Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, whatever happened to the quiet evening at home? Most people have experienced it, that annoying ring on the phone just as dinner goes to the table. When one answers, it is not a call from a friend or family member or even from work, it is someone calling to sell something, a telemarketer. Today we have before us of a bill that will allow hundreds of thousands of American citizens to enjoy the peace and quiet of their own home. H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to establish a national do-not-call registry that will allow consumers to opt out of unwanted and harassing telemarketing calls. This landmark do-not-call list will provide consumers with one central contact to stop unwanted telemarketing calls. The new do-not-call list will be a free service to all American consumers, and those telemarketers who choose to ignore the do-not-call registry will face stiff penalties of up to $11,000 for each violation. In order to coordinate the do-not-call programs among all of the agencies with jurisdiction over telemarketing, H.R. 395 directs the Federal Communications Commission to complete its pending do-not-call rulemaking within 180 days. The bill further directs the FCC to consult and coordinate with the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that both regulations are as similar as possible. This coordination will not only prevent consumer confusion, but it will provide the telemarketing industry with coordinated rules upon which to function. Lastly, H.R. 395 sets out reporting requirements for both the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission. Without the passage of H.R. 395, the FTC will be forced to wait until the year 2004 to implement its national do-not-call list. I am hopeful the other body will act swiftly to pass H.R. 395 so all Americans can enjoy the benefits of the national do-not-call list sooner rather than later. In fact, if anyone holds this legislation up, we are prepared to give out their home phone number to all who want to give them a call. Today Congress is answering the call from consumers for help in combating annoying and harassing telemarketing calls. Therefore, to empower the American consumer, I ask that Members support H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, and ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the bill (H.R. 395) to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees for the implementation and enforcement of a ``do-not-call'' registry, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 395.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5710, which embodies the President's ambitious and historic proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security. At the outset, I want to thank the Majority Leader and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security--the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Armey--for taking the President's bold framework and creating a much stronger bill in close consultation with the committees of jurisdiction, including the committee I chair, the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has and will continue to have jurisdiction over many aspects of this new department and the difficult challenges it will face. I also want to praise Governor Ridge and the White House for their flexibility and consideration of our concerns, and I think we all owe the Governor and the President a large debt of gratitude for the protection that they have given our country since 9/11. Ever since the anthrax attacks of last year, the threat of bioterrorism has become much more of a reality, and the importance of biomedical research activities at the Department of Health and Human Services and NIH and the CDC has never been greater. This bill builds upon those great research agencies. Rather than destroying their work and taking it over and redoing it, the bill makes it clear that NIH and CDC will retain primary responsibility over human health-related research, and that the new Department itself will not engage in such R&D efforts. Rather, it will collaborate and coordinate with these two agencies in setting priorities for research on terrorist agents. The Committee on Energy and Commerce recommended this approach because the terrorism-related research currently being performed at NIH and at the CDC is really dual-purpose in nature. It serves the priority and needs of both counterterrorism and the traditional public health system. So I want to thank the gentleman from Texas and the administration for working with us on this important change. We also want to make clear that the bill adopts recommendations that our Committee made with respect to the public health emergency and bioterrorism grant programs run by CDC and HHS for state and local governments, leaving them where they are now so that this important work of upgrading our public health infrastructure is not interrupted. The bill also will improve the efforts by our country's top scientists at national laboratories to develop new methods of detecting and preventing terrorist attacks, such as improved sensors to detect radiological devices and new scanners to screen luggage and cargo, a critical need as we move forward. Our current ability to screen for radiological and nuclear materials entering our ports is woefully inadequate. We are going to do something about it with this bill. A key provision in the bill that our Committee recommended will establish a central technology clearinghouse that will assist Federal agencies, State and local governments and, even more importantly, the private sector in evaluating, implementing, and disseminating information about key homeland security technologies such as radiation and bio-weapon detectors. Finally, the provisions in this bill dealing with the protection of our nation's critical infrastructures--most of which fall within our Committee's jurisdiction and are under the control of the private sector--are vitally important to ensure that progress in this area continues to be made. There will be a strong, cooperative program between the new Department and state and local governments and the private sector to enhance such protection, without micromanagement of security from Washington, D.C., or new regulatory mandates that will serve only to foster distrust and delay. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and once again thank the President, Governor Ridge, and Majority Leader Armey for their tremendous efforts in bringing this matter to a favorable resolution for the American people.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering an important and needed piece of safety legislation, H.R. 5504, the ``Child Safety Enhancement Act of 2002.'' This bill, introduced by Rep. Shimkus, aims to protect the ``forgotten child''--those children who are too large for the child safety seat, but too small for adult seat belts. Make no mistake about it, this bill will save the lives of innocent children who are too often the victims of automobile accidents. This bill will enhance child passenger safety by requiring the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to draft a final rule establishing performance requirements for child restraints, including booster seats, for children weighing more than 50 pounds when riding in passenger vehicles, and the installation of three-point lap and shoulder belts in rear seats. The legislation mandates that NHTSA initiate a rulemaking that will require the installation of the three-point, lap and shoulder belt assembly in certain rear seats within one year after enactment. This installation requirement must be phased in over three production years. NHTSA may, in accordance with past practice, allow for the earning of credits for early compliance or compliance beyond the mandated phase- in, allowing manufacturers to utilize credits in future model years. This section is intended to maximize occupant safety and it should not be construed to promote or inhibit liability. This legislation does not change the law on liability, and it is not intended to be a sword or a shield in litigation. Again, I thank Mr. Shimkus for shepherding this good bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I strongly support its passage. Passed, as Amended by the Committee Amendment as Further Amended H.R. 3429, to direct the Secretary of Transportation to make grants for security improvements to over-the-road bus operations, and for other purposes.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the bipartisan resolution to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. When President Bush addressed the nation following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, he made it entirely clear that the United States would not tolerate nations that harbor terrorists. Like the President, I believe a nation that provides a safe-haven for the likes of al-Qaeda is no different than the terrorist themselves. We know Saddam Hussein harbors terrorists in Iraq, funds terrorist training camps, and supports the families of suicide bombers. He possesses and continues to develop biological and chemical weapons and seeks to build a nuclear bomb. We know he will try to use this bomb against the United States or our allies if he gets his hands on one. He already has unleashed biological and chemical weapons upon his own people, killing thousands. What more do we need to know? We must stand ready to take action before it is too late. I want to make clear to every American, especially the folks in my home state of Louisiana, that this decision to possibly send our young service men and women into harms way is not about settling unfinished business. Nor is it about oil or taking control of Iraqi oil fields. This is about a grave and present threat against our people, today. Saddam Hussein is a tyrannical dictator who hates America and who will use any means possible to attack us if given the opportunity. We cannot allow Saddam that opportunity. Our only option is to take every precaution to ensure the safety of our citizens. Whether the next direct threat against the United States comes in the form of retaliation from Iraq or from any other terrorist entity, we must be prepared for the possibility of a biological or chemical attack against Americans, here or abroad. Today, I can say with confidence that America's public health emergency system is better prepared to respond to such an attack as a result of the comprehensive bioterrorism preparedness bill that I worked hard to help write and enact. This sweeping legislation, signed into law by the President in June, dramatically improves our nation's ability to respond swiftly and effectively to new and emerging terrorist threats. This major milestone covers everything from public health preparedness and improvements, to enhancing controls on deadly biological agents, to protecting our food, drug, and drinking water supplies and improving communications between all levels of government, public health officials, first responders and health providers. Mr. Speaker, this threat to our national security is one we can conquer. We have the means, and I believe as the President does that ``we must act now before waiting for final proof--the smoking gun--that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.''

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today the House is considering legislation to address the West Nile virus outbreak. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) is the author of this legislation, and I am pleased that he joins me on the floor today to help secure House passage. There is a reason the Chair may have said the gentleman from Virginia, because obviously there are lots of folks in Louisiana right now moving north with a new storm approaching in the Gulf of Mexico, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) was one of those who was here working in the Nation's Capital while we watched our citizens and our friends in Louisiana being threatened once again. Last week when Isidore came through and dumped as much as 24 inches of water on my State, it created another impending threat to the problems of mosquito growth and the spread of this virus in our home State, and we are about to see another hurricane on its way this week. Since the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported this legislation 1 month ago, the number of human cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has increased 160 percent. Over 2,300 human cases are known, and almost every State in the Nation now, 43 in total, are reporting laboratory-positive West Nile virus infections in mosquitoes, animals or humans. Three years ago, West Nile virus was detected in New York City. It was the first time the disease had been reported in this hemisphere, let alone in the United States. My home State of Louisiana, as my colleagues know, has been particularly hard hit, with 200 of the human cases reported from my home State in Louisiana. The Bush administration has responded quickly to the West Nile virus outbreak, transferring over the past 2 months an additional $17 million in emergency funds to assist State's efforts to control the spread of the disease, and I want to thank Secretary Tommy Thompson, who took money out of his personal budget to send it to States hard hit like our own, for responding so rapidly. But the rapid outbreak of this disease this summer demands that we more effectively control the mosquito population to help reduce the risk of West Nile virus in its transmission. Today we are considering legislation that complements the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that they are already doing in so many mosquito-borne illnesses including, by the way, the discovery here recently of malaria. The Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act provides authority for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to political subdivisions to develop comprehensive mosquito control plans and programs. And historically, mosquito control programs have been operated at the local level, and we do not want to change that. Nothing in this bill will change that. It is clear, however, that currently many of the local communities are facing hardships. The rapid outbreak across this country is fast outpacing the predictions of many scientists, and it is very difficult for communities to respond. In Louisiana only 18 of our 64 parishes have mosquito control programs in operation. The additional Federal dollars will make the difference in saving lives not only in Louisiana but across the country. And although mosquito control programs are indeed operated locally, infected mosquitos do not voluntarily stay confined to one area. They move around, as we know, and create havoc. So this act will give some assistance from the Federal Government to make sure that these local authorities have the tools to work with. But I want to commend the Centers for Disease Control; they have done a great job. We thank them. This bill will give them a lot more help. And the MASH Act will also direct the National Institutes of Health to conduct or support research and develop methods to control these insect populations and hopefully one day to find preventative vaccines or cures for some of these diseases. This legislation is only one way we can help Americans to ``fight the bite,'' if you will. And I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) who saw this problem coming before anyone else in this body, who filed this legislation months ago before it became such a severe national threat. This was great insight, and I think all of us in the Nation are indebted to him for the work he has done on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), whose hometown, by the way, has suffered 49 cases of West Nile virus.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) whose State, by the way, now is second only to Illinois in the number of reported cases.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who also, again, represents a State with the highest incidence of this disease.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4793) to authorize grants through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for mosquito control programs to prevent mosquito-borne diseases, as amended.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill and on behalf of the Committee on Energy and Commerce recommend it to my colleagues in the House. When injured patients in this country have to wait on average 5 years before a medical injury case is complete, our system is failing. When an injured patient loses up to 58 percent of the awards to attorneys and the courts, something is wrong. And when 60 percent of malpractice claims against doctors are dropped or dismissed, you can imagine the unnecessary costs to the system that all of us pay into. Now, I want to do something we do not do around here enough. I want to admit to being wrong once in my life. I was in the legislature of Louisiana. I voted wrong. I voted against these reforms as a young State legislator. They were passed over my objections and they worked. Doctors and hospitals in Mississippi are streaming into Louisiana because they do not have those protections in Mississippi and people in Mississippi are losing access to quality health care. Let me tell you, I do not care whether you have insurance or not. You can have all the insurance in the world; if there is no doctor to serve you, if there is no emergency room to go to, if there is no hospital to take care of you, you are in trouble. This bill makes sure we have doctors and hospitals and emergency rooms in America. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4600, legislation to ensure that patients have access to high quality health care. When injured patients have to wait, on average, 5 years before a medical injury case is complete, our judicial system has failed. When injured patients lose 58 percent of their compensation to attorneys and the courts, our judicial system has failed. When 60 percent of malpractice claims against doctors are dropped or dismissed, but the fear of litigation still forces doctors with 25 years or more of experience to retire early, our judicial system has failed. What my home State has in place and what California have benefited from for over 27 years are commonsense guidelines for health care lawsuits. These guidelines ensure that injured patients receive greater compensation and that frivolous lawsuits--that extort health care professionals and drive doctors from the practice of medicine--are limited. The reforms in this bill will work. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ``H.R. 4600 would lower the cost of malpractice insurance for physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers and organizations. That reduction in insurance costs would, in turn lead to lower charges for health care services and procedures, and ultimately, to a decrease in rates for health insurance premiums.'' Even better, ``CBO estimates that, under this bill, premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 30 percent below what they would be under current law.'' That means that Congress really has an opportunity to pass legislation that will have a direct impact on patient access to care. With these reforms, patients will have greater access to health insurance. With these reforms, doctors will stay in business and not be forced to move to another State, or even worse, drop a specialty practice altogether. With these reforms, patients will have greater access to providers so they will actually receive ``health care.'' The issue at hand today is fundamental to all of the deliberations we make with regard to health care policy. We all recognize that health care costs money, and that high health care costs are a barrier to health care. But, even if a patient has health insurance, what is that insurance coverage worth if there are few doctors available to treat you? This bill before us will have a tremendous impact on patients' lives. I encourage all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to support the legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, no one know precisely when it was, though most historians agree that in the 1840's, on the Elysian Fields in New Jersey, a group of men led by Alexander Joy Cartwright began to play what would later develop into baseball. In the ensuing century and a half, much has changed in America, but this magical game endures. From Cap Anson and Cy Young to Sammy Sosa and Randy Johnson, the men who have played professional baseball have served as an inspiration to America's children, both boys and girls. As far back as the turn of the century, the great stars recognized their impact on the children of the nation. Perhaps the greatest shortstop of all-time, Honus Wagner, demanded that his name not be associated with certain products so as not to encourage children to take up vices. The men who have played this game, our national past-time, have inspired us both with their athletic accomplishments as well as their human achievements. The list of memorable events and remarkable feats of athleticism are long: Cy Young with his 511 wins; Babe Ruth's mammoth home runs; Walter Johnson's side-arm fastball; Lou Gehrig's 2,130 consecutive game streak; Ted Williams hitting .406 in 1941, the same year Joe DiMaggio had a 56 game hit streak; the great Jackie Robinson integrating the pasttime; Bobby Thomson taking Ralph Branca deep in the ``shot heard 'round the world''; Willie Mays' unbelievable over the shoulder catch; Don Larson's perfect game in the 1956 World Series; Bill Mazeroski's home run to win the 1960 World Series; Sandy Koufax's curveball; Bob Gibson's intimidation; The Amazin' Mets incredible run in 1969; Carlton Fisk waving the home run fair in game six; Reggie Jackson's three home runs in 1977; Nolan Ryan's seven no- hitters and 5000+ strikeouts; Kirk Gibson hobbling out of the dugout to hit the game-winning home run in the 1988 World Series; Joe Carter ending the 1993 World Series with a home run in the bottom of the ninth; Edgar Renteria winning an improbable World Series for the Marlins with an extra-inning single; Cal Ripken breaking Gehrig's streak; the Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa home run duel; and just last year, the heroics of Derek Jeter and Scott Brosius eclipsed by the timely hitting of Luis Gonzalez in one of the best World Series of all-time, the very same year that Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs. These are just a few of the moments which have defined our game for more than 150 years and have inspired countless Americans. Baseball is truly the all- American game--one that carries special meaning for rich and poor and people from all walks of life. But there is a dark cloud gathering over the game. People have quietly spoken about steroid abuse in baseball for the past decade or so, but since there was no steroid testing, it was only talk. Now, however, we're told by former National League MVP Ken Caminiti that up to half of all baseball players are using steroids. Who knows what the exact number is? However, it should be noted that baseball is one of the few professional sports that does not test for performance enhancing drugs. Football, basketball and the Olympics all ban and test for the use of steroids, but regrettably, baseball does not enforce its ban. Unfortunately, the specter of steroids over our national pastime threatens the credibility of the game. Numerous studies have shown the deleterious health effects steroids have on users. Steroids have been linked to liver damage, kidney-failure, heart disease and brain tumors. And now tens of millions of children are receiving mixed messages about these dangerous drugs. Boys and girls see their idols admit to steroid usage and become desensitized to the drugs' dangers. It's long past time when Major League Baseball put an end to the mixed messages children are receiving about steroid usage. Mandatory testing of players for performance enhancing drugs is simple common sense. It should not require negotiations between the Owners and the Players Association. Walt Whitman once said that he saw great things in baseball. This is a game that transcends time, inspires hope in the downtrodden and-due to the incredible achievements, personalities and graciousness of such players as Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson and Cal Ripken--unites the social fabric of our country. Its place in the pantheon of American culture should be protected from all who seek to tarnish its image. My friends, now is not the time for America's pastime to disappoint its fans or set a bad example for our youth. Professional baseball players have an opportunity to lift a dark cloud from this most cherished game. They can move immediately to a new era of mandatory drug testing for performance enhancing drugs. This should not be the subject of a great national debate. Rather, players should recognize a simple fact: America's children are watching you. You are their role models. Children will learn from your actions. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for moving this resolution to the floor. I commend Mrs. Johnson for focusing on this important issue and allowing me to reminisce on the importance of our national pastime. There can be nothing more important than setting a good example for the youth of our country. This resolution reflects that fact and tries to restore some of the pride our nation feels for this timeless sport.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5005 which represents the President's ambitious and historic proposal to create the new Department of Homeland Security. I believe the President's proposal represented a great framework for congressional consideration, but I think the majority leader and the Select Committee on Homeland Security chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), deserve so much better. He has really done a yeoman's job in not only building this program as the President requested, but creating a much stronger bill as a result of the way he has gone about his work. His leadership and his consultation with the committees of jurisdiction has been tremendous, and I know he has consulted so well with those on the other side as we process this bill. I want to praise Governor Ridge and the administration for their flexibility and consideration of our concerns, and I think we all owe him and his department a debt of gratitude for the protection that he has given our country since 9-11 and the work he is doing to ensure homeland security as we go forward. Ever since the anthrax attacks in this country, the threat of bioterrorism has become much more of a reality to our people, and the importance of biomedical research activities at the Department of Health and Human Services and NIH and the CDC has never been greater than today. This bill literally builds upon those great research agencies, and rather than destroying their work and taking it over and redoing it, the bill makes it clear that NIH and CDC will remain with primary responsibility over human health-related research, and that the new Department itself will not engage in R&D efforts, but rather will collaborate and coordinate with these two agencies. More importantly, the bill retains all of the legal and budgetary authority for these research programs within HHS. The Committee on Energy and Commerce recommended this approach because of the terrorism- related research currently being performed at NIH and at the CDC, which is really dual-purpose in nature. It serves the priority and needs of both counterterrorism, but also, traditionally, the needs of public health. So I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the administration for working with us on this important change. We also want to make clear that the bill adopts recommendations that our committee made with respect to not only bioterrorism and public health operations at NIH and HHS, but also the public health emergency grant programs run by those agencies. I am pleased that the committee adopted our committee's recommendations in this area as well. The bill also will improve the efforts by our country's top scientists at national laboratories to develop new methods of detecting and preventing terrorist attacks, such as improved sensors to detect radiological devices and new scanners to screen luggage and cargo, a critical need as we move forward. Our Nation's ability today to screen for radiological and nuclear materials entering our ports is woefully inadequate. We are going to do something about it with this bill. To address those needs, our committee recommended the bill adopt a provision that will establish at the new Department a central technology clearinghouse that will assist Federal agencies, State and local governments and, even more importantly, the private sector in evaluating, implementing, and sending out information about key homeland security technologies such as radiation and bio-weapon detectors. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) of our committee, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for their help in this regard during the committee's deliberations. I also want to point out that, indeed, we also recommended, and the committee adopted in the print, within the Department a Federal cybersecurity program that will begin to provide computer security expertise to other Federal and civilian agencies to help improve protection of their critical information systems. Our committee did work in this area, and what we learned about the vulnerability of Federal agencies to cyberattack was astounding. Today, the business software lines told us the private sector is in similar shape. This bill will turn it around. The cybersecurity section is a critical component. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend this bill to all of my colleagues and recommend its passage.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), my friend and the chairman of the tremendously important Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, whom we all depend upon for our transportation needs and whom I consider my dearest friend, whenever I have those needs in particular. I do want to seriously thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for the extraordinary degree of cooperation between his committee and his staff and the staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, as well as the staffs of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), representing the minority of our two committees for the extraordinary work that has been done on this bill. This is not just a multi-year bill, this is a multi-Congress bill. This has been a work in progress for years through several Congresses, and we have reached the point today where we now have concurrence not only between our two committees but in a bipartisan fashion we can bring pipeline safety to the floor for a vote, and most importantly we can bring it to the floor for a vote with the support of the Office of Pipeline Safety, with the pipeline industry itself, with the support of the environmental community and the support of organized labor. This is a bill literally that meets all those tests simultaneously and it is a great example of the way this House can work through our committee system together in a bipartisan fashion to do the right thing for our country. It also addresses, by the way, State participation in the pipeline safety regulatory regime, again recognizing the dual role in the Federal and the State governments in protecting our citizens in terms of pipeline safety, and, perhaps most importantly, this bill becomes the House position on pipeline safety as we are now engaged in the Conference on Energy with the Senate where we hope to produce a comprehensive energy package for the House and Senate to vote on sometime before we leave session in October. This bipartisan position that is now supported, I hope, by this whole House will be the frame by which the House makes an offer to the Senate now and hopefully resolves this issue in the context of the much larger energy bill. And I want to thank my friends from both sides of the aisle for making that possible. As we move toward consideration of the most serious issues in dispute between the House and Senate, getting an agreement on pipeline safety will be one of the first orders of business that we will take up this Thursday when the conference meets. So again I want to thank all the chairmen and ranking members, and I lastly want to pay particular thanks and attention to the chairman of the subcommittee and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for doing such a great job at the subcommittee level of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in producing this bill. We sometimes forget how important the work of our subcommittees is in framing a bill that we can together work out in final detail for the floor, and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) as in their usual fashion have worked in extraordinarily close fashion to make sure we have that opportunity at the Committee on Energy and Commerce level. And again I want to thank them for their hard work and the work of the staffs that went behind it. Again this is a good day for both our committees. I commend this legislation to the House floor.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today that we are taking a moment to honor Lindy Boggs and the work she did in this Chamber and throughout her lifetime for our Nation, for our State, and for so many in this House who were privileged to know her and work with her. It is indeed amazing that it is already 25 years since she participated so mightily in the establishment of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, and we celebrate that anniversary today in the same moment we honor her for her work and enduring character and enduring spirit. I wanted to speak for a second as dean of the Louisiana delegation about Lindy Boggs, the person. The women of this Chamber have a lot of debt to Lindy Boggs. She broke so many glass ceilings in her life and she opened so many doors that had remained closed before. She was such an instrument of advancing the cause of women in this Nation in her incredibly quiet, genteel and classy way. But the men of this Chamber owe a great deal to Lindy Boggs, too, particularly the members of the Louisiana delegation. I came to know Lindy as the spouse of Congressman Hale Boggs, who was such a powerful figure in this Chamber and lost his life campaigning for a colleague in Alaska. We never found Hale Boggs. We just know that we lost him, and Lindy Boggs had to pick up the pieces of her life and her career in the face of that awful tragedy. But she not only picked up the pieces of his career, but established her own and became a legend in Louisiana for amazing service to our State as a Congresswoman. On a personal level, Lindy Boggs was something very special for all the members of our delegation. I believe all of you who serve in this body know of which I speak when I say that there are times when the stresses of the job we have undertaken, that we have undertaken in many cases in spite of the demands of family and friends and work and all the other things that intrude upon our work here in Congress, those pressures and those incredible hours and those incredible problems of travel back and forth to the district that we all undertake in service to our country sometimes erode your sense of who you are and what you are and sometimes become very almost unbearable in the light of all the claims upon your life as a Member of Congress. Your children need you, your friends need you, the folks at home need you, and your colleagues and their work here need you. Eventually at some point in your career, you need some very special person to set it all right and sit down with you and give you focus again. Lindy Boggs always did that for our delegation. I can remember so many times when a member of our delegation was in that moment of stress when it all seemed too much, and it all seemed too difficult, and it all seemed almost unbearable, and Lindy Boggs was there to put it all in perspective and remind them why they knocked on doors and why they worked so hard to get here and what service to this country was all about and what it was to sacrifice sometimes in order to do this job good and to do it well, and to be respectful of all the obligations imposed upon a Member of this body. Lindy Boggs was such a class act as a Congresswoman. She remains such a class act as a person. She remains someone all of us in our delegation continually look up to with admiration and respect and honor and great affection. She went on, as you know, to serve as Ambassador to the Vatican and to serve our country in that incredibly important function, representing our Nation to a foreign nation. She did so with, again, that special style that was only Lindy's, that special ability to charm anyone, anywhere in this world, and to make them want to pay attention to her and to listen to her and to take her into account. She had so many gifts, and this beautiful family she raised with so much talent is just one of the many gifts that she has given this body and this world and this country. For all of you who look back over those 25 years and think how far this body has come, how much we have changed in those 25 years, let me perhaps close with one most important thought for the women of this body: Lindy Boggs opened not only doors for you, but she opened a lot of eyes to men in this body about women's issues. She taught us so much. She made us all much more sensitive to the concerns of women, not only in this body, but in this country. And to all of you who remember her, as I do, with such love and affection on this 25th anniversary of this institution of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues that she was so mightily responsible for, we say thank you again, Lindy. Thank you for being a part of this body, thank you for giving so much of your life to this country in so many different ways. Thank you for being that personal nurturing spirit that you were for our delegation in so many tough moments, and thank you for all you did for women's issues in this country. Lindy Boggs, we love you, and this body stands in awe of you, and we honor you today because you deserve no less than the highest honor this body could ever afford anyone in this country, who has done so much and given so much and has been such a great lady as yourself.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Greenwood) for the extraordinary job he has done and the members of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the now many-month-long series of investigations beginning with the Enron scandal and the series of hearings we had, exposing what we found to be massive, in our opinion, fraud and massive cooking of the books at that corporation, and the subsequent investigations that are ongoing even today in the failure of other corporate managers and boards of directors which have led to much of what we see, the carnage on Wall Street and the loss of millions and billions of dollars, in fact, in investor funds over the last year or so. Those hearings and those investigations began as we learned of the serious problems at Enron. Our investigative staff, as you know, began working throughout over the Christmas holidays gathering information that was available to us. We uncovered the fact that Arthur Andersen employees were shredding documents, and we had to have hearings in advance of our hearings on Enron to expose that problem. That, as you know, has led to a Federal indictment and now a conviction. We had to literally examine thousands and thousands of documents, and in those documents we found indeed the whistleblower memo that told us an awful lot about what had happened and what was going on at Enron that caused it to collapse and why, in fact, all the special partnerships and the outside special entities that were created were designed, not for economic reasons, but simply to hide debts and inflate income. We have seen that replicated now in a number of different cases that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Greenwood) has already mentioned and that most of us know about now, including with the latest criminal investigation announced of Quest Communications and the collapse of WorldCom on the world stage. The one thing that we have learned out of all of these hearings is that when greed is unchecked by the fear of discovery, a lot of bad things happen. I suppose it is a little bit like having a lot of great laws against bank robbing, but then leaving the doors open and telling the policeman to go home, and then being surprised when somebody robs the bank. Banks get robbed and laws can be as strong as we want to make them, but we still need good policemen on the beat and still need good laws to ensure that vaults are secure at night and managers of banks take care of the money in the bank on behalf of those who put their trust and their confidence and money in those banks. So is it true with corporate America. More and more Americans are invested now in publicly traded companies. More and more Americans, without even knowing it sometimes, have their pension funds invested in corporate America and public funds. More and more Americans directly now invest over the Internet and trade stocks every day in the stock market. More and more millions of Americans, in fact, are now owners of American corporations, instead of just the few who might have owned them in years past. So more and more millions of Americans have a great stake in the way corporate America behaves. The notion that corporate governance in the cases of these massive failures has now let these Americans down and that workers have been put out of their jobs and that pension funds have been devastated, not simply at the companies where those workers have their pension funds, but all the pension funds around America that were invested in these companies, the notion that that is happening in America at a time when we should have indeed a strong protective system at the SEC, we should have indeed strong enforcement of our laws, we should have boards of directors who carefully are representing the interests of those millions of American owners of American corporations, the notion that that could happen has literally shaken, I think, American investor confidence in this system, and we need to restore it quickly. Now let me say something, Mr. Speaker, that I think needs to get said. The reason why our committee has been so passionate about what we have found and what we are learning about the failures in corporate America is that our committee is the Committee on Interstate Commerce. It is the oldest committee in this Congress. It is the only one mentioned in the United States Constitution. Our Committee on Interstate Commerce has been for many, many years the committee that literally bears responsibility for making sure that the commerce of our country is conducted properly, that the economy of our country is strong, that its laws and regulations and the institutions that guide our economy are well-funded and operate well. To the extent this is happening on our watch, we have a responsibility to fix what is wrong and to make better laws and regulations to make sure it does not happen again. But it also offends us more than anyone else. As defenders of the free market system, as people who have fought to make sure that free enterprise and the capital markets were allowed to flourish in America, as opposed to those who would like to strangle them with regulations and socialize many conditions in this country, we are the most offended when bad players, when corporate criminals mess it up for all the good players in this country, the thousands upon thousands of small business corporations and medium-sized corporations and even the large corporations in this country who do it right. That is why we become so offended when some in the accounting industry violate their trust with so-called aggressive accounting and cook the books in a sense in collaboration with crooked executives to make it look like the companies are doing better than they should be, and then to take off with the stock and to sell it, where the pension holders cannot sell their stock, or while the rest of America who is invested in the company finds out they have lost so much of their savings. That is why we are so passionately angry about what has occurred and why our committee is so desperate to get all the facts and to understand what is wrong with this system and to fix it so it does not happen again. We are engaged today at our committee level in an investigation of 13 companies who have seen similar failure like Enron, who have gone through some efforts to either hide debt or inflate income beyond that which really existed, some effort to convince investors they were doing a lot better than they really were, and have now collapsed, and we have seen the loss of millions and billions of dollars to those investors. We are investigating those 13 companies right now and looking particularly at the boards of directors. We are very interested in knowing who those boards of directors were, how were they selected. Were they selected to represent the interests of the investors, or were they selected to represent the interests of the managers? Were they selected to be the CEO's men and women on the board of directors, or were they selected to represent the interests of the real owners of the corporation, the American investors who put their hard-earned dollars into a belief that those companies were being run properly? It shocked us in the Enron hearings to see how little the boards of director members who testified before our committee knew about what was going on, how much they took at faith the statements of the executives in that company that everything was okay and they were doing everything correctly and they should not ask any hard questions. It shocked us at how little the audit committees had done in reviewing those special partnerships in those entities created to hide debts and inflate income. It shocked us to think that those people who were serving on some of the most prestigious boards in America knew so little about what was really going on in their corporations, or at least claimed to. So we are going after that issue. We are going to find out what is happening in the boardrooms of America. There is some good news out of all of this. The good news in the face of all this carnage is that changes are occurring in corporate boardrooms of America. CEOs no longer have a friendly visit to their boards, they tell me. Boards are beginning to ask tougher questions. CEOs are having to answer the tough, hard questions about how their accounting is done. Accounting firms are beginning to have to answer hard questions by the audit committees and the finance committees of boards across America. There is a sea change going on. On Wall Street, reforms are being recommended to separate those analysts who work for the investment houses, to separate them so people are not putting lipstick on ugly pigs and selling them to us as beauty queens. We are beginning to see that change is being made at the SEC as they are recommending independent boards, and legislation is moving through Congress as a result of our hearings. Not only did this House, but the Senate now is taking up bills to deal with some of the issues of accounting misuse and abuses and to deal with the issues of independence of accounting and independence of corporate governance. Just this week our committee produced a bill to reform the accounting standards at the FASB, the board under our jurisdiction that sets accounting standards for America. In addition, a committee of this House passed through this Congress a bill to protect the pension funds of America to make sure that corporate executives could not sell their stock while the pensioners were stuck holding theirs. That legislation is now in the Senate waiting for final action. The bottom line is, we are beginning to see legislative action. We are beginning to see executive action, as the President himself has now issued an executive order. We are beginning to see reforms in corporate boardrooms across America and at the Wall Street offices in New York and around the country. We are beginning to see turnaround. So the outrage that we have seen in our committee, the ugly picture we have seen in our committee of corporate misbehavior, corporate criminal conduct, is at least beginning to produce some good results. People are beginning to take it seriously. As my friends have said, the Justice Department and others are beginning to look seriously at indictments and, hopefully, convictions of those corporate criminals, and reforms are literally in the wind. So it will take a little while for investors to really feel like things have changed, that they can put their money into an American corporation again and really believe that the boards of directors are going to represent them instead of someone else; who can really believe that corporate managers are going to be looking after their interests and not their own golden parachutes. Things are changing. The result of these hearings, the result of our ongoing investigations, I think, are going to build a better market for this country and beginning to have the investor confidence that really means something again. But if anyone in this country owes an obligation to protect this free market system and the capital markets and how they are structured, a free market by which this American economy has led the world, it is those of us in Congress who serve on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who have been responsible for over 200 years of protecting the interstate commerce of this country. Our committee will continue to do its work, and we will do it in a bipartisan fashion. We will ask our friends on the other side of the aisle, as we have always done in our committee and who have joined us in our FASB reforms, to join us as we go through these reforms and investigations until all the truth is known and all the reforms are in. This is great work we do. I hope we do it well. I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the members of his Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for the incredible work they have done so far and, believe me, we have much work yet to do.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to cite another example of how the gentleman's committee has worked on a problem in America that was awful, the Firestone tire failure problem just last year. When the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce did the deep investigations of Firestone and followed through in the current cycle of Congress, through to a point where not only did Firestone itself begin to fix its own problems, but it is reestablishing its name, it is beginning to hire back its people, its products are beginning to find their way back into the marketplace with confidence again; and it has now realized that it cannot have a defective product out there. It is doing much better today, I should report to the American public; but we in Congress, after those very extensive hearings, those awful hearings where we looked at so many people who had died on the highway because of the failure of tires on the traveling roads of our country, we in Congress acted swiftly. We amended for the first time in 30 years the highway safety laws of our country. NHTSA, our National Highway Safety Administration, was empowered to gather much more information about the safety of tires. It was empowered to do much deeper testing. It was empowered to require the companies to build better tires and to test them more efficiently and effectively. It is now going through a rulemaking that is going to give all of us a chance to know, in the new automobiles we buy, just what our tire pressure looks like and whether or not we are losing tire pressure so our tires become more dangerous again. The work the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Commerce produced is now producing stronger regulations, legislation which mandated stronger tires, safer automobiles; and therefore we are saving lives because of what we did with that extensive investigation and the subsequent legislation. We are in the same position here, except the lives we are trying to save are the financial lives of the citizens of our country; the financial life of Wall Street, to try to restore its confidence again; the financial life of corporations that are suffering. I bleed today for the workers at Enron. I bleed for the good accountants who worked for Arthur Andersen who have lost their jobs, who have seen their company come under such disastrous publicity and indictment and conviction for what occurred in the shredding. I bleed for the folks at WorldCom today, who are suffering through layoffs because their corporate executives participated in an apparent scheme to cook the books, and now their company is on the verge of bankruptcy. We should bleed for those workers, but we also bleed for the American public who invested in those companies and who trusted them. So what is the work product we have to come out with? We have to come out with a work product that literally strengthens our regulations, strengthens our laws, strengthens the enforcement agencies, but also does something the President called upon, and that is reinstills in corporate America, in those companies who may have lost their way, an understanding that character counts and that truthtelling is important. When they sign on the dotted line what the value of their company is, it should be a true value. It says to accountants, when they go and audit the books, they ought to do a fair auditing. They ought not hide debt and inflate income, and they ought to give people the truth about how well their corporation is doing. The good news is that most American corporations, the vast majority of American corporations, are not experiencing these problems. They have good boards and good managers, and the American public can have faith in them. But for those who have violated the trust of the American investors and the laws of our land, there are laws to punish them today, without us passing a single new law. There is justice coming, and there is reform in the wind. Again, I think the Firestone story tells the truth about this situation. When we shed light on the problem honestly, faithfully, get all the facts on the table, put the witnesses in front of the American public, let them tell their stories, when we do that, Congress acts, the regulatory agencies act, and the American public responds. Corporate America is waking up, I believe, to their responsibilities. I believe they are going to learn out of this horrible experience how important it is to keep, not just to build and to have, but to keep the trust of the folks who put their money into those corporations; who fund them, essentially, in their businesses through their investments and their pensions and 401(k)s, and the daily buying and selling of stock in our major markets. Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank the gentleman for the great work that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has done. The Committee on Financial Services, led by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), is doing a good job; and the combination of that and the work the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is doing in the Committee on Education and the Workforce on pension reform, I think that work together with what the Senate will do on the Sarbanes bill and what may happen yet on our FASB legislation and other bills that may make it through in terms of strengthening the criminal penalties against bad behavior. All that work will complement, I hope, the good work that is going on in corporate America now to clean up their act, and the good work that is going on in the accounting field to make sure that aggressive accounting is a thing of the past and that honest accounting is the way of the future.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise, too, to let the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) know that, from this side of the aisle, the feelings that have been already expressed about her personally are shared broadly across this body. I say to the gentlewoman from Florida, we have shared a lot of time together, I have shared time on both sides of the aisle, and we have come through a lot together. We came through Hurricane Andrew. When it got through messing with the gentlewoman's folks, it came down to Louisiana and messed with mine, and we share the horrors of those tragic days with our constituents together, and helped rebuild together. More importantly, I say to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), she has been a dear friend, a dear friend to so many of us. We have come to love and admire her in so many ways. I have often said that this House is filled with real people who represent real people. In a real sense, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) has literally represented the best of what the House of Representatives is all about. It is about people coming from the bottoms, the small places of America, and representing them with dignity and honor and respect; and she has done that in a magnificent fashion. She has honored this body by her presence. She will be remembered a long time by more than those grandchildren who love her so much. She will be remembered with honor and love by all of us in this House for the time we have been privileged to share with her here. I wish you bon voyage, Carrie. I hope you have a great time in whatever you do.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, there is trickery about this place. There is fraud about this House. We could have a motion to recommit forthwith, but that is not what happened tonight. What happened tonight was a motion to recommit promptly. My friend, the chairman of Ways and Means, will explain in just a minute the trickery in that motion. You see, that motion has a very special effect regarding this debate tonight and the possibility of us passing a prescription drug benefit for the seniors of America tonight. The gentleman from California will explain it to you in just a minute. But if we were to even consider the proposal offered in this motion to recommit seriously, it is almost identical, I believe, to the proposal that was made before the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It has been scored by CBO now at $971 billion, although our budget, as you know, allocated $350 billion to this effort. It is more expensive than the plan prepared on the Senate side by Senator Bob Graham. The Bob Graham plan is estimated to drive Medicare into insolvency by the year 2016. Just imagine how much sooner Medicare goes bankrupt under the plan our friends on the other side are offering in the motion to recommit. That is saving the Medicare program, driving it into bankruptcy? We are not alone in that assessment. The AARP looked at our plans, too; and this is what they said about ours: ``We appreciate your efforts to contain drug costs, because a Medicare drug benefit alone without effective cost controls will be difficult to sustain as our growing population of older Americans increases its drug utilization.'' Our assessment in the committee of this plan, believe it or not, actually raises drug prices to seniors. We asked CBO a simple question. We asked CBO if the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act before us that we presented to this House tonight would lower drug expenditures more than any other House bill introduced in the Congress and scored by CBO, and this is what they responded: ``The answer to your question is yes.'' Yes, lower drug costs. Yes, prescription drug benefits for our seniors. Tonight, not promptly. Yes, it is time to pass this bill tonight for all our moms and dads. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).