Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I will vote yes on the final passage of H.R. 4569 with serious reservations. I urge the Senate and the Conference Committee to address the issue of family planning and other serious flaws that exist in the bill. If significant improvements are not made in the bill before it returns to the House of Representatives, I do not intend to support the final passage of this legislation.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is a 60-year success story that all Americans should be proud of. Prior to Social Security enactment, over 50 percent of our retirees were in poverty. Today it is less than 10 percent. We have an opportunity now to take the next step to protect Social Security for today, for tomorrow, for the future generations to come. But we are in jeopardy this week. We have heard from my colleagues this morning about efforts to take future Social Security trust fund dollars and place them into tax cuts. We last year all voted together, a majority of Republicans and Democrats, to provide a $95 billion tax cut within the context of a balanced budget. I supported that. I want to move forward and continue to do that. But I will not vote for tax cuts that remove critical dollars from the future of Social Security. That is irresponsible. I call upon my colleagues to save Social Security first before any effort is made to proceed on tax cuts. The future of Social Security is just too important to all Americans.

Mr. STABENOW

Mr. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 426, had I been present I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 427, had I been present I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 428, had I been present I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 429, had I been present I would have voted ``yes''; and on rollcall vote No. 430, had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I might just add one point, and that is, the universities are in fact doing their research under ATP in cooperation, as the gentleman indicated. The private sector is involved in sharing information, but the dollars are not going to the major industries themselves. They are going to a consortium. The universities and small businesses have been contracting for those dollars, so we are talking about university-based research, as the gentleman is aware.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Simply today we are talking about creating jobs for the future for our constituents, for American workers, or whether or not we are going to stand by and refuse to invest in the kinds of partnerships that will create new technologies to create those jobs. In Michigan, we have put together a number of ATP projects that have been extremely positive. One is the Auto Body Consortium. The gentleman introduced this amendment by talking about Ford and General Motors, Chrysler also falls in that category, as receiving dollars. They have not received individual dollars for individual projects. They are part of a consortium of universities, small businesses and the auto industry to work on high-risk, cutting-edge, new technologies so that we can compete with foreign automobile companies. That is the bottom line. ATP has been a contributing factor in bringing together, and sometimes the most contributing factor in bringing together industries, so that instead of competing as they do on a daily basis, they can work together as an industry on behalf of American workers and American business to compete and create new efficiencies and new technologies so that we can be effective in keeping jobs here in America rather than having them be overseas. The ATP contributes to a valuable new culture of cooperation in U.S. industrial R&D. In one study of more than 400 organizations working on ATP projects, nearly 80 percent worked on the project in collaboration with other companies, universities or Federal labs. Eighty-five percent of these reported that the ATP played a significant role in bringing the collaborative relationship together. I can speak firsthand in Michigan for the fact that that is true. Corporations, businesses are busy working, focusing on the bottom line week to week, quarter to quarter. The ATP allows them and creates an incentive to bring them together on an industry basis to look long-term. That is what we need as Americans, to be looking long-term as far as jobs are concerned. The results of ATP-sponsored research, commercialized by private industry, are starting to emerge from laboratories and enter the marketplace. I would like to just briefly mention three. One of the earliest ATP projects, a collaborative effort to develop a suite of advanced manufacturing technologies for the printed wiring board industry, PWB, resulted in new materials, testing, imaging and production techniques that have been credited by the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences with quite literally saving the roughly $7 billion United States PWB industry with its approximately 200,000 jobs. ATP has been credited with quite literally saving 200,000 jobs and an entire industry. An ATP joint venture in the automobile industry as I mentioned earlier that included several small and mid-sized manufacturers and universities in Michigan resulted in manufacturing monitoring and control technologies that have led to significantly improved dimensional tolerances, improving vehicle quality and customer satisfaction. One economist has projected that the project's market- share boost for U.S. auto manufacturers has resulted in thousands of new jobs and a $3 billion increase in the U.S. industrial output within the next two years. We are talking about jobs, high-paying jobs for my constituents and the constituents of my colleagues. Finally, the ATP was instrumental in promoting the research that led to today's DNA chips, miniaturized genetics labs that offer fast, up to 1,000 times faster than conventional methods, faster, accurate, low- cost genetic analysis. Early spin-offs of ATP projects in this area already are being used in agriculture and food and cosmetics testing as well as the obvious applications in drug discovery, human-genome research, and biomedical research. We are talking about the ability to increase the quality of life for our constituents, their health, their jobs, their food safety and the ability to move forward and compete in a world economy in partnership, around the world. We are competing against teams, teams of business, labor, government, education on the other side of the ocean. We have to have those teams in place.

Ms. STABENOW. If I could reclaim my time for a moment to indicate, this is about the ability to bring together competitors, to work together in a cooperative way on behalf of American workers. ATP allows them to do that.

Ms. STABENOW. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam Speaker, I rise today to declare a state of emergency. Our home health care industry is suffering from drastic cuts to the Medicare reimbursement system that was done in last year's balanced budget agreement. Cuts were made to reduce fraud and abuse, but these cuts unfortunately have had unintended consequences. To date, over 1,200 home health agencies have gone out of business, and that number is expected to triple by the end of September, and these are not the high-cost agencies. Families are suffering. The new payment system for home health is so restrictive that patients who require the most expensive care will be the first to lose their care. The sickest and most feeble will be left in the cold. I have visited many families and have made many home visits over the years. I know how important it is for individuals to receive care in their own home whenever possible where they can be surrounded by family and friends who love them. We are not just talking about the elderly, we are talking about children, we are talking about the disabled, anyone who needs to be in their home and receive home health care. Home health care is a critical element of our Nation's health care safety net and that safety net is quickly unraveling as more and more patients are unable to receive care and more and more home health care agencies shut their doors. Madam Speaker, I would like to put a human face on this issue and share one of the many constituent letters I have received from families who are afraid that a loved one will lose their home health care. Dear Ms. Stabenow: Suppose you were 84 years old, living on a Social Security monthly check of $650 in a small town. Suppose further that approximately one-and-a-half years ago you were declared legally blind because of complications from diabetes, and then one year ago you fell and broke your hip, but most importantly, through all of this you kept a sound mind and you owned your own home and had lived alone since your husband died 25 years earlier. Now suppose also that when you broke your hip you had to be put in a nursing home, and the only one with available beds was 45 minutes from your home, family and friends. Now, further suppose that thanks to a home health care program, you were able to return home where you could live in your own home, talk to your friends on the telephone, attend senior citizen functions, keep your dog, and live somewhat of a normal life. All of this is possible because home health care provided: A nurse to oversee administering of daily insulin, which you could not give yourself because you could not see, and an aid to come in twice a day for an hour to make sure you were well, got your bath, had breakfast and dinner, and had regular contact with the outside world. I do not have to suppose any of this, because that 84 year old woman is my mother. I am not a great supporter of government programs, but taking care of our elderly so they can live with dignity has got to be a valid issue for government. After such a long introduction, why am I writing this, my first-ever letter to a Congresswoman? Why, because the Balanced Budget Act has endangered my mother's home health care. She is in danger of losing her home and really, her life. The spending limits will cause the Health Department to drop her from the program. The only alternative is a nursing home. My mother cannot continue to live alone without the assistance that she has been receiving. Please help to restore the budget cuts in Medicare. I urge my colleagues today to act quickly. There are many initiatives that have been introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern); the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn); the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas); the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand), to name just a few, and there are several bills. Unfortunately, we must act now if we are going to solve this issue in time for too many families. First, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern); and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand) today in urging the immediate adoption of the Home Health Access Preservation Act, a bill that will correct many of these problems, and I urge immediate consideration by this House. If this does not happen quickly, then I would secondarily urge that the bill introduced by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and myself and others that would place a 3-year moratorium on the interim perspective payment system for home health care benefits be passed immediately. We must act either to fix the problem or put a moratorium on the current payment system until it is fixed, or we are going to see more and more serious repercussions for our families. Madam Speaker, after a serious examination of the data, I believe that either of these approaches are budget-neutral. The Balanced Budget Agreement has targeted $16.1 billion in savings to home health care. But the new CBO baseline now projects Medicare savings will exceed $26 billion. This is $9.9 billion more than the expected savings from the Balanced Budget Agreement. Unfortunately this savings has been achieved on the backs of efficient, quality home care providers and the people who need care. In the next few days I will be asking my colleagues to join me in a letter to President Clinton and to Speaker Gingrich. The letter will urge them to recognize the crisis in the home health care industry and implore them to make the resolution of this crisis a national priority. Congress should not let one more family or one more senior citizen suffer. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to sign these letters and to get involved in finding an immediate solution to this home health care crisis. Thank you.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by my esteemed colleague Tim Roemer, which would terminate the International Space Station. I am especially pleased to say that my support for the International Space Station is shared by my constituents as evidenced by letters I ahve received from them, and from the 2,000+ space enthusiasts that attended the Great Space Adventure events that I sponsored this past Spring. The prospect of a permanent laboratory for researchers and scientists has students of all ages inspired--inspiration that will lead to more students pursuing math, science, engineering and medical careers. The International Space station also provides hope to the medical community and to patients afflicted with a variety of health conditions. Hope that research conducted in this permanent laboratory will yield new insights into human health and disease prevention and treatment, especially in the area of heart, lung, and kidney functions, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, hormonal disorders and immune system functions. Already we have benefitted from the federal investments in the U.S. space program--and our investment in the International Space Station is no exception. For example: NASA developed a ``cool suit'' which is now helping to improve the quality of life of multiple sclerosis patients. NASA technology has produced a pacemaker that can be programmed from outside the body. NASA developed instruments to measure bone loss and bone density without penetrating the skin, which is now being used by hospitals. NASA research has led to an implant for delivering insulin to diabetics that is only 3 inches across, providing more precise control of blood sugar levels and frees diabetics from the burden of daily insulin injections. NASA technology has led to the development of medical devices which are used to revitalize purposeful movement to muscles crippled by spinal cord injuries. As a result, paraplegics and quadriplegics can get a full cardiovascular workout equivalent to jogging three miles three times per week. Technology from NASA also led to the development of an anti-shock garment for paramedic use which essentially reverses the effect of shock on the body's blood distribution and returns blood to the vital organs. This anti-shock garment has demonstrated effectiveness in treating shock from trauma induced by natural disasters or military actions, complications of pregnancy, ruptured internal organs, severe allergic reactions, brain injury and pediatric emergencies. Even, telemedicine has benefitted from NASA expertise since adoption during the previous decades was slowed by high costs and technological shortcomings. Today, the technique is burgeoning under the impetus of snowballing advances in computer, video-conferencing and digital imaging technologies that offer greater health access to rural Americans along with greater efficiency in data transmission and display. Mr. Chairman, these are but a few of the medical and health benefits that have come from our investments in the U.S. Space program, and I can not emphasize enough what value they have brought to the quality of life that so many of us have come to expect. It is because of this well documented success that I believe in the potential of the International Space Station. Joining me in recognizing the research potential of the Space Station are: the American Medical Association; the National Academy of Sciences; the National Research Council; the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; the American Medical Women's Association; the Planetary Society; the National Foundation for Brain Research; and the Shering-Plough Research Institute. Let me also share with you what Dr. Michael DeBakey, Chancellor and Chairman of the Department of Surgery at the Baylor College of Medicine says about the need for a permanent laboratory in space: The Space Station is not a luxury any more than a medical research center at Baylor College of Medicine is a luxury . . . Present technology on the shuttle allows for stays in space of only about two weeks. We do not limit medical researchers to only a few hours in the laboratory and expect cures for cancer. We need much longer missions in space--in months to years--to obtain research results that may lead to the development of new knowledge and breakthroughs. I agree with Dr. DeBakey's view; and because I believe the International Space Station has the potential to help my constituents with their health and quality of life in the long term, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Roemer amendment and to support the International Space Station.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their strong commitment to science, research and development in this country. I rise today as someone representing middle Michigan where those middle-class families that have been discussed today are rising every day to go to work in jobs that have more and more technology involved in their employment. They rise to go to work in areas where they are dependent upon new research and developing technologies so that the jobs that they are working in are the best-paying jobs possible. They care about the air and the water, and they want to make sure that we are doing everything we can to research ways to be able to clean up the air and the water and protect the environment through research areas that do not involve job loss but new technologies. They care very much about health research and the future for their children. They want us to be at the front end of the technology revolution that is happening all across the world. In my opinion, there are two efforts critically important that we are engaged in nationally on behalf of Americans, and that is education and a focus on research and technology development for future jobs and future quality-of-life opportunities for our citizens. The National Science Foundation is a small investment in a major effort to increase the quality of life for our citizens, and I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from California for all of his hard work on this appropriations bill. I am encouraged by his words to look closely at the Senate mark of $23.5 million for the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program. Let me also say that I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with me and all of the other Members of Congress who feel strongly about this program, and I look forward to a positive outcome.

Ms. STABENOW. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the Subcommittee for the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations. I want to thank the chairman for providing an increase in funding for NASA's academic programs. Inspiring our youth, our youth's teachers, and the general public is absolutely essential to sustaining our Nation's edge in research and development in space exploration. I applaud the subcommittee's funding equipment. However, I am concerned about the House mark that does not provide an increase in funding for an academic program that literally has touched millions of people's lives. As Members know, one of the most effective academic programs launched by NASA is the National Space Grant College and Fellowship program, with over 586 member universities and institutions in every State. I would ask that the Chair adopt the Senate budget mark of $23.5 million for the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program when the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations goes to conference.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, and to echo what all of my colleagues have said for all of his hard work, he has been a wonderful leader and he has been here many, many late nights. We are all here late tonight, because we care very much about this issue, and he has been here many, many late nights. Today, we are here as Democrats from New Jersey to Pennsylvania to Texas to Michigan. I do want to start, though, by saying that, most importantly, we are here as Americans who want to allow every one of our families to be able to participate in what is the best health care system in the world. How ironic that we have the best health care, and, yet, people cannot receive the best health care because of the ways systems have been set up. We do not want to be here talking about Democrats versus Republicans. We want to ask them to join us. Unfortunately, it has become an issue separating us because of whose interests we are reaching out to protect, American people wanting health care or those who benefit, the insurance companies who are benefiting by the current status quo. I want to share with my colleagues this evening just one letter of many that I have received from families in Michigan. This speaks very much to the issue of emergency room care as well as a number of other issues that have been raised this evening. This is from a constituent of mine. ``My husband was working on a job when he had a chain saw kick back and cut into his lower left leg. He was rushed to the nearest hospital where he was immediately put into a trauma unit where the doctors began assessing the damage and preparing a medical plan of action. The chain saw stalled in his tibia bone after severing all the muscles, veins, and nerves in his lower leg. ``The hospital's plan was to take him to an operating room, with an orthopedic surgeon, vascular surgeon and a neurology surgeon. Per my health insurance card's instructions, the hospital personnel contacted my HMO who insisted that my husband be transferred to another hospital. The physician in charge did not agree, claiming the accident was too severe to move him. The HMO clerical claimed that, if treated, the HMO would not pay the bill. ``The ambulance drivers were instructed to leave my husband on a gurney by the door at the second hospital, where he remained for 9 hours without any pain medication. He was not even given any ice to put on the wound. We finally saw the emergency room physician after 9 hours and after my husband tore a phone out of the wall and threw it on the floor'' due to his severe pain. ``Eventually, my husband was given nine loose stitches in his leg, put in a cast, and sent home after laying in his filthy, wood-chip covered clothing for 28 hours'' in the emergency room. ``He never received any surgery'', which was recommended, and ``is now in constant pain from permanent nerve and vascular damage, which were both medically repairable during the first 24 hours following the accident. ``We have found a physician who is willing to attempt some orthopedic repair. This has taken all of our savings because he is not in the `network' '' of the HMO. ``This corporation has been allowed to hold my family prisoner for 12 months. The lack of medical care they have provided has cost my husband a normal life. We have since lost our business and are trying to sustain our family of four on one income.'' This is a situation that should never happen in the United States of America. There is absolutely no reason why this gentleman was not treated immediately in the emergency room with the care that he needed which was recommended by the doctor in charge. Our bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights would reinstate that critical relationship between the physician and the patient. Instead, the Republican leadership bill would do little to protect the family that I just talked about. As my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, talked about earlier, the whole issue of referring to severe pain as well is excluded from their bill in terms of defining when you can receive care in an emergency room. In fact, what we are talking about is the medically sound advice of a doctor, such as the doctors in the emergency room that I just talked about, being able to treat someone without having to look to an HMO that is not in the best interest or used in the best interest of the patients involved. Let me just say, in conclusion tonight, that we are fighting for that woman, that family that was in that emergency room, and all of the other families across America that want very much, that expect in this country to have the quality health care that they need for themselves and their families.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, this morning a hearing is being held by the Democratic Health Care Task Force on the critical issue of managed health care. We are going to hear this morning from families across the country who have been denied care, who have had very difficult situations occur because they have not had the opportunity to receive the care their doctor recommended because they are in a managed care system. We are going to hear from small businesspeople. We are going to hear from other Americans speaking out. I only wish that we were doing this within the regular committee structure. I would call upon the House leadership this morning to bring forward the Patients' Bill of Rights, the comprehensive bill to protect American families, to bring it to a full hearing, to bring it to this House for a vote, because it is absolutely critical that in this day and age, when we have the best health care in the world, that we make sure our families can truly receive that care when in fact it is recommended by their physician or other health care provider. What we are talking about today is a basic set of principles that will allow us as Americans to be sure that the quality of care that is available in this country is truly available to each of us. I would urge strongly that the leadership take this bill up immediately.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for continued funding for the National Endowment for the Arts because the NEA broadens public access to the arts for all Americans. The latest Lou Harris poll found that 79% of Americans support a governmental role in funding the arts. Furthermore, 57% said they favor the federal government funding the arts. Federal funding for the arts is a good investment because the arts contribute to our society both financially and educationally. From a financial standpoint, the NEA is an investment in the economic growth of our communities because the non-profit arts community generates an estimated $37 billion in economic activity, returns $3.4 billion in income taxes to the federal government each year, and supports 1.7 million jobs. Federal funding for the arts is also a catalyst for leveraging private funding since recipients of NEA grants are required to match federal grants up to 3 to 1. It is also important to recognize that the NEA's budget represents less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the federal budget and costs each American less than 38 cents per year. Our communities benefit from an investment in the arts when art is a part of a comprehensive educational program and last year, the NEA made arts education a top priority. In 1997, the NEA invested $8.2 million in support of K-12 arts programs. Through these programs, the NEA opens creative doors to million of school children, including ``at-risk'' youth. Participation in the arts improves overall student learning, instills self-esteem and discipline and provides creative outlets for self expression. The arts also help prepare America's future high-tech workforce by helping students develop problem-solving and reasoning skills, hone communication ability and expand career skills for the 21st century. In my extensive work with education and technology, I see how important arts education is to developing our future workforce. Exposing children to the arts is even more important now that we know how crucial the first 3 years of a child's life are to full mental and emotional development. Even at the very beginning of life, children respond to music and visual stimuli. The NEA increases opportunities for parents and teachers to share art with children who may not otherwise have such opportunities. In Michigan, the NEA supports mentoring programs, in-school performances and apprenticeships in local school districts, colleges and universities. These programs have enriched the cultural fabric of our community. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the continued funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Sanders' amendment to earmark $6 million of the appropriation in this bill for the National Archives and Records Administration for the National Personnel Records Center. I am particularly pleased that this amendment is going to address an issue that has been brought to my attention by the county Veterans Affairs offices in my district. The issue relates to the timely processing of medal requests which are critically dependant upon documentation for military service. The National Personnel Records Center is part of the National Archives and Records Administration and houses all veterans records. My office has been contacted by several veterans requesting an original or a replacement set of medals, who have had to wait in excess of two years for their request to be answered. The county offices have had similar experiences. While my office advocates on behalf of individual veterans and their families, and is happy to do so, there appears to be a general pattern of problems in this area. Those providing direct services to veterans on a daily basis in my district are very frustrated and feel very strongly about the need to address this unacceptable delay. Let me give you three examples: (1) Wells E. Elston has been waiting 3 years for assistance from the National Records Center. (2) Edward Hendy has been waiting for 4 years for assistance from the Records Center. He is a World War II Veteran in poor health, and is entitled to a Good Conduct Medal, an American Theatre Service Medal, and a European-African-Middle East Service Medal with 5 bronze stars. (3) Randy Marwede, Director of Ingham County Veterans Affairs, sent in a request for a copy of his DD 214 and has yet to hear back--the request was dated July 1996. Our veterans gave us far better service than this--and risked their lives to do it. They deserve far better from this country and the government agencies who serve them. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the outstanding work of the Ingham County Board of Commissioners and the Ingham County Health Department in restricting the sale of tobacco to minors. The Ingham County Board of Commissioners passed an ordinance effective January 1, 1993 requiring that tobacco could only be sold through establishments licensed by the county. For violations, the Health Department can issue citations and for repeated violations have the license to sell tobacco revoked. These enforcement provisions are similar to many used for enforcing liquor laws in communities which have been very effective in curbing the sale of liquor to minors. The possibility of losing a license to sell liquor or tobacco for a violation of law has proven to have a significant impact on the business community's self monitoring activities. In 1992, 78% of minors who attempted to purchase cigarettes in Ingham County were successfully able to make a purchase. In other words, only 22% of all minors were refused the sale. Since the ordinance was instituted in the county in 1993, that number has declined dramatically. In a recent investigation conducted in Ingham county, 85% of all minors who attempted to purchase cigarettes were denied the sale. These are impressive statistics that I would like to see repeated across the nation. The war against teen smoking will only be successful if it is fought on many fronts. Tough, comprehensive laws must be passed at the federal level. And, we must work in partnership with states and local governments if we are to be successful. I encourage state and local governments across our country to join the fight and follow the example set by Ingham County by instituting laws in their communities that prevent minors from purchasing cigarettes. I commend the efforts of the Ingham County Board of Commissioners and the Ingham County Health Department for making a bold effort to improve the health and welfare of our community's youngest citizens.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise in strong support of this authorization bill for the National Science Foundation, to commend the Chair and ranking members of the committee and the subcommittee for their very, very important work. I cannot think of a more important subject for the Federal Government to be involved in than basic research and the development of technology for the future as it relates to jobs, our ability to compete in a world economy. The kinds of focuses by the National Science Foundation are critical to the quality of life of my constituents and all of the families of America. I commend them for their work. Mr. Speaker, I commend universities in my district: the Michigan State University efforts, University of Michigan research efforts, that were continually in partnership with NSF to promote the quality of life through research that we need to be promoting across this country. It is also important, as we all know, to focus on our future scientists by promoting quality math and science education, encouraging both boys and girls to be focused and to pick math and science education as future endeavors. As part of that, it is important that we make sure our schools are equipped with technology and the research equipment that they need so that we can excite young people about science and involve them in the future of math and science, and I want to particularly point out to my colleagues a section of the bill that I think is important in making sure our schools have that kind of equipment and the kind of computers that they need. I am very pleased to commend the committee for putting into the bill section 206, which provides an encouragement to NSF to donate surplus computers and research equipment to our schools. I would just speak to the fact that I have been involved in the last year and a half in providing wiring through the Internet. We have wired almost 50 schools in my district through volunteer efforts to the Internet, and we have seen one school in my district, Lansing Sexton High School, that has benefited directly from this kind of a donation from the Federal Government. The EPA provided enough computers, and very high-quality computers, to Lansing Sexton to equip an entire computer lab. We now have young people, with wiring done through our Net Day and the computers donated through EPA, who are able to work on sophisticated equipment and be learning more about math and science and technology as a result of that partnership. I would encourage NSF as we pass this authorization to work with us to provide that kind of equipment to our schools as we look for ways to join together to encourage math and science education for the future and make sure that our children have the kind of technology that they need in the classroom to be prepared. This bill is about basic research, it is about developing technology, it is about at the same time a focus on our future children and developing the skills in math and science that are so critical. I commend the committee and urge its adoption.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, domestic violence is a very serious crime that affects families and communities throughout the nation. That is why I am very pleased to congratulate CenturyTel and Motorola for their Wireless Alliance for Safe Families initiative that will be announced on June 30, 1998 in Lansing, Michigan. It is estimated that over four million women each year are abused by their husbands or partners, with many victims of abuse struggling to rebuild their lives because of fear. CenturyTel and Motorola are teaming up in Michigan to provide an extraordinary service for victims of domestic abuse. Through the use of cellular phones donated by Motorola and local cellular service contributed by CenturyTel, Michigan will now have a program which gives victims of domestic violence access to cellular phones in case an emergency develops. This program will be a very important part of giving countless domestic victims and their families a new sense of security in their daily lives. Without the strong commitment of CenturyTel and Motorola this service would not be possible. The work of CenturyTel and Motorola is an important local symbol of what can be accomplished through partnerships between the public and private sectors. I applaud the commitment CenturyTel and Motorola have shown regarding the critical issue of domestic violence and I am proud to join in supporting this new initiative in Michigan.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote no on this DOD rule because of the serious omission of funding for the Year 2000 problem. We cannot provide for our common defense if the DOD computers do not work on January 1, 2000. At the DOD, we have computers and microchips that operate everything from elevators to guided missiles. DOD relies on computers to do payroll processing, retirement benefits, operate weapons systems, order supplies, the list goes on and on. This is just in one important department. The list goes on throughout the Federal Government as well as the private sector. If computer systems were to fail, it would not only compromise the DOD's ability to run its day-to-day operations but it would compromise the Nation's security as well. DOD is currently on OMB's watch list of agencies which must do a better job in fixing their Y2K problem. This rule, this budget, without necessary funding, does not help. We need to be focusing on tackling the problem instead of playing games. And I am very concerned. This issue affects each and every one of the men and women and children in this country. At this point in time, what we have are folks playing games on the issue and not being willing to address it. This should not, Mr. Speaker, be a partisan issue. It is an issue that affects all of us. We will all suffer the consequences if we do not address it. It is irresponsible to proceed on this rule without the necessary funding for the year 2000 problem. I would urge very strongly a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like this afternoon to rise and associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who talked about food safety for a moment. It happens that the strawberries that the gentleman mentioned that were brought in and eaten by children were eaten in my district in Trenton, Michigan, in southern Genesee County. In fact, my staff persons's daughter was one of the children that ate the strawberries. Fortunately, after monitoring her health, she did not get deathly sick, but this was a very, very serious issue for the families in my district. I would applaud the subcommittee and the committee for putting together a budget that makes sense in a number of areas. I would only urge, as has been said, that we focus more strongly, as we move towards conference committee, on the issue of food safety. We have passed an agricultural research bill that we should all celebrate, that makes sense, that does put food safety at a top priority, that does create a crisis management team for USDA to move in when there is a crisis in a community and be able to respond working with local and State officials. But there is more to be done. I have sponsored a safe food action plan, along with the chairman today who is presiding, to focus on food safety throughout the agricultural budget, particularly not only in research but in transferring that research into technology. If we develop faster E. coli testing, and in fact that is being done in my district in Michigan, we need to be able to transfer that to the private sector so we can get tools directly into the hands of farmers and producers. I wanted to also indicate that we have one of the premier food safety research facilities at Michigan State University, the National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, where we just recently did a national conference with USDA to focus on the top research risk factors that we should be addressing through funding. But without the necessary dollars to invest, we will not be able to follow through on all of the plans, the research bill, the efforts that have gone on in making food safety a priority. It happens if we make it a priority in terms of resources. Again, I commend the committee, the subcommittee's work and ask that they continue to look for ways to add resources for a very, very critical issue for all of our families. Modification to Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bass

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. If the gentleman will yield, I just wanted to emphasize one point that the gentleman from Maine said so eloquently again, and that is the fact that we are talking about States and areas that have long-established, well-run home health providers who it does not make sense in my mind to be asking them to do a surety bond when they have a record of what they have been providing and what they have been receiving and billing for and so on, and it does not make sense when there has been an explosion in some areas, and certainly we need to be concerned about those explosions of areas as it relates to costs and number of visits and so on. Why do we not just focus on those? Let us focus on the problem areas and not in turn require everyone to have to take a cut when we know that some are doing an outstanding job operating well below the national average. I think it is just a point that we need to reemphasize over and over again. We want to go after waste, fraud and abuse, of course we want to do that, but let us do it in a way that makes sense. I am sure that in Texas as well, we are talking about a situation where we need to be focusing on those, in fact, who are abusing the system and not focusing on those who have been providing quality service at low cost.