Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, if I may, as President of the Prayer Group, we will not have the prayer breakfast tomorrow at 8 o'clock because of the lateness of the hour. For Members who have inquired, we will not have prayer breakfast tomorrow morning. There will be not a House prayer breakfast.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for coauthoring this legislation with me and moving this bill along. He is on the floor here tonight and I am sure he will have some remarks, along with his son Andrew. Maybe we should let Andrew have his remarks on record, because at least he would be able to tell us the value of these soccer fields. Mr. Speaker, back in 1996 we moved this land from the Coast Guard to Traverse City Area Public Schools to be used for soccer fields. It has been a great success. But as those soccer fields have been used more and more by over 3,000 students in the Traverse City area, we saw great potential in this property. By bringing the YMCA to build a new facility, which they need to do, by bringing the YMCA in, everybody will benefit even further, not only the school district, but the community as a whole, because they are going to put in three different swimming pools, plus all the other activities that the YMCA offers. The Coast Guard will be using the pool for training, for rescue, water rescues along the Great Lakes, as they do constantly. So it is just a great situation for everyone. The community wins, the school system wins, the Coast Guard wins, the Federal Government benefits, we all benefit. We just have to change this reverter clause so that it can be used not only for the school, but also for the YMCA and for the benefit of the community. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3370. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to thank the leadership and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for moving this bill so quickly on the request of myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a U.S. military veteran--a special veteran, one who after completing his own tour of duty has spent a career providing assistance to other veterans. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Rollin ``Ruffy'' Johnson on the occasion of his retirement as a Veterans of Foreign Wars assistant state service officer for the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. It is conventional wisdom that no person in any organization--and that includes you and I, Mr. Speaker--is truly irreplaceable, but Michigan veterans may look long and hard before they come up with an individual who has worked and battled so hard for the rights for our former military men and women as Ruffy Johnson has. I guess that, in Ruffy's case, his work on behalf of veterans blends innate Yooper cussedness with the personal style of a person who has claimed that his nickname ``Ruffy'' comes from his early days of enjoying a good fight. If you combine those characteristics with the important task of fighting for veterans' benefits, you know you have a mixture that can make people at the Department of Veterans Affairs sit up and listen. After graduating in 1951 from Negaunee High School in Michigan's U.P., Ruffy enlisted in the U.S. Navy, serving the first two years on the destroyer U.S.S. Beale and two more years at a base in the Mediterranean. His four-year hitch completed, he returned to the U.P. and was one of the first dozen civilians hired at K.I. Sawyer, a Strategic Air Command Base near Marquette, which is now closed. Following his Sawyer job he worked for a number of years for the U.S. Post office, but he took the job that really concerns us here in 1988, when he accepted a position with the Department of Michigan Veterans of Foreign Wars as an assistant state service officer in Detroit. At least one Detroit colleague remembers Ruffy arriving from the U.P. with his wife Doreen in their pickup truck, and that colleague recalls checking to see if there was a hunting rifle in the rear window. Doreen remembers there was no gun, but she believes the rack was probably there. Mr. Speaker, I said that Rolling Johnson was a fighter for veterans. An example of his tenacity is what occurred after Ruffy learned that veterans were being pressed for the co-payments of their prescription drugs. He inquired about the appeal process and was told by the VA the there was no appeal. Well, Mr. Speaker, the VA had tangled with the wrong guy, and through the tenacity of Ruffy Johnson a national appeal process was established. Ruffy was transferred from Detroit back to the U.P. in 1992. His initial veterans' service area was the eastern U.P. but by the end of the decade he was assisting across the Upper Peninsula. I know what's involved in that effort, Mr. Speaker, because I have put more than five hundred thousand miles in driving around my congressional district. Ruffy has clearly been up to the task, serving above and beyond the call of duty by going to every convention and every meeting that involved veterans. He was instrumental in creating a program to name a U.P. Veteran of the Year, and he has been active as a judge in those great VFW programs, Voice of Democracy and National Youth Essay. Ruffy has held numerous positions at his own local post, Negaunee's Post 3165, including serving as post commander in 1980-81. He is currently 14th District Junior Vice Commander. Ruffy has counseled widows of veterans on the benefits they are due, fought to keep veterans in nursing homes, and helped process myriad claims for deserving former military individuals. All his great attributes aside, however, Ruffy has one blind spot. Maybe it was those years in Detroit, but despite the advice of friends, despite the wishes of his own children, he remains a Detroit Lions fan in the heart of Green Bay Packer country. We'll forgive him this flaw. Mr. Speaker, on Dec. 8, Ruffy Johnson will be honored by friends, peers, his wife of 45 years, his career-Army son, and two of his three daughters who are able to make it, at a gathering in Ishpeming, Michigan, I ask you and my House colleagues to join me in saluting Rollin ``Ruffy'' Johnson, a true friend of veterans in northern Michigan.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my colleagues for appearing here with us tonight. I especially appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) on this issue and the compassion of the gentleman for the working men and women throughout our district in Ohio, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has always been an expert on these issues. To just pick up a little bit on what the gentleman had said on these trade initiatives and the WTO rules on antidumping, basically what it says is Congress instructed the Trade Representative, when you go to Doha next week not to give up on antidumping laws. We need them. We have other countries illegally dump their product in this country like they are doing right now with steel. It was very, very specific. But if we go to the text of the agreement that was in Doha this past week and go to paragraph 28, and I am quoting now, they are going to clarify and improve WTO antidumping and subsidy rules, an agreement not to use antidumping measures on the same issue once the case has been rejected. The total disregard for Congress's instructions on this issue, even after over 400 Members of Congress said do not give this up, do not give this up. So we can see while they are saying, we need the authority to negotiate, give us your authority, Congress, because only you can approve it, but give up the authority under fast track, and we will do the best agreement possible and all you have to do is come back here and say yes or no; we cannot amend under fast track. We just give them instructions: over 400 Democrats and Republicans say do not give this up, and they gave it up. So now they want to come with a fast track legislation. If you just take a look a little bit at what is going on and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is correct. We were here and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) was here in 1993, 1994; and a lot of us thought NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, would be a horrendous thing for this country. I am talking a little bit about my own northern Michigan district. We have lost manufacturing jobs, agriculture jobs, timber, steel. We are here with a letter. They say even if you lose your job because of foreign imports, we have this trade adjustment assistance. It will help you out, extend your unemployment and do all these things. I have a letter right here, November 27, to the Honorable Elaine Chow, Secretary of Labor. It was sent to her because we have been waiting since June 9 for a decision, June 9, almost 6 months. One hundred workers from the Besser Company in Alpena, Michigan are at the end of their state unemployment. The State has cut back unemployment. In Michigan we are down to $300 a week now. That is what they have to live on. That is $1,200 a month to try to support their family. That is true unemployment, and we are running out. Everyone agrees they lost their job because of the flood of imports in the lumber company, in the lumber industry; therefore, they should get trade adjustment. It was a no-brainer case, and here we are still waiting, still waiting for a decision on trade adjustment. We have this letter here. We will make some more phone calls tomorrow. Hopefully, we can move this along. It was NAFTA, TAA. That was one of the big selling points. Do not worry if you should lose your job. We will take care of it. I think the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) was correct on Congress giving up its right underneath the Constitution to approve, amend any agreement before us. Under Fast Track we cannot. That is a good reason not to vote for it. Let us talk a little bit about steel because I know that has been a big issue lately. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and all of us have been working hard on the steel caucus to try to come to grips with the steel industry since the last 3 or 4 years has just been plagued with this flood of imports on the hot road end, on cold steel, on rod, on wire. You name it, they have been doing it. As we sat there yesterday in a meeting with Secretary Evans and we will give the Bush administration some credit. Secretary Evans and his assistants have come up and met with us often. They have investigated. The ITC, International Trade Commission, says they are dumping illegally in our country. We must do something and we will. But if we take a look at it, and I said, I have been hearing this since 1998. I am sort of frustrated. You have 232, 232 trade orders out there; 131 relate to steel. Sixty percent of the trade orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce said stop. You are doing this illegally, 131 times; and we have no relief. What about putting countervailing duties on imports coming in? We have 45 countervailing duties in this country; 28 are related to steel. So we are slapping duties on it. We have 131 trade violations, and we are still losing every 9 days a steel mill or an iron ore mine, like I just lost up in northern Michigan just before Thanksgiving, LTV. They are restructuring their situation. They are 25 percent owner in the mines in northern Michigan. There is only eight iron ore mines left in the United States; two are in my district. LTV is a 25 percent owners in the Empire mine. They are also a big customer of those iron ore pellets. You need iron ore to make steel. They announced just before Thanksgiving 770 miners will lose their job by the end of the month; 120 salary workers are gone. That is 890 jobs in my little community of Palmer, Michigan, up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. We know they will have trouble getting their TA benefits if Besser is any idea. You go back to them and I say we have 131 orders out there saying you cannot dump steel, but they are still doing it. We have 28 countervailing duties that they cannot do this. They are still doing it. What is our relief? We are finally going to have a 201. I have testified before the ITC, and I know all of you have too, on that, and saying, look, we need strict, drastic measures. You have all these duties. You have all these trade orders. It is time to put in quotas. It is time to put in tariffs and you have to act now. The President will get that 201 remedy situation or remedy order on or about December 10. He then has 60 days to make up his mind. We urge him to move quickly. Every 9 days we lose a steel mill. Every 9 days another mine goes out. There is going to be nothing left. I believe we have 27 steel mills right now in bankruptcy. Banks are not lending them money. They cannot keep their mills going. They are shutting them down. And then we just take a look at NAFTA and what has happened after NAFTA. I have been just talking about steel. In the State of Michigan we have lost over 152,000 jobs. And there is a list here, Table III. They talk about agriculture, mining, construction. Let us just go to manufacturing. Lumber and woods products. I have the mines and I have timber. In lumber and wood products we lost 118,000 jobs since 1994 under NAFTA. Paper and allied products, again paper industry big in my district, we lost over 33,000 jobs since 1994. Stone, clay, glass, concrete products. We make concrete up in my district. Great limestone mining, 84,000 jobs. Primary metal products, 23,000. Blast furnaces, basic steel products, over 107,000 jobs in the last 6 years. Motor vehicles and equipment, probably what Michigan is known most for, over 200,000 jobs. The administration comes to us and tells us, give us Fast Track Authority. We will negotiate. We will make sure our trade laws are enforced. That is what we heard in NAFTA. Here are the end result. We have all of these trade laws, 131 violations on our books; and we cannot get any relief. Where do we go with this? We must monitor the authority we give any U.S. Trade Representative and ensure that certain special interests such as brand name pharmaceuticals that we have not even talked about yet tonight, they will not gain further concessions at the expense of American workers and the American consumers. No matter what it is, pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, mining, construction, agriculture, forestry, fishing, we have lost. And once again they tell us, trust us. We will take care of it. The last opportunity we had for trust was Doha last week. We said, no more antidumping. Do not give in to that. Over 400 of 435 Members said, do not do it. They did it. How can we now turn and say let us support Fast Track Authority when a trade representative who we said not to do it just did it to us? American people, Members of Congress, we have to wake up. We are not protectionists. We are not isolationists. We believe in trade, but it is has to be fair. When you have 131 orders on the books, that is not fair. When our mines are shutting down, our steel mills are shutting down and our hands are tied and we cannot do anything, is that fair? I say not. And I say bringing forth a proposal such as Fast Track Authority for this President to continue trade negotiations is just unconscionable, especially in these economic times. We are in a recession. We are in a recession. And you can blame September 11. It was well before September 11. But just take a look at what happened. And I believe the state of mind we are in right now and the state of our economy is due to these trade laws, is due to the layoffs in the steel industry, in the mining industry, the lumber industry, the furniture industry. You name it. I certainly want to join my colleagues here tonight and I look forward to hearing their comments. I will stay in case there are other comments that maybe we can go back and forth on some of these issues. I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). He has been a stalwart in helping out here. And between WTO and GATT and NAFTA and NTR or whatever you want to call them. The bottom line is the American people, our hard-working men and women in the districts we represent, are not protected with these countervailing tariffs, with these steel orders, with trade adjustment. When it comes right down to it there is nothing there for the American worker. We should not give up our right as Members of Congress to modify and demand tough enforcement issues, especially since last week when we told us not to do it and they sold us out at Doha.

Mr. STUPAK. Well, with Fast Track, if we take a look at the proposed legislation, H.R. 3005, the legislation that is going to be proposed, when we get to environmental standards or inspection, it is all voluntary. And when we have voluntary negotiating on objectives, on the environment, on food safety, it usually means nothing will happen. If anything, when we look closely at H.R. 3005, it is a step backwards. We do not have an opportunity to enforce the laws that we have because they are all subject to negotiations. Under H.R. 3005, when it comes to inspections, that is subject to negotiation. Even our laws which prevent adulterated or bad food that does not meet our standards or uses pesticides not allowed in this country, that is subject to negotiation. It is voluntary under these proposals. The gentleman from Ohio talked about food coming into this country, that seven-tenths of 1 percent is ever inspected. Well, when they do broccoli, they just take a crate and drop it on the ground. If bugs come out, they impound it. If no bugs come out, it goes on. For years, we have asked for sophisticated inspection of food coming into this country. Let us not just drop the crates. Let us do a quick chemical test to see what pesticides are in it that we are consuming. Let us put the country of origin on this food. Let us have inspectors there and be able to impound the food for some time so we can have an opportunity to do a proper inspection. All that is happening is a quick check, and then we are sending the truck on. By the time they do a sophisticated check, that truck is already hundreds of miles into the United States and has probably dropped its load. They do not know where it is because they do not have the order there in front of them. How do we recall it then? It is consumed. We had that in Michigan with Guatemalan raspberries and our hot lunch program, and hundreds of kids were ill. Well, it is too late then. And guess what? It was really a U.S. company that imported the food. The U.S. company was supposed to inspect it, but they never did. Tainted water had been used to grow the crops, and that is what we have. We do not even have inspections overseas where this food comes from. It is amazing. We have worked, as the gentleman said, for a number of years, and we have the bill again this year; but it is frustrating when we see that less than 1 percent is ever inspected. It is wintertime now, and where will most of our fruits and vegetables for our salads come from?

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this important bipartisan amendment with Representatives LaTourette and Strickland. Our amendment limits the funds that can be allocated under this bill to purchase steel, so that such funds can only go towards purchasing American melted and poured steel. I would like to first give special thanks to Ranking Member Murtha, who has recognized the importance of this provision to the steel industry. I thank him, as well as Chairman Lewis, for their support. This amendment is the least we can do. Our U.S. steel industry is in an ever increasing downward spiral. In fact, just last week LTV Corporation announced that it is seeking to shut down its steel making operations. LTV is a part owner and customer of the Empire Mine in my district, and because of that announcement, the Empire Mine is going to be idled indefinitely. Most of the workers at the Empire will be laid off by the end of the month. 770 hourly and 120 salaried employees will be affected by this mine closure. This mine closing is absolutely devastating to these workers, their families, and the communities that rely on the iron ore mines. I owe it to these hardworking citizens of northern Michigan to do what I can in Congress to try to save the steel. and iron ore industries. All I say to everyone in this House: we should wherever possible promote our domestic steel industry and encourage the purchase of American steel. We now have such an opportunity. The Department of Defense purchases ships, plans, and other systems that consume large quantities of steel. As we appropriate our taxpayer dollars towards funding our defense needs, we should ensure that these monies are not used to further endanger our already weakened domestic steel industry. Our taxpayer dollars should not go to buying foreign steel, American money they should buy American steel. Our steel industry is efficient, it is competitive, and it produces a high quality product. It is being driven out of business by the dumping of below market priced foreign steel. U.S. government contracts should not be buying foreign dumped steel over our quality U.S. steel. Our amendment requires the Department of Defense contractors to buy U.S. melted and poured steel. Our amendment does provide that in cases where the steel product is not domestically available, or there are some national security reasons for buying foreign steel, that an exception is possible. Other than those instances, however, we will be promoting our domestic steel industry in its fight to survive. In this time when our very national security has been threatened, we cannot further jeopardize our domestic steel industry. Vote for the Stupak- La Tourette-Strickland amendment and cast a vote for the American steel industry. Point of Order

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge Members to vote against H.R. 2887, the Pediatric Exclusivity bill, as it will appear on the suspension calendar tomorrow. It has a number of controversial provisions. First approved in 1997, pediatric exclusivity granted the drug companies an extension of 6 months under patents if they would provide a study to determine if the drug was beneficial to young people. The FDA invites drug companies to do a study on what effect the drug may have on young people. Upon completion of the study, the FDA then grants a pediatric exclusivity to the drug, which the drug companies then use as a marketing tool to promote and increase drug sales. The grant of pediatric exclusivity takes place after the drug company study is completed, without anyone knowing what the study says about the safety, the effectiveness, or the dosage requirement for young people. There is no requirement to change the labeling on a drug to reflect the changes that may be needed when a drug is dispensed to young people. There is no label to tell doctors, patients, or their families on the proper dosage or on how to dispense or use the drug. Before we grant pediatric exclusivity to a drug and before this pediatric exclusivity is marketed as approved for pediatric use, we should know what is the effect of this drug on young people. Under the bill that will be before us tomorrow, H.R. 2887, after a study is completed, exclusivity is granted; but the results of the study, the results may not be disclosed to the doctors, patients and their families for up to 11 months. The physician, the patient and the family has a right to know about the drug the patient is about to ingest. Why does it take 11 months? This chart highlights the problems with pediatric exclusivity. There have been 33 drugs granted pediatric exclusivity, and only 20 have been relabeled; and it takes an average of 9 months to do that. The average time from the granting of pediatric exclusivity is 9 months. For 9 months, doctors, patients and their families have no idea if the child is receiving a proper dosage and if the drug is really safe. On this chart, exclusivity granted, and below in parentheses was when the label was provided. In Lodine, it took 9 months for them to change the label, and after the label was changed, approximately two times a lower dose recommended. It should have been cut in half. Nobody knew that for 9 months. Buspar, if Members take a look at it, 2 months after exclusivity is granted, they finally say safety and effectiveness were not established in patients 6 to 17 years old. In other words, it did not do anything. They are marketing it as a drug to help the patient. How about Fluxvoxamine. Again, exclusivity granted January 3, 2000. Eight months later the label is changed. It says it may require lower dosage, and it gives an age group. Propofol, exclusivity is granted August 11, 1999; but they did not change the label to let the doctors, patients, and families know until 18 months later. It says here ``may result in serious bradycardia.'' It goes on to say it is not indicated for pediatric ICU sedation, as safety has not been established. That is information doctors need to know. The worse thing is, the incidence of mortality doubles from 4 percent to 9 percent. That is information we need to know. Doctors, patients, and families should know this information before we grant pediatric exclusivity. My amendment would require not just a study but proper labeling on the drug before it is granted pediatric exclusivity and marketed. Pediatric exclusivity is the only time that labeling is not a prerequisite to granting a drug approval. Why would we want to endanger our children? Mr. Speaker, I cannot offer my amendment under the suspension calendar. In order to have an opportunity to offer my amendment to protect the health and safety of our young people in this country, we must defeat the bill under the suspension calendar and send the bill to the Committee on Rules where I will be given an opportunity to offer my amendment. I do not understand why the majority does not want doctors, patients, and families to know the effect of the drug, what is the effectiveness of the drug, and is the drug safe for our children. Tomorrow I ask Members to defeat the bill under suspension so we can bring it back to the floor.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to urge Members to vote against H.R. 2887, the Pediatric Exclusivity Act, as it is on the suspension calendar with controversial provisions. First approved in 1997, pediatric exclusivity granted the drug companies an extra 6 months extension on their patents if they would provide a study to determine if the drug was beneficial to young people. Upon completion of that study, the FDA grants a pediatric exclusivity to the drug which the drug companies then used as a marketing tool to promote and increase drug sales. The grant of pediatric exclusivity only takes place upon completion of a study without anyone knowing what the study says about the safety, the effectiveness and dosage requirements for young people. There is no requirement to change the labeling on the drug to reflect the changes needed. There is no label to tell the doctors what is the proper dosage, how to dispense and use the drug safely. Before we grant pediatric exclusivity to a drug and it is then marketed as being FDA approved for pediatric use, we should at least know what is the effect of the drug on young people. Under the current bill, after the study is completed, exclusivity is granted, but whether the drug helps or hurts young people remains a secret and is not disclosed to doctors, patients, or their families. Physicians, patients, and their families should have a right to know about the drug before they ingest it. If Members take a look at this chart, Lodine was approved on December 6, 1999; it was 9 months later before we had a label change. What did the label tell the doctors, an approximately two times lower dose than has been recommended for adults. For 9 months they did not know to lower the dosage. Buspar is another drug that got pediatric exclusivity just for doing a study. Safety and effectiveness were not established in patients. The drug did not even work on young people. Fluvoxamine, approved on January 3, 2000. On September 28, 2000, they make a label change. What does it say? Girls 8 to 11 years of age may require lower dosage. Why does it take 8 months for a doctor and a family to know? How about Propofol, granted August 11, 1999? Label change February 23, 2001, 18 months later. Serious bradycardia can result from it. It is not indicated for pediatric ICU sedation, as safety has not been established. Incidence of mortality, twice as great. Mr. Speaker, we need to know that before this drug is put out on the market and it is marketed by the drug companies as being FDA approved for pediatric use. Why should it take 2 to 18 months, and an average of 9 months? Under the current bill, it can go as much as 11 months. Pediatric exclusivity, the only time labeling is not required is when we are dealing with pediatric exclusivity. Why should we endanger our children? I cannot offer an amendment, the amendment I offered in committee, I cannot offer it because we are under the suspension calendar. I am asking Members to reject this bill on the suspension calendar. Let us make it better. Even the FDA says the goal of pediatric exclusivity is labeling. We need to put the label on so we have the information before the doctor prescribes and before the consumer takes this drug. I cannot understand why the majority would not want doctors, patients, and families to know the effect a drug may have on their children. What is the proper dosage? What is the effectiveness of the drug? And is the drug safe for our children? Why do we have to wait an average of 9 months to find out after this drug is dispensed to our children whether a drug is safe and did the child receive the proper dosage? We need to know that before children take the drug, not 9 or 11 months after. Mr. Speaker, defeat this legislation on the suspension calendar so we can offer an amendment to tell the drug companies no pediatric exclusivity until a drug is properly labeled, before our children take that drug. Defeat this bill on suspension. Bring it back to the floor with the Stupak amendment to tie pediatric exclusivity to proper labeling.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, it has been good working with the majority. We cannot agree on this amendment. Even the FDA has asked for this amendment. When they testified before our committee in January, they said the weakness is labeling. ``The goal of pediatric exclusivity should be labeling,'' that is a quote from the FDA. Section 552 does not work in the real world; that is why we need this amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of a bill that may be coming to the floor in the very near future. It is called the H.R. 2887, the Pediatric Exclusivity bill. It was passed by Congress in 1997 to encourage drug companies to do studies in how their drugs would affect young people, those people under 18. Unfortunately, before this bill, drug companies did not necessarily take into consideration a drug's effect upon children 18 and younger, so Congress granted them a pediatric exclusivity which would allow them to extend their patent for another 6 months to do a study. Now, when they get done with this study, what happens to the study? It goes to the FDA and sits there, but yet the drug company gets the extension of the patent. From that study, we learned certain things, such as the dosage of medicine to be given and symptoms we should look for. What we found, since 1997, is that 33 drugs have been granted pediatric exclusivity. Of the 33, 20 of them have done label changes. The other 13 have not. Why not? The problem we are concerned about is why we would grant pediatric exclusivity prior to receiving the study. We should wait and not grant pediatric exclusivity until after we have the study, we know what the dosage recommendation should be, and then the product is labeled for pediatric use according to the study. So what we want to see is that the grant of pediatric exclusivity is tied into not only a study but also the necessary label changes. It only makes sense. The doctors, the patients, their families should know what was found in those studies and what they need to know to make sure that they are administering the drug in a proper way to young people. The goal of pediatric exclusivity, the FDA has been quoted as saying, is the labeling. That is why when the bill comes to the floor we would like to offer an amendment which would tie the grant of exclusivity necessarily to labeling changes. As I said, there have been 33 pediatric exclusivity drugs, but only 20 of them have changed their labels. What about the last 13? Currently, the exclusivity period is given only for doing a study. For the safety of our children, for the health care profession, and for all families, we should change this. Under our proposed amendment, all new drugs must complete the labeling requirement before the product is marketed. I cannot understand why we allow drug manufacturers to undertake a pediatric study, but not provide parents and doctors with the results they need to make informed decisions to properly use and dispense the drugs. As the FDA says, the goal of pediatric exclusivity is labeling, and we cannot lose sight of that. We went on the FDA Web site and they listed the drugs with the pediatric exclusivity. As seen on this chart, the first one, Lodine, Etodolac Lodine, 9 months after the pediatric exclusivity was granted, they changed their label. The labeling says it is now appropriate for young people 6 to 16, but the dose in younger children is approximately two times lower dosage than is recommended for adults. Now, would the doctor not want to know that before he gives Lodine, since it is used for juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, that the recommended dose is two times less than what is given for adults? The manufacturer was granted the pediatric exclusivity on December 6, 1999, yet the information did not get out to the doctors and patients and their families until August. Let us take this one right here. BuSpar. It was approved on May 22 this year for pediatric exclusivity. Two months later the labeling change comes out. And what did it find? The safety and effectiveness were not established in patients below the age of 18. In this drug here, they got the pediatric exclusivity, and 2 months later they had to change their label to let people know there really was no advantage. In fact, the safety and effectiveness was not established. I think that would give a red light to doctors and patients that maybe this drug is not doing what it is supposed to be doing. This one on the bottom, the Propofol Diprivan. Take a look at it. It is for anesthesia. When we take a look at it, it says it may result in serious bradycardia. Propoful is not indicated for pediatric ICU sedation, as safety has not been established. Now, if I was a medical professional, I am sure I would want to know this. Why does it take 18 months after the grant of the pediatric exclusivity to get the information out to the health care professionals? If we look closer at this, the incidence of mortality, it is 9 percent versus 4 percent. So there is twice as much chance of a deadly accident occurring with this drug as when it was given in the old form. Again, it takes 18 months to get this information out. So, again, before we grant pediatric exclusivity to a pharmaceutical such as this, should we not have the labeling change so we know what it is going to do to the patient, so the doctor knows what dosage he should recommend? That is the whole idea behind the labeling amendment. That is what we want to see be a part of the exclusivity bill. It is a good bill, with good intent, but we have to finish the job. Now that we have had it on the books for 4 years, we have seen the shortfalls. So let us change the label so everybody is informed about the value of these drugs.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a bill that will be coming to the floor soon. H.R. 2887 is commonly called the pediatric exclusivity bill. This was a good bill. It was passed and implemented back in 1997. It had a 5-year sunset, so it is necessary for Congress to reauthorize the pediatric exclusivity bill. Pediatric exclusivity simply says this: If a drug company that currently has a drug on the market will do an exclusive study for young people, those 18 or under, we will grant to them a patent extension for 6 years. It is amazing, but as drug companies put forth drugs, they were not required to see what the effect would be on young people. Thus, we created the pediatric exclusivity bill to make sure an opportunity was provided to have studies done to make sure the proper dosage, the amount and the type of drug, would be beneficial to young people, those under 18 years of age. Just for agreeing to do a study that the FDA wants for young people, a drug company can get its patent extended. That is of great benefit to the drug company, of course, because they hold the patent and make money off the drug, and this bill is now due to be reauthorized. As we move through this bill in our Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, there are a number of improvements we would like to see made with the bill. While there have been a number of improvements made already, there is still one part of the bill that troubles me, and hopefully, I will be able to offer an amendment to correct this inequity in the bill. What my amendment would say is that if we provide a pediatric exclusivity, before that patent extension is provided, the drug company must make the necessary label changes on a product that has been studied. In fact, I would like to quote the FDA's report to the Congress dated January of this year. It says, and I quote, ``The ultimate goal of encouraging pediatric studies is to provide needed dosing and safety information to the physicians in product labeling.'' To paraphrase, and I want to emphasize, ``The goal of pediatric exclusivity is the labeling.'' It is the labeling where we find out how much to give, the safety information, and who should be given it. That is why I must offer my amendment when this bill comes to the floor. My amendment would tie the grant of exclusivity to the necessary labeling changes. There have been 33 drugs approved for pediatric exclusivity, but only 20 of them have made the needed changes on the label. How would a doctor, a parent, or a patient who is under 18 know what is the right dosage or if this drug is safe for them without this information? Currently, the exclusivity period is given only for conducting studies. For the safety of our children, for our health care system, this must and should be changed. Take, for example, one of the drugs that has been granted pediatric exclusivity, Eli Lilly's drug Prozac. The benefit to the public, specifically parents, patients and pediatricians, is zero, because the manufacturer has yet to place any information in the public record regarding the pediatric dosing or other data relating to the drug's safety in juvenile populations. Just for doing a study, for doing very little to aid our understanding of the operation of this antidepressant drug, they are allowed to have the pediatric exclusivity, to make the money, but not without giving us full disclosure of the needed safety information. That information on Prozac is never given to doctors, parents and patients on how it affects young people. Sadly, physicians and parents have no way of knowing what the results of the study were on Prozac regarding the myriad of presumed uses of Prozac in young people. Unless Eli Lilly elects to tell us, we do not know what testing occurred, in what specific age groups, what dosage, or what reactions. Pediatricians, parents, and patients have no information; they are literally left in the dark. When the current bill comes to the floor, it will only require that manufacturers in the future will be required to label their products after the results are known. But that knowledge will not be given until 11 months after the product is on the market. That gives them 11 months to negotiate with the FDA in a secret proceeding, unless the FDA is prepared to declare a product misbrand, and the FDA has been reluctant to do so. Under my labeling amendment, which I hope to bring to the floor, all new drugs must complete the labeling requirement before the product is marketed. I cannot understand why we allow drug manufacturers to undertake a pediatric study but not provide the doctors, the patients, and the parents with the results of this study and the information they need to make it available.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to an individual in my congressional district, the 1st District of Michigan. This individual personifies the best qualities of community volunteers--vision, dedication, leadership, and humility. He has served as a coach for youth sports, as a local elected official with three decades of service, and he has headed up the citizens's advisory board for one of our newest national parks since the panel was formed. Truly, Paul Lehto of Calumet Townships has served his community and his country well. I salute Paul Lehto today, Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of his having received from Northern Michigan University the President's Award for Distinguished Citizenship. But for you and our House colleagues to really understand the accomplishments of Paul Lehto, Mr. Speaker, I need to review a little bit about the unique area where he has worked and served for so many years. The Keweenaw Peninsula, which sticks far out into Lake Superior, is the only place in the world where commercially abundant quantities of elemental cooper have been found. From the 1840s to 1968, more than 11 billion pounds--80 percent of the cooper in the world today--was extracted from mines as deep as 9,000 feet and shipped all around the world. The history of this process and region is so unique and so important to the growth of this nation that in 1992 Congress passed a bill creating the Keweenaw National Historical Park. Paul was raised and schooled in Kearsarge, a small village in the Keweenaw, where he still lives today. As a lifelong resident of the area, Paul was a personal witness to the demise of mining. After graduating from local schools he went to work for the Calumet and Hecla Mining Co. As a laborer and truck driver, and he served as treasurer of a local union until the mines closed in 1968. He was elected supervisor for Calumet Township in 1972, and he has been re-elected every term since then. He has faced major challenges, not the least of which were economic. In the mining heyday, Calumet was so prosperous and progressive that it came within one vote of being named Michigan's capital. By the late 1970s, however two-thirds of the storefronts in Calumet were vacant and 67 percent of the welfare recipients in Houghton County were in Calumet's zip code. A key to the vitality of the township, Calumet was in danger of being a ghost town. The end of the mining industry allowed homeowners for the first time in the region's history to purchase the land on which their homes sat, and during Paul's time in office township neighborhoods were platted. Paul recognized the importance of protecting the region's historical heritage by leading his township to be the first in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan to enact the historic preservation and land-use ordinances. When the Keweenaw National Park was created and Paul assumed the post of chairman of the park's Advisory Commission, a task he continues to this day. Capitalizing on the region's history and natural beauty are keys to economic survival, and Paul has been on the cutting edge of this effort. A 16-acre lakeshore community park is another of his accomplishments. Amidst his other tasks, Paul Lehto has found time to coach youth hockey on several levels, and he has served as a commissioner on the Western Upper Peninsula Planning and Development Regional Commission. This planning and re-granting agency has worked for years to assist with housing infrastructure and economic redevelopment projects in the region hit hard by the end of the copper business. I'd like to add a few personal comments, Mr. Speaker. Paul Lehto's accomplishments are great, but in many respects he is a true man of the region--a ``Yooper'' as we in the U.P. of Michigan style ourselves. As a typical Yooper, he does what needs to be done without looking for any award, and he accomplishes his tasks without fanfare. He will fight for what he believes in, but he will accept his victories with humility. In therefore gives me special pleasure to call your attention and that of our colleagues to the great honor from Northern Michigan University that has been bestowed on my friend, Paul Lehto.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Michigan resident Bob Larson, a man who turned his own passion for flying into a non-profit, lifesaving organization that serves the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Bob is the prime mover behind Northwoods Airlifeline, an organization of pilots who volunteer their time and aircraft to help obtain medical assistance unavailable in Upper Michigan. Since Bob conceived the service in 1989, Northwoods Airlifeline has flown more than 1,100 missions--all free of charge, Mr. Speaker--to destinations all around the Midwest. Northwoods Airlifeline fills a gap in critical services by transporting patients who may be financially distressed, who may be unable to travel by car or commercial transportation, or who for medical reasons may face severe time constraints. The primary need of individuals served by Northwoods Airlifeline has been organ transplants, since there is no facility in Upper Michigan to perform this procedure. The service has also met the needs of chronically-ill people who cannot afford to fly or drive long distances, and it has transported medical patients who are beyond medical help to be with their loved ones. Bob Larson, a native of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and a World War II Navy veteran, took flying lessons after he left the service and went to work in Chicago, where he bought his first plane in 1958. But Bob, along with Ruth, his wife of 57 years, who is a registered nurse, eventually moved back to the North Woods, settling in the small town of Witch Lake in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The Larsons shared a dream of forming an air medical service to assist friends and neighbors in times of medical emergency. From these two caring, giving, loving individuals Northwoods Airlifeline was born, and it is still coordinated by Bob today. The organization recruits volunteer pilots, operates a dispatching network to receive and fill requests for transportation, and conducts community education and fund raising programs for its services. There are no salaried personnel or rental expenses. Pilots and volunteers absorb fuel costs and other expenses, and all donations go toward the administrative costs of transporting those in need. The high regard in which the service is held can be summed up in the comments of a man who was flown out of state for a surgical procedure, ``Well, I have met some real-life angels, wings included,'' he said, ``only their wings are attached to the airplanes they fly.'' Bob Larson is being honored on Oct. 20 by Iron Mountain Chapter #44, Order of the Eastern Star, which has selected him as the 13th recipient of the annual Eastern Star Community Service Award. The purpose of the award is to recognize an individual, not affiliated with any Masonic or Masonic-related organization, who has shown unselfish dedication for the betterment of the community and the world in general. Mr. Speaker, I encourage you and all our House colleagues to go on the World Wide Web at www.northwoodsairlifeline.org and read about the other men and women who make this vital service possible, and read the wonderful stories of the families that Northwoods Airlifeline has assisted. We say that dreamers have their heads in the clouds, Mr. Speaker, but maybe it's up in the clouds, where Bob Larson spent so much time, that one gains the best perspective of the world and the place of each individual in it. So I ask you to join me in celebrating the accomplishments of two dreamers, Bob and Ruth Larson, and the wonderful volunteer organization they have brought into being.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bill Ivey, Chairman of the National Endowment of the Arts. Bill grew up in Calumet, Michigan, a town in the Upper Peninsula in my district. It is with great pleasure that I note Bill Ivey's remarkable career achievements. In recent years controversy had surrounded the NEA. This controversy has led to strict reform and restructuring of the NEA. Bill has led this reform and was able to build bipartisan support for the arts in Congress. Congress responded by providing the first budget increases in eight years. Bill Ivey spent much of this time explaining and implementing changes needed at the NEA. In his three years running the National Endowment for the Arts, Bill methodically changed the agency from one that was constantly criticized to a bastion of bipartisan calmness. Bill Ivey's past experiences prepared him well for the job, including serving as Director of the Country Music Foundation for 25 years. His experience and focus uniquely qualified him to recognize the importance of cultural programs across the country not only in big cities but also in rural communities and small towns. Under his leadership the NEA began a program to distribute more grant monies to under-represented geographic areas. I receive many letters from local arts councils, senior centers, community theaters, youth programs and museums detailing the positive effect of NEA's programs have and how even a small amount of federal funding greatly impacts the quality of their programs. These reforms led by Bill deserve much of the credit of the new image of the NEA. Under Bill's direction of the NEA the ``Save America's Treasures'' program helped preserve the Calumet Theatre in Calumet, Michigan. Despite its remoteness, this remarkable theater once provided a stage for some of the greatest actors and actresses who traveled the country shortly after the turn of the century. Like many institutions of its kind, the theater fell on hard times but was rediscovered by farsighted local residents. Now it is the bright jewel of a national project. I thank Bill for his tireless efforts toward this goal. Bill has been not just in Washington and other large cities but he also visited the small towns of America witnessing the progress of the NEA. He believes that art should not just be in the big city but also rural America, For example, Bill visited Fraziers' Boathouse in Marquette, Michigan, and granted them $15,000 to Lake Superior Theater, Inc. to overhaul the lighting system in the boathouse theater. Bill can be proud to know that he leaves the NEA with a greatly improved reputation and solid Congressional support. I wish Bill the best at Vanderbilt University, and his service at the National Endowment for the Arts will be missed, just as I will miss working with my friend, the Honorable Bill Ivey.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. It is amazing, the last speaker said those airlines that were flying on September 10 should continue flying. That is exactly the amendment I offered in the Committee on Rules today, which the Committee on Rules rejected. Because what we have found, Mr. Speaker, is the airline industry is asking for billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, and yet they are telling some of us in certain parts of this country, we are no longer going to service your area. If you are taking the taxpayers' money and if you are flying and doing well before September 11, 2001, why are they now cutting out service to areas like Chattanooga; Escanaba, Michigan; and the rest of this country? They are using the terrorist attack as an excuse to get out of certain marketplaces. The intent of my amendment was not to minimize or aggravate the losses incurred by the airline industry, but a sense of fairness. If they can service our areas before the terrorist attack and take billions of dollars from us, they should at least be able to continue to service our area. That was our amendment, straight up, forward. That is all we wanted. It was to ensure that areas do not get dropped by airline carriers in a rush to save money during this time. It is a real concern that the carriers will use this emergency as an excuse to cut routes, and, indeed, they already have. The amendment states, ``Any carrier who drops service within the next 2 years to an airport they served prior to September 11 will not be eligible for funding under the airline bailout bill.'' If a carrier stops providing air transportation to an airport, then the carrier must repay the United States the amount of money that they received. Billions of dollars in aid should not be given to private industry without some promises in return. Our communities are the heart and soul of America, and should not suffer undue hardship as a result of this tragedy. We cannot leave this to the airlines' discretion. They have already spoken. They have spoken loudly. They will cut service in some parts of this country.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I suspect most Members will support it. As we have heard from voices throughout the land, people are looking for swift, revengeful action from our Armed Forces. In my own district, my own constituents are mourning the death of Army Major Kip Taylor, who died in Tuesday's attack on the Pentagon. I am sure we all want swift retribution, but I am reminded of the old saying that revenge is a dish best served cold. This resolution authorizes the President to strike, and to strike hard. But let us make sure we identify our targets carefully. Today as we gathered at the National Cathedral on this day of prayer and remembrance, we sang the Battle Hymn of the Republic. We sang those words that we hope will send a chill through our enemies: ``He hath loosed the faithful lightning of his terrible swift sword.'' Mr. Speaker, the sword we loosen tonight is indeed terrible. May its aim be swift and true in bringing us justice and peace.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to expedite the benefits for the public safety officers who were killed or injured as a result of the horrific events of September 11. I commend the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, the chairman and the ranking member on this side for bringing this legislation forward. As the founder and the co-chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, we are constantly reminded, and having been a police officer, I have witnessed the hard work and dedication and sacrifice of our Nation's public safety officers that they take in day in and day out to make this world safer. Mr. Speaker, every time we have a bill on the floor, we hear the old cliche about how they put their lives on the line every day for us. Unfortunately, that is true. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, and every day since then, we have witnessed, whether through watching the buildings collapse or just seeing the news coverage, we witness the dedication and courage of the public safety officers and emergency medical responders who responded to the emergencies in New York and northern Virginia and Pennsylvania, wherever it may be. We in the Law Enforcement Caucus, since I have been here, have been fighting to make sure that there are survivors' benefits, education benefits. We regret that today we have to stand here and try to expedite benefits for hundreds of those public safety officers who gave their lives to try to assist all those people who were in need of maybe just a helping hand or a friendly face as they struggled to get out of the danger they were in. By expediting these benefits we in Congress, we in the Law Enforcement Caucus, remind the people throughout this great Nation of the work and dedication and courage of public safety officers, but also during their time of need as they are each and every day for us in our time of need, that we stand ready to assist them. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for bringing this bill to the floor, and I hope everyone in this Caucus and Congress supports this legislation.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time as I rise to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, when the President spoke last night, he spoke for all Americans when he said terrorist attacks can shake great buildings, but cannot shake the foundations of American democracy. We stand with the President when he says those countries which harbor terrorists must share the responsibility for their acts with those who commit them. We stand united in our grief for the families who have lost loved ones. We pray for those who still do not know the fate of their loved ones. And we stand ready to help, as best we can, those emergency personnel who are looking for survivors and are undertaking the grim task of recovery. Finally, we stand together, literally together, on the floor of this House, where the work of this great Nation continues. People across the Nation, people here in Congress, have lined up to give blood and to make other kinds of donations. We will show terrorists and would-be terrorists that while you can strike at us, you cannot subdue the strength and spirit of this great country, a strength and spirit that lies within each of us.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an important milestone in the history of our nation's oldest veterans organization. On Aug. 24, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States installed James N. Goldsmith of Lapeer, Michigan, as Commander-in- Chief. Even as I speak, veterans from around the state and across the nation are assembling in Harbor Springs, a beautiful community in my congressional district, to welcome Jim home and congratulate him on his great honor. He is the first National Commander elected from Michigan since 1943. Jim has been active since 1967 as a member of the VFW. He served as All State Post Commander in 1974, and in 1977 he earned recognition as an All State and All American District Commander. In 1978 he was selected as Michigan's ``Young Veteran of the Year,'' and in 1980 he became the first Vietnam veteran to be elected Department Junior Vice Commander. He earned All American status as a Department Commander, 1982-83. He served in Vietnam as an engineer from April 1966 to August 1967. In his acceptance speech as National Commander-in-Chief, Jim made the fight against diabetes one of the key elements of his tenure, demonstrating that he will clearly articulate the concerns of Vietnam veterans. I trust that all our House colleagues are aware that diabetes is linked to Agent Orange, and that combat forces who were ``in country'' during the Vietnam War and now have diabetes may be eligible for monthly disability compensation benefits and VA health care. Jim has also been back to Vietnam. While serving as Senior Vice Commander-in-Chief, he was selected to travel there as part of a presidential fact-finding committee. On an earlier trip to Vietnam and Laos as VFW Junior Vice Commander-in-Chief, he participated in field efforts to recover the remains of missing U.S. service personnel. The effort to account for missing combat individuals from past wars will remain one of the highest priorities of the VFW under Jim Goldsmith. He has already announced a new VFW initiative called the ``The VFW Reach Out for DNA Initiative'' to help contact eligible donors of blood DNA. The goal is to collect blood samples of all material relatives of World War II, the Korean War, Cold War, and Vietnam War casualties whose remains have not been recovered or identified. These samples will be sent to the Central Identification Laboratory in Hawaii to aid in such identification. Mr. Speaker, I know that Jim Goldsmith will be a powerful spokesman for 1.9 million members of the VFW, for all our nation's veterans, for active-duty personnel and for their families. I know we will see Jim Goldsmith on Capitol Hill, speaking out in support of bills like H.R. 303, a bill that brings fairness and just compensation to military retirees who have a service-connected disability. This weekend, as Michigan celebrates the selection of James Goldsmith to head the VFW, I ask you and our House colleagues to keep him in our thoughts and prayers, as he undertakes his vital task on behalf of all who served this nation so well.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to two significant health care events, which will take place while you and I and our House colleagues are back in our districts during the August work period. The first event is national, the celebration of National Health Center Week, August 19 through 25. This year's theme is ``Breaking New Ground in Community Health,'' a theme that reflects the expanding role of community health centers in our nation's system of health care delivery. The second event is the Aug. 23 celebration of a quarter century of community service by the East Jordan Family Health Center, which provides basic and expanded medical care for 10,000 members in a rural part of our nation--building healthy families and communities and ensuring a good quality of life. The two events, Mr. Speaker, are entwined. The national celebration marks more than 30 years of growth of a grant program for health care delivery, and the local celebration is a bright example of that successful growth. The East Jordan Family Health Center was incorporated 25 years ago when the community lost its only doctor. The next nearest community with a doctor was Charlevoix, 18 miles away. So a forward-looking consortium of community members came together and created a private, not-for-profit service. When the medical practice in the nearby small community of Bellaire was pulling out, the East Jordan Center purchased that clinic and the services of one doctor. Now the East Jordan Center offers its 10,000 members the services of ten doctors at two health delivery sites. Among its services are family practice, pediatric care, and internal medicine. The Center offers full X-ray and mammography services. Membership in the center, Mr. Speaker, is $6 per year for individuals and $10 per year for families. It is governed by a board of directors elected by the membership. The East Jordan Family Health Center draws its strength and direction from the community, and through that strength it offers other services to the community. Doctors practicing at the Center can provide other health services, such as assisting in a local nursing home. The not-for-profit nature of the Center qualifies the organization for federal grants, which are used to provide health care to those residents who might not otherwise have access to preventive medicine. The facilities themselves are a community asset. Space is provided free to the local Food Pantry, and to a counseling service. Organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous are given meeting space. Clearly, keeping health care costs low through a community-based health care service helps meet a broad range of local needs. The outreach doesn't stop there. The center has collaborated with the Northwest Michigan Community Health Agency, the district health department, to renovate space and provide modernized dental facilities, ensuring oral health care access for area residents. Facilities like the East Jordan Center are a great health deal for their members, but we in Congress need to recognize their important place in national health care delivery. According to the Michigan Primary Care Association, community health centers in Michigan receive 1 percent of the state's Medicaid dollars but provide 10 percent of the Medicaid services, clearly an excellent bang for the buck. Here's some national figures. According to the National Association of Community Health Centers Inc., our nation's Health Centers are ``the family doctor and health care home for more than 10 million people,'' including one of every 12 rural residents, one of every 10 uninsured persons, one of every six low-income children, and one of every four homeless persons. As we in Congress work to ensure that all Americans have access to the finest quality, most advanced, most personal kind of health care, we must recognize those individuals and groups on the front lines of health care delivery. I ask you and our House colleagues to join me in wishing the East Jordan Family Health Center the best as it celebrates 25 years of helping to work toward the same goals.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced this resolution along with Representatives Curt Weldon and Joe Hoeffel to emphasize the importance of crime prevention at the local level and to recognize the efforts of National Night Out. I am pleased to say that this resolution has bipartisan support, with 64 cosponsors. I would like to specifically thank the Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Crime Subcommittee, and the leadership on both sides of the aisle for their help in bringing this measure to the floor. Our resolution calls upon the President to focus on neighborhood crime prevention, community policing programs and reducing school crime and to issue a proclamation in support of National Night Out.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote number 331, I was unavoidably detained and missed that vote. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye.'' (Mr. SNYDER asked and was given permission to speak out of order for 1 minute.) Congratulations and Farewell to Our Colleague, the Honorable Asa Hutchinson

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Reserving the right to object, but I do not intend to object, Mr. Speaker, I introduced this resolution along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) to emphasize the importance of crime prevention at the local level and to recognize the efforts of National Night Out. I am pleased to say that this resolution has bipartisan support with over 64 cosponsors. I would like to specifically thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner); and the ranking members of the Committee on the Judiciary; and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime; and the leadership on both sides of the aisle in helping to bring this measure to the floor. Our resolution calls upon the President to focus on neighborhood crime prevention, community policing programs, and reducing crime, and to issue a proclamation in support of National Night Out. Mr. Speaker, last year over 32 million people participated in National Night Out. These 32 million people joined together and sent a message loud and clear that they do not want crime in their neighborhoods and streets and that they will keep working together until their communities are safe. Each of us will be returning next week to our districts for the August recess. I hope each Member will take the opportunity to participate in a National Night Out event in their community and show the strength of our national commitment to stop crime and keep our communities safe. Our resolution also urges President Bush to continue to focus national attention on reducing crime and to issue a proclamation in support of National Night Out, which is such an important national event. National Night Out brings communities together; and when we come together with our neighbors, our community leaders, our families, our unity leaves no room for crimes. It is a testament to what we can do together, and I am proud to see the House pass this resolution in support of such a program. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced this resolution along with Representatives Curt Weldon and Joe Hoeffel to emphasize the importance of crime prevention at the local level and to recognize the efforts of National Night Out. I am pleased to say that this resolution has bipartisan support, with 64 cosponsors. I would like to specifically thank the Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Crime Subcommittee, and the leadership on both sides of the aisle for their help in bringing this measure to the floor. Our resolution calls upon the President to focus on neighborhood crime prevention, community policing programs and reducing school crime and to issue a proclamation in support of National Night Out. National Night Out, which is coming up on August 7, is a successful national program which exemplifies the goals of crime reduction through neighborhood and community efforts. It is a nationwide event which combines a nationally coordinated crime prevention campaign with local community groups and law enforcement organizations to take a stand against crime. This year's National Night Out is the 18th annual event in the campaign by National Association of Town Watch to fight crime. National Night Out has grown year after year, and now includes citizens, law enforcement agencies, civic groups, businesses, neighborhood organizations and local officials from 9,500 communities from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, Canadian cities and military bases worldwide. Last year over 32 million people participated in National Night Out. Those 32 million people joined together and sent a message, loud and clear, that they don't want crime in their neighborhoods and streets, and that they will keep working together until their communities are safe. I firmly believe that a focus on neighborhood and community crime prevention is essential. It is for this reason that I have long supported the COPS program in the Department of Justice, and that I am such a strong supporter of National Night Out. As a former police officer who used to fight crime on the local and state level, I can tell you these programs work. Personal involvement in one's community, individual attention to our youth, taking responsibility for ourselves and for others, these things make a difference. Each of you will be returning next week to your districts for the August recess. I hope that you will take the opportunity to participate in a National Night Out event in your community, and show the strength of our national commitment to stop crime and keep our communities safe. Our resolution also urges President Bush to continue to focus national attention on reducing crime, and to issue a proclamation in support of National Night Out, which is such an important national event. National Night Out brings communities together. And when we come together with our neighbors, our community leaders, our families--our unity leaves no room for crime. It is a testament to what we can do together--and I am proud to see the House pass this resolution in support of such an important program. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I rise today in strong support of the Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) for his leadership on this issue. We are in the midst of a tremendous new debate, a tremendous new policy direction, a tremendous new revolution. We cannot afford to treat the issue of human embryo cloning lightly, nor can we treat it without serious debate and deliberation. The need for action is clear. A cult has publicly announced its intention to begin human cloning for profit. Research firms have announced their intentions to clone embryos for research purposes and then discard what is not needed. Whatever your beliefs, pro-life, pro- choice, Democrat or Republican, the fact is embryos are the building blocks of human life and human life itself. We must ask ourselves, what will our message be here today? What makes us up as human beings? What is the human spirit? What moves us? What separates us from animals? That is what we are debating here today. What message will the United States send? Will it be a cynical signal that human embryo cloning and destruction is okay, acceptable, even to be encouraged, all in the name of science? Or will it be a message urging caution and care? If we allow this research to go forward unchecked, what will be next? Allowing parents to choose the color of the eyes or the hair of their children, or create super babies? We need to consider all aspects of cloning and not just what the researchers tell us is good. Opposition to the Weldon-Stupak bill has based its objections on arguments that we will stifle research, discourage free thinking, put science back in the Dark Ages. How ridiculous. The Weldon-Stupak bill does nothing of the sort. It allows animal cloning; it allows tissue cloning; it allows current stem cell research being done on existing embryos; it allows DNA cloning. All of this is not seen as stifling research. The fact is, there is no research being done on cloned human embryos, so how can we stifle it? Mr. Speaker, do we know why there is no research being done? Because scientists, the same ones who are banging on our doors to allow this experiment with human embryos, do not know how to. They have experimented for years with cloned animal embryos with very limited success. These scientists, who were pushing so hard to be allowed a free pass for research on what constitutes the very essence of what it is to be a human, do not know what goes wrong with cloned animal embryos. The horror stories are too many to mention here of deformed mice and deformed sheep developing from cloned embryos. A prominent researcher working for a bioresearch company has admitted scientists do not know how or what happens in cloned embryos allowing these deformed embryos. In fact, he calls the procedure when an egg reprograms DNA ``magic.'' Magic? That is hardly a comforting or a hard- hitting scientific term, but it is accurate. It is magic. Opponents of our bill have said embryonic research is the Holy Grail of science and holds the key to untold medical wonders. I say to these opponents, show me your miracles. Show me the wondrous advances done on animal embryonic cloning. But these opponents cannot show me these advances because they do not exist. Our ability to delve into the mysteries of life grows exponentially. All fields of science fuse to enhance our ability to go where we have never gone before. The question is this: Simply because we can do something, does that mean we should do it? What is the better path to take? One of haste and a rush into the benefits that are, at best, years in the future, entrusting cloned human embryos to scientists who do not know what they are doing with cloned animal embryos; or one urging caution, urging a step back, urging deliberation? The human race is not open for experimentation at any level, even at the molecular level. Has not the 20th century history shown us the folly of this belief? The Holy Grail? The magic? How about the human soul? Scientists and medical researchers cannot find it, they cannot medically explain it, but writers write about it; songwriters sing about it; we believe in it. From the depths of our souls, we know we should ban human cloning. For the sake of our soul, reject the substitute and support the Weldon-Stupak bill.