John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce concurrent resolution No. ______ to encourage the use of federally-supported research findings surrounding the impact of untreated sleep disorders and sleep deprivation on the nation's health, safety and economy. Studies show that Americans are chronically sleep deprived. According to a report by the National Commission on Sleep Disorders Research, approximately 40 million Americans suffer from some 80 identified sleep disorders and millions more intermittent sleep problems linked to depression, stress, pain, and other ailments. According to the National Sleep Foundation, two-thirds of adult Americans get far less sleep than the eight hours they need to maintain proper alertness during the day due partially to demanding lifestyles. The pervasive sleep deprivation is taking a toll on the nation's health and productivity as sleepiness affects vigilance, mood, alertness, motor skills, and the memory of people in both the home and the workplace. Fatigue all too often has deadly consequences, causing at least $100,000 police-reported crashes on our nation's highways every year and contributing to other transportation and industrial disasters. Although, fatigue and sleep deprivation is estimated to cost Americans $100 billion each year. The National Sleep Foundation's recent poll found that 57% of Americans have driven when drowsy during the past year. 23% of adults have actually fallen asleep at the wheel in the past year. Obviously, sleep deprivation is a major concern in our homes, our work places and on our highways. To address these serious concerns, the National Sleep Foundation, a variety of organizations, federal agencies and companies have initiated a program called National Sleep Awareness Week during March 30-April 5 to raise awareness of the importance of good sleep and the consequences of insufficient sleep in the home, workplace and on the highway. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting their efforts and to work toward ensuring that proper attention is given to chronic sleep deprivation and fatigue by policy makers, medical care practitioners, researchers, and educators.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much of this body's valuable time so I will be brief. I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Brown, and particularly Mr. Ortiz, in support of the enactment of S. 419, the Birth Defects Prevention Act. This important public health measure should provide significant dividends by reducing preventable birth defects. I am disappointed to think how much more good this bill would have done had it been enacted when first proposed by my good friend and distinguished colleague, Mr. Ortiz. He should take justifiable pride in his work on this bill. Thousands of healthy babies will be born in the future whose lives would have been far different if not for my colleague's efforts. When these babies grow up they will not know to thank him, nor should they. Such is the nature sometimes of the work we do here. Although a regrettable situation in Texas involving children born with spina bifida demonstrated the need for this legislation, the Birth Defects Prevention Act will have powerful and positive benefits everywhere in America. The heart wrenching statistics on birth defects have been vividly set forth by my colleague, Mr. Ortiz, and by my other colleagues who have spoken in favor of this bill. The collection of surveillance data and epidemiological research to study the incidence of birth defects and their causes will lead directly to the design and implementation of prevention programs. Two leading causes of preventable birth defects, spina bifida and fetal alcohol syndrome, will be among those targeted for public and professional information and education programs. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a fitting capstone to the strong leadership and sustained effort on this issue by the gentleman from Texas and others. I commend him and my other colleagues here and in the other body for their superb efforts and I am delighted to join with Mr. Ortiz and the rest of my colleagues in support of this important legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the state of Hungary and Hungarian-Americans everywhere in commemorating the 150th anniversary of the 1848 Hungarian revolution. In 1848 revolution swept through the European continent. By March of that year, the revolutionary sentiments had spread to Hungary, which was ruled by the Austrian Habsburg empire. On March 3 legendary Hungarian patriot Louis Kossuth made a monumental speech, dubbed the ``inaugural address of the revolution''. Kossuth's speech enumerated 12 sweeping reforms that reflected some of the most progressive ideas of the age, such as a reduction of feudal rights and the emancipation of the peasants. This declaration struck an immediate chord with the Hungarian people. The reforms immediately spurred the Austrian people to demand similar rights, and on March 13 a full-fledged revolution broke out in Vienna. On March 15, while Kossuth was in Vienna presenting his 12 points to the Habsburg monarchy, students in Budapest armed only with Kossuth's reforms seized control in what has come to be known as the bloodless revolution. The following day the Hungarian delegation, led by Kossuth, submitted Hungary's demands before Emperor-King Ferdinand. The Austrian monarch quickly agreed to the points, prompting the Hungarian Diet to put the revolutionary reforms into effect. Thus, Hungary's future was forever influenced as the result of a peaceful, lawful revolution. The Hungarian Diet immediately began to work nonstop to pass new laws. By April the Diet had passed 31 progressive measures, which essentially amounted to a new constitution. These ``April laws'' attempted to provide for the needs of a nation moving towards modernization. Unfortunately, Hungarians did not have long to experience * * * government were intent on squashing any semblance of Hungarian independence. On September 10, Baron Jelacic, with encouragement from the Habsburgs, led 40,000 Croatian troops across the Hungarian frontier. Hungary, led by Kossuth, was in the process of building up its army, and initially lost several battles to the invaders. Finally, General Arthur-Gorgey, who was to become one of Hungary's greatest generals, was given control of the Hungarian army. By April 1849 Gorgey's military brilliance and the tremendous bravery of the elite Hungarian Honved troops had driven all of the invaders out of Hungary, and Hungary had officially declared its independence from Austria. The Habsburg's were humiliated and forced to call on Russian Czar Nicholas I for assistance in bringing the now independent Hungary back under Austrian control. As a result, Hungary's independence was short- lived because in June, 1849, a joint Austrian-Russian offensive overwhelmed the valiant Hungarian defenders. On August 13, Gorgey's forces laid down their arms before the Russians at Vilagos. Kossuth was forced to flee his beloved homeland and would live the rest of his life travelling the world to gain support for Hungary's cause. In a speech made prior to his departure, Kossuth said, ``My principles were those of George Washington. I love you, Europe's most loyal nation.'' Although, the Hungarian revolution of 1848 did not end in prolonged independence for Hungary, it did result in at least one very noble achievement. The revolution prevented the Austrian government from revoking the emancipation of the peasants and all other unfree persons in the Habsburg's empire. For this historic accomplishment and for striving towards the ideal of the American Revolution, Hungarians and Americans of Hungarian decent should always be proud. I join with the strong Hungarian-American population in the downriver communities to celebrate the Hungarian revolution of 1848, truly an important turning point in the history of the Hungarian nation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a most extraordinary event. We are, without any hearings whatsoever, naming an airport after a President in opposition to the wishes of the people in the area. The most remarkable thing is that we are taking an airport named after the first President of the United States, one of the greatest of Americans living and dead in the entire history of the country, but who is apparently not appreciated sufficiently to allow that airport to be named after him. As a young boy I knew the man who built that airport. He was a Virginian, a student of history, and he was a man who was determined that he would name that airport after one of the greatest Americans of our history, Clinton M. Hester. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he made the inaugural speech with regard to that particular airport's dedication, mentioned President Washington not once but twice. Washington lived just down the road and owned lands around that airport. The extraordinary thing about the whole business is, however, that we are naming an airport which was given by the Federal Government on a long-term lease to an authority. We literally have no ability and no authority and no control over that land, because it was planned when we gave that land to the authority that they would have entire control over the function and operation of that airport in all its particulars. We are removing the name of our greatest President from that airport. We are adding another President. I think it is fine that we should honor President Reagan. He is and was a great man. But I do not believe that this is a suitable honor for him. It raises a controversy which, very frankly, besmirches his name, which stands in the way of carrying out the intention of the original creators of that airport, and which leaves us in a situation where we are doing something that we really do not have the authority to do. If something needs to be named after President Reagan, let us search for it and let us come about it in a bipartisan way. The Democrats stand ready to assist in that kind of undertaking.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have the sad duty to make an announcement to the House jointly with my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown). It is our sad duty to announce the death of our former colleague and dear friend, the Honorable John Moss from California. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my dear friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown); and then we will have further comments at a time later.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), the dean from the California Democratic Delegation; and I want to express my personal sorrow and grief at this event and also to extend the commiserations and condolences of myself and my wife, Deborah, to John's wonderful widow Jean and to his daughters, Jennifer and Alison, and to his four grandchildren. As mentioned by the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), John Moss was a man of enormous vigor, great courage, enormous energy, who maintained a real sense of responsibility to the people he served and also a sense of outrage about wrongdoing. He served in the House from 1953 to 1978; and I had, with the exception of 2 of those years, the privilege of sitting next to him on the Committee on Commerce, where he was a chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and where he was also the chairman of other subcommittees with important responsibilities. He has left us a great heritage, protection of consumers, not the least of which by the Consumer Product Safety Act. He also was one who believed in open government; and he was the author of the Freedom of Information Act, which he led the fight to see enacted. He also was the author of the Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act and scores of other pieces of legislation of importance to the people of this country. His action with regard to the Freedom of Information Act was something which led to open government in which people could have reason to trust not only their government but that their interests were fully and properly considered and cared for. His wife Jean and he had a great romance, and they greatly loved each other and had a long and happy life together. John, as I mentioned, served from 1953 to 1978. He died on December 5, 1997. He was a great American, a real patriot, a distinguished Member of this body, a great public servant, and a man whom we will all miss. He was also a man whose contributions to the well-being of this country and to the dignity and to the effectiveness of this institution were great indeed. We will miss him, we will pray for his soul, and we extend our condolences and sorrow to his dear wife Jean and to his daughters Jennifer and Allison.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 3050, the Slamming Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 1997 to protect the American public from an unfair, unscrupulous and anticonsumer practice known as slamming. The perpetrators of this type of rascality switch a consumer's choice of long distance or local telephone service providers to their own service without the consumer's knowledge or consent. With this legislation, consumers finally will be able to fight back against slammers. The measure will allow consumers to receive a full refund for any charges or shield them from liabilities incurred as a result of slamming. Consumers will be able to recover up to three times their actual damages for intentional violations, in addition to the monetary penalties this bill imposes upon any person or telephone carrier and their agents who slam. Additionally, the legislation sets a deadline for the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] and the Federal Trade Commission [FTC] to set rules that will protect consumers from slamming. The FCC rules will ensure that any consumer switch of carrier is verified, while the FTC rules will prohibit unfair and deceptive acts and practices used in connection with switching a consumer's choice of service. Slamming is a spreading epidemic. It is the single largest source of consumer complaints at the FCC. In 1995 alone, slamming represented more than a third of the complaints consumers registered at the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau. The number of slamming complaints processed by the FCC has nearly doubled from 1995 to 1997. Moreover, the number of slamming complaints processed by the FCC to date in this calendar year, 16,440, represent nearly half of all the complaints, 34,557, that have been processed by the agency this year. The telephone industry estimates that approximately 2 million slamming incidents occur each year in the United States, with the bulk of these slams undetected or unreported by consumers. And there is no doubt these numbers will continue to grow unless adequate protections are put in place. The current regulations against slamming are simply inadequate. There is little incentive for consumers to bring a lawsuit or file a complaint with the FCC. The higher phone bills borne by slammed consumers often pales in comparison to the cost of suing for recovery. This bill will correct that anomaly. Moreover, under the current rules, if a consumer files a complaint with the FCC, he or she is only entitled to receive the difference between what was paid to the slammer and what would have been paid to the authorized carrier. In other words, lengthy involvement in an administrative proceeding yields too little, too late. The FCC has been ineffective in protecting consumers from slammers. It has been nearly 2 years since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the agency still has not promulgated effective rules to protect consumers. Despite the growing problem, the FCC has settled disputes with only a handful of slammers resulting in injunctions and fines. While these fines were paid into the U.S. Treasury, the consumer who was defrauded never received a dime. The people in my home State of Michigan are particularly hard hit by slammers. Michigan ranks eighth overall in the number of State and Federal slamming complaints. But slamming respects no State lines. Slammers prey upon victims of all kinds, although minorities and non- English speaking consumers are frequent targets. These slammers act in nefarious ways: sign here and you will be eligible for valuable and exciting prizes. The only thing valuable and exciting accrues to the slammer. The consumer unwittingly authorizes a change in their telephone carrier while under the impression that he or she has simply entered a contest. Or, the consumer receives a welcome package or other promotional mailing at home that says if you do not sign here or return the enclosed card, your service will be switched. Or telemarketing firms, driven by commissions, forge consumer authorizations or develop even wilder schemes to skim cash from the American public. Mr. Speaker, we need tougher laws against slamming. The American public should have the tools to fight back against these bad actors. The Slamming Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 1997 will provide those tools.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as my good friend and colleague, the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, has observed, I have conducted probably more hearings of an investigative character than anybody in this body. Never have I been inhibited, nor has our committee ever been inhibited, by the presence of the rule before us. We were always able to get the facts out, and the media, regardless of whether they were print or electronic, were always able to get the story back to the American people about what was going on and what the witness said. The whole verbatim testimony can be made available through any of the media. The only thing is that we preserve some small shred of dignity to the individual who appears before a congressional committee to say, I do not want to be photographed here by cameras from the stills or movies or other kinds of electronic cameras, and to be protected in that right. He can be photographed going in; he can be photographed going out. All the media is present in the room and can take down his testimony verbatim and publish it the following day or that same day. They can put it on the 5, 6, 10 or 11 o'clock news. The witnesses who appear before him and after him can be photographed in full. I do not think that this is too much to ask, because what it is really about here is decency. Never, as I mentioned, have we been thwarted in getting the full facts. This rule that is now in place was put in place at the suggestion of a Republican Member in the House, the future leader in the Senate, Hugh Scott, when the Republicans last controlled this body. It was because of the unseemly spectacle of Congressional investigations, where Members of Congress abused and bullied and harassed witnesses, and when irresponsible charges were made about the loyalty of decent and law-abiding citizens, and when the reputations of ordinary Americans were destroyed. We are not talking about, I remind you, about getting the full facts. The full facts will come out. The media will have full access to the facts and full participation in the process. The only thing is some small shred of decency will be afforded to the individuals. Hearsay testimony is permitted in investigations. Members of Congress can say or do anything in the course of a hearing, regardless of how false, slanderous, defamatory or outrageous it might happen to be. It should be noted that the whole matter finally came to an end when the counsel for the Army appeared before a Senate committee, Mr. Joseph Welch, and he had to say it. Senator McCarthy had made one more outrageous accusation, at this time about a member of Welch's law firm, and Welch looked the Senator in the eye and he simply said, ``Have you no decency, sir?'' I think that that is really the question. It is not about rights of the public to know. The public will know. The public will have the story reported to them in full, in extraordinary detail. The public will understand. The individual will have some small shred of decency afforded to him. The witnesses before him and after him will be heard. The public can make an intelligent choice. Never, never, never in all the 14 years that I have run investigative committees have we in any way been inhibited from getting the story to the American people. They can know, they should know, and they will know, under the current rules. This is unnecessary. Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight debating a change of the House Rules because the Rules Committee and members of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee want to repeal a rule protecting the right of a witness subpoenaed to appear before Congress. The current rule allows a subpoenaed witness to request that cameras and broadcast microphones be turned off. All members of the press, both broadcast and print, may remain at the hearing and report on the hearing, much like they would report on a trial that has no TV cameras present. The hasty repeal of a rule that dates back to 1970, and has its genesis in the post-McCarthy era, is wrong. I have probably conducted more investigative hearings than any current Member of Congress, and I can state categorically that this rule is rarely invoked and has never thwarted a full investigation into the truth, nor a full reporting of the facts. I know of no reason why this rule is being rushed to the floor. Television media are not disadvantaged by this rule. Reporters may stay in the room and report exactly what occurred in the hearing. They may report the testimony verbatim, just as print journalists may. Yes, we do give the right to turn off the camera to the witness who is forced against his or her will to be here, but there is a good reason. The rule protecting a witness from unwanted cameras was first proposed by then-Representative and future Senate Republican Leader Hugh Scott in 1954 when Republicans last controlled the House. At that time, the unseemly spectacle of Senator Joseph McCarthy calling in dozens of American citizens, some famous and some not, before a national television audience to defend their reputations was fresh in the public's mind. Three years later, in 1957, a young researcher called before the House Un-American Activities Committee committed suicide, because, as he wrote in his suicide note, he had a ``fierce resentment of being televised.'' On one occasion at a hearing I conducted, a witness, Michael Milken, requested that the cameras be turned off. I immediately honored the request. He was represented by the late Edward Bennett Williams, my former law professor, and a man I deeply respected. He had explained the reasoning behind this witness right in his 1962 book, One Man's Freedom: ``The average person is extremely nervous when he appears before any court or committee. It is unfair to ask him to appear before the entire country as well.'' We do not need a return to the McCarthy excesses of the 1950's, nor a repeat of the tragedy of 1957. Along with all Americans I want openness in government, but the American people are also sensitive to the possible consequences of an unrestrained media force on individuals who do not want this attention. A witness who is forced to appear before a committee of Congress has very few rights. He may not confront his accusers through cross- examination. Objections to questions may be easily overruled by the chairman. Hearsay testimony is permitted. Under the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution, Members of Congress may say anything during the course of a hearing, even if it is false, slanderous, or defamatory. The purpose of the rule that is being repealed is to show that the Congress does, in fact, respect the individual. It shows that whether or not the Constitution provides a right to some form of privacy, that the Congress respects the right of an individual not to be improperly harassed. There was a time in our not too distant past when certain Congressmen and Senators forgot about the importance of showing respect to the individual. We should not forget those terrible McCarthy hearings, which brought such disrespect upon the Congress. The American people intuitively knew what was taking place was wrong, but it took the eloquent words of the counsel to the Senate committee, Joseph Welch to say it. When Senator McCarthy had made yet one more accusation, this time about a member of Welch's law firm, Welch look the Senator in the eye, and simply said, ``Have you no decency, sir at long last?'' That is what this rule is about--simple decency. It is a recognition that whether the Congress has nearly limitless power to investigate, simple rules of decency must apply. Maybe the individual is afraid of cameras; maybe the individual has a disability; maybe the individual has a religious objection to cameras. It matters not what the reason is. The existing rule is a statement that this House will conduct itself with a respect of the individual. It is the one rule that a single individual may invoke. No majority of the committee can override this rule. In the end, the benefits of the rule will go not just to the individual, but to the Congress itself, because if we are not seen as fair, as respectful, and decent, we only hurt the respect for this institution. The Congress has already voted that the investigative phase of allegations of misconduct by Members before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will be conducted without the cameras running. Should not every American have the same right as a Member of Congress? Vote no on this dangerous return to our past.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy]. (Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think we are witnessing an extraordinary event in this Congress and, indeed, almost in any Congress. In the closing days of the session, with the usual tensions and mischief that exist, we are finding great enthusiasm on a very fine piece of legislation which started out rather under a dark star and which, through some remarkable cooperation, has come to the point where we have not only agreement but firm agreement on a good bill, something which is going to help manufacturers, help the economy, to help the consumers and patients. It is going to help the medical profession, it is going to make Americans safer, and it is going it see to it that good drugs, safe and efficacious, come more quickly to the marketplace. It is also going to see to it that the other responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration are conducted in a more efficient and speedy fashion. It shows what real bipartisanship can do when Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle get together and when there can be the kind of cooperation and goodwill there was in the conduct of this particular negotiation. The result is a fine piece of legislation, one which will benefit the country, one which will benefit the industry, one which will make for better government, and one which will do something else, and that is to protect the consumer and see to it that we get to the American people the best drugs in the fastest and safest and the most assured fashion. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], for his fine leadership in this matter. And I want to express my personal thanks and that of the Members on this side of the aisle to Kay Holcombe for the superb job that she has done in preparing this piece of legislation for consideration today. I also am grateful to Secretary Shalala, Dr. Friedman, and the excellent FDA staff for their assistance. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, our goal in reforming Food and Drug has been to benefit patients and people. We can talk about a lot of things, but when we get right down to it, the question is keeping people safe, seeing to it that foods, drugs, cosmetics, devices and other things which are regulated by Food and Drug which are absolutely essential to the life of people are safe and that they come quickly to market. The bill does a number of things. First, it reauthorizes the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. This is a program that has given FDA the resources needed to approve drugs in a way that none of us would have anticipated 10 years ago. Today, new drugs are reviewed by FDA in a year or less. Drugs essential for people with serious and life- threatening illnesses are reviewed in 6 months or less. This is enormous progress. The bill authorizes a clinical trials data bank that would be established through the National Library of Medicine at NIH. Patients with serious illnesses will be able to get critical information about experimental therapies being tested in clinical trials. The bill codifies a number of procedures that FDA developed over the years to expand access to experimental drugs and medical devices to people with serious illnesses and emergency situations through so- called expanded access protocols. Market incentives are included in this bill to encourage companies to produce pediatric studies of drugs, so that the labeling of these products will be useful to pediatricians. Today, most of these drugs prescribed for children have no proper pediatric label. The bill remedies this situation. I expect the FDA will use this new authority carefully to avoid detrimental impact on the availability of generic drugs. The medical device provisions of the legislation have been the most controversial and difficult. I am pleased that the conference report includes provisions based on a careful consideration of two goals: Expediting the availability of new, sophisticated products; and protecting patients from medical devices that are either unsafe or not effective. The bill gives the FDA the ability to streamline its evaluation of medical devices, but without compromising its ability to make absolutely sure that the products are safe, that they work the way they are supposed to be, and are labeled properly. I am also pleased the conference report retains two significant provisions from the House bill. One makes certain FDA will not be forced to approve a product the agency knows the manufacturer cannot make according to good manufacturing practices. The second ensures that FDA can evaluate all aspects of a new medical device, not just the ones that the manufacturer chooses to include in the label. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that while we are busy reforming the Food and Drug Administration, we put a number of burdens on the agency and that the potential to interfere with the review and approval of new products is real. I am also concerned that the speed which is required may have an element of risk for the consuming public for patients and for people involved in health care. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend and thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], for his excellent work on this important legislation and for his leadership in what has been a truly bipartisan effort. In addition, the work of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], was essential to the success of the effort, as were the labors of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield]. Our Senate colleagues, Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, and Coats worked very hard. The staff of the committee, Howard Cohen, Eric Berger, Roger Currie, and the staff of the conferees, Kevin Brennan, Paul Kim, Emmett O'Keefe, Pattie DeLoache, Alyson Neuman, Beth Hall, Mora Guarducci, and Tim Taylor were valuable and important in the accomplishments of this legislation, as were the tireless efforts of David Meade and Peter Goodloe of House Legislative Counsel and Elizabeth Aldrich of Senate Legislative Counsel. I want to refer to the work done by my dear friend and our valuable staff member, Kay Holcombe, who will be leaving us at the end of this year. Simply put, without her labors, we would not have achieved the consensus FDA bill that we have before us today. It took a great deal of effort on her part, her unquestioned integrity, her considerable intelligence, her extensive expertise, and her legislative tenacity to help us get to the point where we are. The legislation is a fitting capstone to the labors of all who have participated, but especially to Kay's distinguished career in public service and her 4 years with the staff of the Democratic part of the committee. Her retirement is a loss to all. This is a fine piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, there is a funny thing about nuclear waste and other kinds of waste, too. Everybody wants somebody to pick it up and they never want them to put it down anywhere. We have a massive problem in this Nation. How are we going to resolve the problem we have with regard to high level and low level nuclear waste? The answer is, we have got to begin somewhere. The bill before us is a good bill. Every Member of Congress who has dealt with or thought about this issue has been frustrated about the fact that we have not dealt with the problem. Money collected for the purpose of dealing with the question of storage has been dissipated by the budgeteers and by the Committee on Appropriations. This bill addresses that problem. It solves it. The bill goes further. The bill addresses the problem of where we are going to set up an interim storage place. That is important. I will assure my colleagues that it is interim because, in the process of considering this legislation, we have seen to it that there is not enough money for them to store enough of this waste that it can become a permanent storage facility. I am aware of the concerns of my colleagues on that matter because they are important. The bill does not impose any new protections on the carriers or the transporters of nuclear waste that have not been a part of the protection of every nuclear contractor since the beginning of the program for nuclear power in this country, same as under Price- Anderson. I assure my colleagues that the Department of Transportation and the Department of Energy will see to it that this is moved safely. If Members look at the casks and the carriers and the rules, they will find that they afford an abundance of protections. I would think that probably the worst thing that would happen, if we have some kind of an accident involving one of these vehicles, we would find that they had cracked the pavement because that is how strongly constructed the carriage devices and how strongly constructed the containers are. We have to resolve the problem. The bill provides reasonable environmental protections for everybody who is concerned, the best that could be crafted. But it resolves an issue which is a matter of great concern to the Nation. I am troubled that my friends from Nevada are not pleased with this legislation. The hard fact of the matter is, the studies that have gone on so far have come up with about the best place. That is an area of which we have had not only extensive studies of geology and safety and terrain stability and water, but also an area in which there have been extensive use of nuclear explosives, I think unwisely, but nonetheless have done so. And the result will be that the best possible protection for everybody can be done and will be done under this legislation. I want to commend my dear friend, the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan Schaefer], the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] and, of course, the chairman of the full committee for the work which they have done to bring us to the point where we are today. This is a good bill. It is a step along a long and difficult route to resolve an important question which is troubling everybody and which is causing huge problems for the Nation. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I have long been frustrated with the pace of DOE's efforts, and the lack of any meaningful progress, toward opening a permanent repository for nuclear waste. I have spoken previously about my keen disappointment that there appears to be no way to recover the billions--literally billions--of dollars in ratepayer contributions to the Nuclear Waste Fund which the Budget Committee has siphoned off and used for wholly unrelated purposes. I regret to say that, despite our best efforts here today, this Congress is not in a position to remedy all of the problems afflicting DOE's waste program. Nor can we guarantee that the repository will open on a date certain. However, the bill before us is a marked improvement over current law. It is a bipartisan bill that passed the committee by a vote of 43 to 3. At this time let me thank Chairman Tom Bliley for his hard work on this important issue. I also want to congratulate my colleagues--Chairman Schaefer, Ranking Member Hall, and Congressmen Towns, Crapo, Hastert, and Upton--for their contribution in working through some of the hard questions and introducing H.R. 1270. This bill incorporates the following important provisions: First, and foremost, the bill reforms the funding basis for the waste program, and ensures that every dollar contributed by ratepayers will be spent on the nuclear waste program--and nothing else. By transforming utility payments for nuclear waste into a user fee, the substitute puts an end to the diversion of these funds and ensures they will be applied exclusively for their intended purpose--the Yucca Mountain project. Second, the substitute authorizes an appropriate interim storage facility. This facility will open in 2002, and will accept waste at nearly twice the rate DOE projects under its acceptance schedule. This is the least we can do, given the tardiness of the current program. At the same time, however, it is essential that interim storage not become a de facto substitute for the permanent repository. In recognition of this, the substitute limits the capacity of the interim storage facility to about half of what the repository will accept--so that a healthy constituency remains for completing work on a permanent disposal facility. Third, we cannot escape the fact that building two facilities simultaneously costs more than building one. If we direct DOE to build interim storage at the same time it is building the repository, we also must ensure adequate funding for both facilities. Therefore, the bill permits an increase in the annual 1 mill per kilowatt-hour fee during peak construction years. However, ratepayers will pay no more in the long run because any such increase must be offset by lower fees in other years--so that the average annual fee over the next 12 years is no more than 1 mill. In order to provide additional assurance to ratepayers, utilities, State regulators that annual use fees will not spike dramatically, the bill imposes a 1.5 mill annual cap. In summary, this bipartisan bill will make a number of important changes in the nuclear waste program that will protect our consumers and our environment. I urge its passage.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join with my colleague from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], to urge our colleagues to cosponsor the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 1997. This legislation seeks to ensure that women and doctors--not insurance company bureaucrats--decide how long a woman who has a mastectomy should remain in the hospital. For any woman, learning that she has breast cancer is one of her most frightening experiences. Learning she must have a mastectomy, a surgical procedure that will alter her body and her life, can be devastating. For an insurance company to dictate to a woman, facing one of life's greatest challenge, that she must leave the hospital whether she is ready or not, is the ultimate insult. Late last year, I came to a more precise understanding of the trauma a woman faces when she learns she must have a mastectomy. A member of my staff in Michigan, Connie Shorter, practically awoke 1 day to the stunning and agonizing reality that she had cancer. As if physical and psychological pain of the disease were not already too much to cope with, soon Connie would discover the pain of a process which neither she nor her doctor could control. Earlier this year, Ms. Shorter was asked to the White House to join with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in relating the difficulties associated with drive-thru mastectomies. There are no words better than Connie's own as she told her story to the First Lady: What makes this awful situation worse is that I was discharged eight hours after two major surgeries. I was appalled to learn that this is routine, and I learned very quickly why. Being sent home only a few hours after surgery was not because of my medical condition or because of my doctor's specific recommendation. Coming home was not easy. From the moment a woman walks in the hospital door in the morning for her unwanted mastectomy, until she is wheeled out that afternoon, she feels she has been through one of the world's most painful physical and psychological wars, a very personal loss and incredible physical battle * * * after my experience, I could not feel more strongly that a woman and her doctor are the only two people who should decide when she should leave the hospital after surgery. Every medical specialty organization in this country challenges the right of insurance companies to interfere in the decision of what treatment is medically necessary or appropriate for a patient. Whether that patient is a young woman giving birth to a baby, or having surgery to treat breast cancer, the insurer has no right to be in the middle, between the patient and the doctor. And in no case should a patent be sent home less than 24 hours after a mastectomy so that an insurance company or hospital can save money. Representative DeLauro and I, along with many other Members, placed this issue on the table at the end of the last session because we wanted every Member of this body to think about this matter before the convening of the 105th Congress. We spent several months researching the best, most effective way to accomplish the goals we laid out last year. This legislation is consistent with the Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance reform bill and with the MOMS bill passed last Congress, providing 48-hour maternity stays. H.R. 135 goes where many angels have feared to tread, into the hallowed halls of a well-heeled industry that is trying to make cost, rather than care, the driving principle of our health care system. This legislation just says ``no.'' It says to anyone who is not the patient or the patient's doctor: ``No, you may not dictate when a patient must leave the hospital.'' Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to report that almost a year after her surgery, Connie Shorter is a breast cancer survivor, and remains a vital and effective member of my senior staff. More important, she remains a loving, caring and giving spouse, mother, and grandmother, and we all expect her to continue in all these roles for a very long time. As Connie's story reveals, the devastation of breast cancer is too great to allow Congress to ignore the risks of inadequate medical care. The difficulties, both physical and psychological, associated with mastectomy are too complex. This legislation seeks to ensure that insurance snafus and mindless refusals do not make these difficult situations impossible. Today, H.R. 135 has almost 200 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. In addition, a nationwide campaign on the Interned has begun to push us to give this bill and other crease cancer legislation the hearings they deserve. I urge my colleagues who have not already cosponsored this legislation to do so now, and express the hope that Congress will listen to respond to the women of America who seek better and more reliable treatment for breast cancer.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is an extraordinary day. My Republican colleagues are trying to federalize a whole bunch of State activities and State procedures and to impose Federal law both on the subject of rights and on the subject of procedure upon local units of government, a remarkable activity in view of all the talk I have heard on this side about devolution. Here are the questions that are potentially to be brought into the Federal court. Whether a community is going to permit a house of ill- repute, a place for nude dancing or adult book stores to be established in a particular area, whether there will be glue factories, slaughterhouses, nuclear waste dumps or hazardous waste dumps or, indeed, ordinary municipal dumps established at a particular place. These are hardly rights that should be litigated in a Federal court. This includes whether bars, crack houses, opium dens and places where narcotics, illegal drugs and illegal activities of all sorts are conducted. The question of whether activities which constitute a clear public nuisance, as interpreted by the States and the local units of government, will be permitted in a particular area, and if the person or the entrepreneur who wishes to engage in these kinds of activity feels he is not going to get fair treatment in a State court or in the State-administered procedure, he rushes to Federal court where the Federal judiciary has then got to take up the important question, for example, of whether nude dancing should be permitted near a church or whether a bar may be located within 100 yards of a school or whether some other kind of action, long known and long viewed as being noxious and obnoxious to the public interest and to the concerns of the people in the area will be permitted. And it will be done in Federal Court, not the State court, not in the court where people are closest to the people in the community. Now, the Constitution protects the rights of all, the property rights and other rights. There is a long history of how these rights are protected in State and Federal court, and there is an intelligent and a sensible way in which these questions have been and can be reviewed. The procedure and the jurisprudence is clear. The courts have defined this process for years, and the process is defined to protect the property owner, to permit him to use his property in an intelligent and beneficial manner. It is, however, also arranged so that the rights of honest citizens who might live in the neighborhood will receive protection. Now, let us vision this. An individual wishes to create a deep injection well into the subsoil. The citizens object. The question under this legislation is federalized. Citizens cannot go through the normal procedure. And the result is that the Federal courts all of a sudden have a question of great local concern without any real awareness or any real sentiment of closeness to the people who are involved. Is that a good result? Is that the result we want? And is that a result which we want at a time my Republican colleagues are telling us how important it is that these matters should be decided at the local level? I think this is insane. The question of whether or not the local governments are proceeding correctly now under the laws and the Constitution is settled, clear, understood and sound jurisprudence. They decide the question on the basis of appropriate proceedings where all parties are afforded an opportunity to be heard, then the matter can be elevated and is subject to suitable and appropriate judicial review. And the people in the process, if they deal with it incorrectly, either in the administrative process or in the courts, the courts then are subject to having the matter reviewed in Federal court. This is sensible, intelligent protection of the rights of all. But remember that we are addressing questions which involve a difficult balancing of the rights of the property owner and the rights of the citizen. What my colleagues are saying to the citizens, if we adopt this legislation, is that the question of whether a nuclear waste dump or a slaughterhouse or a glue factory or a rendering plant or a nuclear waste dump or a house of ill repute is now a matter of Federal concern; that a bar or a place where illegal activities are a public nuisance, or a place where nude dancing is permitted is a question that is an essential Federal right that goes immediately to the Federal courts for consideration by the Federal judiciary. I think this is the worst and most intolerable kind of invasion of the rights of communities, the rights of States and the rights of ordinary citizens that this body could construct.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of sadness that I advise this House of the passing of a dear friend of this institution and of mine, Mr. Phineas Indritz, an individual known for many years as an outstanding staff member of many committees of this Congress and well known to many on Capitol Hill and the city of Washington. Phineas Indritz died on October 15, 1997, at the age of 81 at Holy Cross Hospital following a long illness. Phineas was a graduate of the University of Chicago with A.B. and J.D. cum laude degrees, served as Assistant Solicitor and Counsel at the U.S. Department of the Interior from 1938 to 1957, except during the years of World War II, when he served with distinction in the Army Air Forces. He then began 20 years of service on Capitol Hill as a staff member to the Government Operations Committee, first as counsel for the Subcommittee on Public Works and Resources in 1957 and then going on to other assignments. In 1963, he became chief counsel of the Subcommittee on Natural Resources and Power, and at the same time, in 1969, to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Natural Resources. He also served with distinction as a member of the staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and also for its Subcommittee on Energy and Power. He has long been known for the outstanding work he has done for human rights, protection of natural resources, and for his work as teacher and scholar and educator in the area of law. Mr. Speaker, he will be missed, and I extend my sorrow and sympathy to the members of his family who properly grieve the loss of a great man. Some may remember the series of articles written by David Maraniss for the Washington Post about the Committee on Energy and Commerce in 1983. In one of these articles, dated July 18, 1983, was a portrait of Phineas Indritz. I would ask that a passage from this article be reprinted as follows: There is a special desk and telephone reserved for Phineas Indritz, the gnome of the Energy and Commerce Committee, on the third floor of House Annex II, and he is received there with the respect befitting a wise old man who has worked in Congress since the birth of the youngest committee member. That Indritz retired from government service several years ago and is not on the committee's payroll matters not at all when it comes to his standing and influence. Chairman John D. Dingell loves him like a brother, and it is fair to say that Dingell keeps him around because he needs him: Little Phineas is in many respects the social conscience of Big John. Every few months, Indritz appears in Dingell's office with a wrong that must be righted, with evidence of an injustice inflicted by corporate America or some agency of the federal bureaucracy. ``He's like a kid who comes home every day with a different stray dog or cat and plops it on our doorstep,'' one committee colleague said. ``Sometimes we wish he wouldn't bring them home, but his heart is always in the right place. And usually the things he believes in are things that ought to be done.'' All of this must be taken into account when one considers the life and times of H.R. 100. This measure, popularly known as the unisex insurance bill, has sent the insurance industry into a multimillion-dollar lobbying frenzy. It has been embraced by feminist groups as the centerpiece of their campaign for economic equity. And it has trapped Energy and Commerce members in the middle of a ferocious fight that many of them wish would be waged somewhere else. Indritz, committee aide emeritus, dropped H.R. 100 on the doorstep. He is one of the bill's principal authors. An old civil rights activist and New Deal liberal, Indritz is blessed with talents as extraordinary as his name. For years, his amazing juggling feats with bowling pins have delighted friends and strangers in parks around Capitol Hill. He drives through town in a fine old convertible, his head barely protruding above the steering wheel. His tweed suit pockets hold a bountiful supply of hard candy, and his scholarly mind retains more obscure facts about constitutional law and legal briefs on discrimination than can be found in the library of the Supreme Court. It was his lifelong obsession with fighting discrimination that led Indritz several years ago to take hold of a bill prohibiting insurance companies from using race or sex in setting rates for policyholders. Phineas will be greatly missed. We are fortunate that his legacy is so long, and continues to live with us and help us every day. He is survived by his two daughters, Tahma Metz of Bethesda and Tova Indritz of Albuquerque, NM; and a son, Dr. Doren Indritz of Phoenix, AZ; a sister; and two grandsons. He was preceded in death by his beloved wife of 34 years, Ruth Gould Indritz.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my good friend and colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton for his leadership in the effort to renew the Endangered Species Act. The authorization of this precious piece of legislation expired 5 years ago, leaving one of our most important conservation laws vulnerable to attacks and lacking proper congressional oversight. Several years of ideological fighting and Beltway politics have kept interest groups busy while precious species of animals and plants decline and disappear. In the meantime, public and private land conflicts continue to hamper recovery efforts. The administration has implemented needed reforms. The other body is building a consensus with the administration for improving the act. Sponsors of that effort are aware that their bill is not perfect but it is a product of good consensus and such efforts is never perfect. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and I have been engaged for several months in discussions, hoping to lead to the enactment of an improved Endangered Species Act. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], is participating, as are the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], as well as the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member, who has introduced a bill containing many common sense reforms. It is our hope that these talks will lead to enactment by this body of a bill which protects endangered species of wildlife for the future. Saxton, Dingell Urge House to Reauthorize Endangered Species Act One week after a Senate Committee markup of changes to the federal Endangered Species Act, U.S. Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) and U.S. Rep. John D. Dingell (D-MI) asked House colleagues for support to reauthorize the nation's most significant conservation law during the 105th Congress. Saxton, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, and Dingell, who authored the 1973 law, emphasized that reauthorization is five years overdue and further delay only places endangered species and other at-risk species in further danger of extinction. Dingell and Saxton have participated for several months in bipartisan discussions to determine how the ESA should be improved. While not endorsing the Kempthorne-Chafee-Baucus- Reid compromise, both representatives expressed hope that adoption of a Senate bill would lead to accelerated efforts by the House to pass a bill the President can sign. A copy of their floor statements follows: statement of the honorable jim saxton, october 8, 1997 Mr. Speaker, I come before this body to discuss the need to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. I believe the time is now to reauthorize the grand daddy of all environmental laws. It is vital that any piece of legislation that is developed is done so in a bipartisan way. I congratulate the Senate in their effort to craft such a bill. Now, it is our turn in the House to find common ground that Democrats and Republicans alike can agree upon. This process must recognize that people who are impacted by the ESA have legitimate concerns regarding the way it works. On the other hand our lack of progress in reauthorizing the act has seen the further decline of many species and the biological extinction of others. Now is the time to act. I want to recognize Chairman Young and the ranking member on the Resources Committee, Congressman George Miller, for their recent efforts to craft a bipartisan bill in the House. The process has been supported by the involvement of Mr. Dingell, Mr. Tauzin and Mr. Pombo. We must set politics aside and do what's right for the people of this country and for the species in which this legislation protects. statement of the honorable john d. dingell october 8, 1997 Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton, for talking about the need to renew the Endangered Species Act. The authorization for the Endangered Species Act expired five years ago, leaving our most important conservation law vulnerable to piecemeal attacks and a lack of proper Congressional oversight. For several years, ideological fighting and beltway politics have kept interest groups busy while animals and plants decline and disappear. In the meantime, private and public land conflicts continue to hamper recovery efforts. The Clinton Administration has implemented some needed reforms. And the other body is building a consensus with the Administration for improving the Act. Sponsors of that effort readily admit their bill is not perfect, but the product of good consensus is rarely perfect. The gentleman from New Jersey and I have been engaged for several months in discussions about improving the Endangered Species Act. Chairman Young is participating as are Mr. Tauzin and Mr. Pombo; and so is Ranking Member Miller, who introduced a bill containing many common-sense reforms. It is our hope that these talks might give this House has a chance to pass a bill which makes a good law work better for species and landowners.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have served here for 41 years and more. I have seen an awful lot of these kinds of challenges of elections. I never saw one like this. I have never heard charges of crime made about what appears at this time, at least, to be reasonably innocent behavior with regard to the election process. I have never seen subpoenas delegated in such an outrageous fashion by a committee of this body to a single individual, to be hurled around like confetti in a parade. I have never seen the kind of behavior that brings, I think, this House into such low esteem. It gives every appearance that what we are doing is not inquiring into an election, but rather, that we are harassing a woman who is of obvious good character and integrity, who has been certified as having been duly and properly elected. This proceeding tonight and the other proceedings that have been associated with this give a very bad appearance with regard to this body. I would think my colleagues on both sides would be embarrassed by what it is we are seeing happening tonight. We have a criminal process going on out there in California to inquire into whether or not there was criminal misbehavior. Let that process go forward. Let us have the kind of proper inquiry that we have always had into these kinds of election situations, to find out what has happened. Let us not give the appearance of harassing innocent, law-abiding Hispanic Americans because they have chosen to vote. Let us not bring this body into discredit by the kind of behavior in which we are engaging. I would tell my Republican colleagues, with all respect and with all affection, what it is that you are doing tonight is sowing a terrible wind. And you will reap the whirlwind, because it is not just going to be the fact that you bring discredit on this body by the behavior that I am seeing before me tonight or what I have seen in connection with your loose use of the subpoena and the enforcement process of this body. What is happening here is, you are creating further distrust and disrespect for this body. It is going to have a bad effect on each and every one of us, whether we are Democrats or Republicans, but it is going to do something worse than that. It is going to do it to you, I would say to my Republican colleagues, because citizens all of a sudden are going to realize that elections are not about fighting out the issues in an honorable and a proper way and having an intelligent discussion of what it is that concerns the people, whether they be Hispanics, minority members, or whatever they might happen to be, but rather, it is win at any cost, win with any device, use the powers of this body to elect somebody who was clearly not elected by a fair election and who was clearly not elected by any vote of the people. And what you are giving the appearance of what you are seeking to do is to eject a legitimately elected Member of this body. People are going to remember this. Be prepared to reap the whirlwind. You deserve it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank and commend my dear friend, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and I do want to note the fine work of the gentleman on the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and tell him what a great pleasure it was for me to work with him, what a good piece of legislation I think it is. And it brings back great memories that he and I shared of years past, when he used to work on the same kind of questions back when this business was done in the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation on the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, where the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] was a valuable member, as he is today a valuable member as the chair of the Committee on the Interior, and I thank him, and I had a few remarks which I think would just help say nice things about him and others who have made possible a significant advance in terms of protection of a great national treasure, our refuge system. Mr. Speaker, today we find ourselves in the very fortunate position of having agreed to legislation which almost everyone agrees will better protect species and habitat on our Nation's wildlife refuges. It does so while articulating an overall mission for the National Wildlife Refuge System and providing general management guidance that the System has sorely needed for too long. Not only does this codify almost all of the administrative reforms signed by President Clinton last year, it makes very clear the important role that hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-dependent recreational uses play in the successful option of our refuge system. I understand that the Senate adopted three minor changes that it deemed important to the continued vitality of the Refuge System. After reviewing these proposals, I agree. Those changes include making clear that compatible uses can include wildlife and non-wildlife dependent uses; requires the Secretary to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife and plants on refuges; and makes clear how periodic re- evaluation of secondary uses, such as electric utility rights-of-way, will be conducted consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as will soon be amended. Mr. Speaker, many people deserve credit for bringing this legislation to a point where the President will sign it. I'd like to thank Chairman Young, Ranking Member Miller, and Secretary Bruce Babbitt for their leadership in helping bring about passage of this most important legislation. I might note in closing, Mr. Speaker, that these same people are all very interested in the future protection of wildlife and plants that are NOT on refuge lands but still in need of federal protection. There is much discussion in both chambers about how to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. I understand that the other body had a hearing on a consensus, bipartisan bill introduced last week. While I understand that the Senate bill is not a perfect bill, I wish to take note of the fact that reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act is 5 years overdue. With the passage of the Refuge Bill, it is my hope that all of the Members and interests that have an interest in the Endangered Species Act will negotiate in good faith so we might bring about better, smarter protection of species on all of our lands across the nation. Mr. Speaker, in the meantime we have before us a good bill that is the product of hard work, sensible compromise, and in the interest of our refuges' future. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1420.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn, MI is celebrating its 60th anniversary. To mark its 60th jubilee, I would like to publicly acknowledge this respected institution's tremendous history of excellence and unparalleled contribution to our community. Since 1938 Henry Ford Community College [HFCC] has served as a gateway to higher education for thousands of residents of southeastern Michigan. This institution was established to provide an affordable, high quality college education for students in Dearborn, MI and its surrounding communities. HFCC has clearly succeeded in meeting these original goals. The college enrolls approximately 20,000 students per year, and has grown to become the fifth largest community college and the tenth largest college in the State of Michigan. I am proud to say that HFCC graduates more than 1,000 students per year. A recent survey showed that 98 percent of HFCC graduates are working in Michigan. In accordance with the rapidly approaching 21st century, Henry Ford Community College has dedicated itself to keeping pace by continuously renovating and modernizing its facilities and curricula. The completion of the new technology building has provided HFCC with one of the most modern community college manufacturing technology and apprentice training facilities in the Nation. These physical improvements and HFCC's qualified, dedicated faculty provide HFCC students with the training and skills that are needed by today's workers and employers in Michigan and across the Nation. The success of HFCC's students, faculty, and administration can be directly attributed to their dedication to the legacy of Henry Ford--a legacy of hard work, world-class education, and an eye to the future. Henry Ford Community College has been successful as a leader in education and training, and I believe the school and the individuals who make up its community deserve to be commended.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote in favor of H.R. 2014 albeit with some reservations. This legislation is the product of great compromise by both sides. I am pleased that my Republican colleagues recognized the need to include some tax relief for middle-class Americans in the final version of the tax plan. However, I am deeply concerned that this may still explode the deficit in the out years. The $500-per-child tax credit will be available to low-income families and the education tax breaks will be fully implemented. We, as Democrats, fought hard to ensure all families will receive some benefit from this tax package. Low-income American families deserve the $500- per-child tax credit just as much as a family whose earnings exceed $110,000. The HOPE scholarship and the student loan interest deduction will make higher education more affordable and accessible for all Americans. I am still troubled by the distribution of the tax cuts. The capital gains reductions will allow CEO's to cash in their stock options and pay less in taxes than a family earning $30,000. It is the unfortunate nature of compromise that we must cede these generous capital gains tax breaks to the Republicans to provide some relief for hard working low- income Americans. We should defer the self-congratulations until such time as the budget is actually in balance. The conference agreement is imperfect and there is a definite possibility that it will destroy the Democrats work on deficit reduction which began with the 1993 budget agreement. Nevertheless, I will not stand in the way of the good to reach the perfect. Insomuch as hard working lower-income American families stand to benefit through the $500-per-child tax credit and the $31 billion in education tax cuts, this tax package is good.