to go home and make speeches about it and tell everybody what a great job they did in amending the rules of the House by statute. That is a curious process, too, and I am sure they can explain that to their constituents, but I cannot. I do not think that their constituents, if they really will reflect on this, are going to come to the conclusion that this kind of convoluted relationship of a tax cut to the public interest is something which, in fact, is going to benefit either the country or the procedures of the House of Representatives. My counsel to the House, I know it is not going to be listened to on the Republican side of the aisle because they do not seem to listen to common sense on many days, but it is to simply observe that the amendment should be adopted, the bill should be rejected, and we should go about legislating in the fashion that hundreds of years of legislators have found serves the public interest without any nonsensical proposals of this type.