Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1542, and as chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, I would say that today, in fact, is the defining moment in our Nation's telecommunications policy. Yes, the issues are complex, but there certainly is much at stake. The choice in this debate could not be simpler or clearer. Today's regulation of broadband is based on yesterday's technology. So we can either seize the moment and move forward, or we can stay stuck in the outmoded regulatory rut and watch other countries take our jobs and industry away. Recently, I had the opportunity to chat with the head of the Southwestern Michigan Realtors Association, and it was no surprise to learn that the number one question on the minds of prospective home buyers in Michigan these days is not about property taxes and local schools but, rather, whether there is broadband access available in the neighborhoods. These folks are willing to commute, in fact, more than 30 minutes, even across State lines, just to live in communities which have broadband. Small businesses in the area are reporting similar competitive disadvantages as well. I compare broadband access to the interstate highway system which was built through southwest Michigan back in the late 1950s and 1960s; and as I crisscross my district, I can see the population and the economic growth which has occurred in these towns that have access to interstate highways. Those communities which do not have access have remained in a virtual time capsule, great little towns, but they virtually stood still throughout the past number of decades. That is what I fear will happen if we do not move soon, as soon as possible in fact, to get these communities connected to the high-speed Internet access highway. That is why we need to provide deregulatory parity for broadband, regardless of the platform by which it is delivered, whether it be telephone lines, cable, wireless, satellite; and by doing that we can undo the enormous regulatory shackles which stand in the way of telephone companies providing DSL.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, I am very pleased to offer this commonsense, bipartisan enforcement amendment with my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). When I became chairman last year, one of the first things I did was to invite the then new chairman of the FCC, Chairman Powell, to appear before the subcommittee to present his vision for that agency. The thing that struck me most was his message that the FCC's current enforcement authority was in fact too weak, and that the FCC's current fines were viewed by many as simply the cost of doing business for many companies. And I heard that from many competitive carriers as well. In a letter to Congress last year, Chairman Powell specifically wrote that, among other things, Congress should consider increasing the cap on fines to at least $10 million in order to enhance their deterrent effect. The current cap, of course, is at $1.2 million. Responding to Chairman Powell's recommendation, we are, in fact, offering this bipartisan amendment which will substantially increase the FCC's fines for phone companies which violate the telecommunications law by elevating the current cap from $1.2 million to $10 million and increasing the amount up to which the FCC can impose per violation or each day of a continuing violation from $120,000 to $1 million. We did exactly what Chairman Powell requested. In addition, for repeat offenders the amendment doubles the increased fines up to $2 million per violation or each day of a continuing violation capped at $20 million. The amendment also doubles from 1 to 2 years the statute of limitations for the FCC to bring enforcement actions against phone companies, which will give the FCC a better opportunity to thoroughly investigate an alleged violation and bring charges. Chairman Powell also asked for this. We also give the FCC clear, statutory cease and desist authority to use against phone companies which violate any of the telecommunications laws. Finally, we direct the FCC to study the impact of the enhanced fines under the bill and report back to us, the Congress, one year after enactment. The amendment applies to all common carriers. For example, it would affect not only a Bell company's violation of the Telecommunications Act but also a long distance company's slamming as well. It is important to note that these substantially increased fines would not be the only enforcement mechanisms facing the Bell companies. For example, there is also the existing Section 208 complaint process at which the FCC through which a Bell company could be liable for damages. Moreover, some Bell companies must also pay if they fail to meet performance goals established by the FCC in their merger agreements, that was part of the Rush amendment that we accepted in the committee, not to mention the literally millions of State PUC-enforced performance measures penalties which get assessed as well. We hope you will support our efforts to greatly enhance the FCC's enforcement authority as we seek to accelerate the deployment of broadband high-speed Internet access to underserved areas in our country through the passage of the underlying bill, H.R. 1542. I want to thank in particular the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), obviously, as well as my co-sponsor, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), for their good work on this issue throughout the process. I would urge the passage of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) for his use and for him to yield that time to other Members as he sees fit.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I intend to close at this point as well. I want to say from the outset that this bill not only in this Congress but in the last Congress as well was known to be a very strong bipartisan bill, Republicans and Democrats working together to unshackle the regulations off a new technology that is so important for our country. The Tauzin-Dingell bill does that. It was bipartisan in every way, as we have seen in the debate today. And as the new chairman of the subcommittee, my door was open to virtually every group. The concern I heard from virtually every group was that the FCC did not have the right authority to enforce the law. I welcomed the participation of virtually every member of the subcommittee to see this amendment through, both in committee, subcommittee, as well as today on the floor. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) has been a tremendous help not only on this issue but so many others as we have worked in a bipartisan fashion in our committee. I commend my chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and I would urge all my colleagues to support the Upton-Green amendment.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my friend from Michigan that the CWA is in support of the legislation and I suspect the rule as well. I think that this is a fair rule. I want to just go back in history for a moment and talk a little bit about this issue. This issue in the previous Congress I think had more than half the Congress as a cosponsor of the legislation; and, in fact, it is an improved bill from where we were a couple of years ago. Let me also remind those folks in the Chamber and that are listening today as well that back in 1996 we lifted the regulations on cable; and, when that happened, the cable industry invested across the country some $50 billion to improve their systems, whether they be in Michigan or anyplace else in the country. The American public is pleased that that has happened in terms of the number of channels that are available, a whole host of things, as we look at what has happened with broadband, what is also called high-speed Internet access, that is available now. This is a good rule. I commend the Committee on Rules. I also commend the Committee on Rules for making my amendment in order which says that the FCC, which complained bitterly over the last number of years that the fines were not high enough as they tried to impose some of the rules and regulations that were out there, that we wanted to do more than just a cost-of-business operation, and by allowing the Upton amendment as part of this legislation, I suspect that it will pass with a very strong margin, if not unanimous. We, in fact, strengthen this legislation; and I think that that is very important. But as we look at the line-sharing amendment, the biggest amendments I would suspect that will be on the House floor this afternoon offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), this is an important improvement to the bill, because it in fact does allow the CLECs to have access to the ability to bring high-speed Internet access to the last mile in a much better fashion in fact than came out of committee; and I think it is an improvement to the bill, and I welcome the series of amendments that the Committee on Rules provided, and I thank them for their leadership and guidance as we see this legislation move to the floor. The vote on the rule is important. It provides us legislation to get to the floor, obviously; and we then debate the amendments in the order prescribed. I urge my colleagues to support not only the rule, but the Buyer amendment, the Upton amendment, and, obviously, final passage when we get there later this afternoon.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Catholic Schools Week, a time set aside to acknowledge the accomplishments of the Catholic schools of our nation. Catholic schools have displayed an exemplary ability to educate the youth of our great country. They have shown their dedication to the students whom they serve, providing tuition assistance to the vast majority of their students and an ample number of teachers in order to ensure that each child gets the attention he or she needs to succeed. Moreover, Catholic schools maintain a diverse student body, with children from all income levels, racial and ethnic groups, and religious backgrounds receiving an education within their walls. In order to find proof of the accomplishments of Catholic schools here in the United States, one need only examine the caliber of the students they produce. An impressive ninety-seven percent of Catholic school graduates continue their education on a postsecondary level. African-American and Latino students advance to college at thrice the rate of their public school counterparts, making clear the commitment of Catholic schools to all children. These successes have led to a dramatic increase in demand on the part of Catholic schools, with current enrollment at over 2\1/2\ million students and almost half of Catholic schools currently maintaining a waiting list for admission. Among those schools living up to such stellar standards are the fifteen Catholic schools located in Michigan's Sixth Congressional District, which I represent here in Washington. I would like to offer my congratulations to the many individuals who have contributed to these schools, including students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Due to the hard work and ongoing efforts of these individuals, Catholic schools have become an inspiration to those everywhere who care deeply about education.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to offer heartfelt congratulations to Tom Miller. Throughout his career, Tom Miller has constantly demonstrated a commitment to the educational and athletic development of the future leaders of our society. His professional life has consisted of numerous positions of leadership at various schools in Southwest Michigan, including his current post as principal of St. Joseph High School, which he has served for over 23 years. Tom's dedication to the enhancement of the educational experience of young people is a truly noble quality, and one that will be sorely missed. Additionally, Tom's involvement in the athletic arena of the school system has earned him a place in the Battle Creek St. Philip High School Athletic Hall of Fame. Tom spent numerous years involved in student athletics, his basketball teams enjoying a host of victories during his tenure. I would like to wish the best of luck to Tom in his retirement, which will allow him to spend the coming years with his family, including his wife Mary Lou and all of his loved ones.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Health Care Safety Net Improvement Act of 2001. This legislation reauthorizes the Consolidated Health Centers program, the National Health Service Corps, and several programs vital to access to care in rural America. It also provides statutory authority for and direction to the Health Resources and Services Administration's Office for the Advancement of Telehealth and provides for a study on overcoming the barriers that many migrant farm workers and their families experience in seeking health care services as they move from state to state. Taken together, these programs and activities will help to strengthen our nation's health care delivery system by improving access to care and quality of care in our rural and inner-city medically underserved communities. Health centers are located in 3,000 rural and urban communities throughout the country and provide quality primary and preventive health services to over 10 million low-income and uninsured patients. With the number of uninsured in this nation growing by more than 100,000 per month, it is estimated that 53 million people will lack health insurance by 2007. Health centers have played and will continue to play a vital role in addressing this serious problem. We are fortunate in my Southwest Michigan district to have two strong networks of community and migrant health centers providing care to over 40,000 people. These centers and the people they serve benefit greatly from the doctors and dentists who are participating in the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment program. As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee and a senior member of its Health Subcommittee, I have been particularly interested in the role that rapidly emerging telehealth technologies can play in increasing access to care and quality of care in rural and inner-city America. I was pleased to work with my colleagues on the Committee to include provisions in the Health Care Safety Net Improvement Act formally authorizing the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth (OAT). The OAT is currently the focal point for the telehealth activities and programs across federal agencies. It was instrumental in the formation of the Joint Working Group on telemedicine, for which it provides both leadership and staffing. One of the greatest barriers to recruiting physicians to our rural communities is the sense of isolation they may feel in their practices. Telehealth services can address that barrier by linking rural primary care physicians and their patients with specialists in major medical centers across the nation. Further, one of the looming threats to access to care and quality of care is the growing shortage of nurses, pharmacists, and clinical laboratory personnel. Telehealth services can address this problem by bringing education and training programs right into local communities. I hope everyone will join me today in strongly supporting the Health Care Safety Net Improvement Act. This bipartisan, thoughtful and innovative legislation will improve access to care and quality of care for millions in urban and rural America.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act. Just as the horrendous terrorist attacks of September 11th brought home to Americans the cruel face of hate, fanaticism, and outright evil and the need to wage war on international terrorism, so the anthrax attacks have brought home to us our vulnerability to bioterrorism attacks on our homefront. What was perhaps an abstract concern has become very, very real. I have traveled home to my district every week since September 11th, and I have heard the real fear in mothers' and fathers' voices and in the questions children ask me when I visit with them in their schools. Will we be ready should our communities suffer anthrax or smallpox attacks? Will we have the vaccines and antibiotics we need? Will emergency response teams and emergency medical services be ready to swing quickly into action? Will our health professionals be trained to recognize symptoms and quickly communicate suspicious outbreaks? While home in Michigan, I have also met with emergency response teams at the local and state levels. While they are doing their best to prepare coordinated responses to worst-case scenarios, they need better tools--better weapons in their armories--to meet the threat of bioterrorist attacks. Enacting the comprehensive, bipartisan bill before us today will go a long way in giving my local communities, my state, and this nation the tools and infrastructure needed to assure individuals and families and communities across the nation that we will have the strongest possible defense against potential acts and the ability to respond quickly and effectively should an attack nevertheless succeed. Specifically, this bill will provide the funds necessary to substantially upgrade the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's laboratories, facilities and communications capacities, as well as our state and local public health department's capabilities. It will create a national stockpile of vaccines, biologics, drugs, and medical devices to meet the health security needs of our people. The bill recognizes the enormous challenges that not only the CDC, but also the Food and Drug Administration must meet if we are to be prepared with sufficient vaccines and effective antibiotics. It provides the FDA with the authorities needed to meet those challenges without compromising public health. This bill will also slam shut some gaping loopholes in our regulation of the possession of chemical and biological agents that could be used to launch attacks. And it provides comprehensive protection for our drinking water and food supplies. I am proud, not only as a Member of Congress, but also as a husband and father and community leader to be an original cosponsor of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2001. With the passage and enactment of this bill, we can say ``YES'' when a parent, a student, or a local community leader asks us if we are prepared for bioterrorism.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of the physicians and other health professionals in my District who provide care to Medicare beneficiaries and on behalf of the beneficiaries themselves, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 3391, the Medicare Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act of 2001. I am honored to be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan, common-sense bill that will provide much- needed regulatory relief and greater program fairness, clarity, and transparency. From what I have been hearing for years now in my meetings with Medicare beneficiaries and health care providers across my District, the current program is simply not working well. Beneficiaries and health professionals often don't know if services will be covered, leading some beneficiaries to forgo needed care. It can take months-- and mounds of paperwork--just to get paid for health care services. I've seen the inch-thick paperwork that can be required just to document one claim. Doctors and other health professionals feel that they are practicing with a sword over their heads. The rules and regulations are so complex that the Medicare intermediaries and carriers all too often give conflicting advice and guidance. Regulations and guidance change so frequently that it is difficult to know what the rules are at any one time, and what they will be tomorrow. Making a simple mistake in coding or misunderstanding a program requirement, health professionals fear, could well open to a fraud charge. If a claim is denied, it can take several years to go through the current process for appealing that denial. Doctors are so frustrated with the program that they are retiring early, and some beneficiaries are having a hard time finding doctors willing to take them as patients once they turn 65. The Medicare Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act will give the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services the direction and flexibility needed to streamline the regulatory and contracting processes. It will provide strong incentives for intermediaries and carriers to be responsive to beneficiaries and health professionals. It will provide additional resources for provider education. One provision that could be particularly helpful for both beneficiaries and providers will test the effectiveness of placing Medicare experts in local Social Security offices so that questions and concerns can be addressed in a timely, accurate way. And when disputes do arise, Administrative Law Judges specifically trained in Medicare law and regulation will hear the cases. These are just a few of the reforms in this comprehensive, much- needed bill.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 2887, The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, I am very pleased that we are taking it up tonight under the Suspension Calendar. As the FDA's report to Congress earlier this year indicated, ``the pediatric exclusivity provision has been highly effective in generating pediatric studies and in providing useful new information on product labels.'' It is important that we reauthorize this very effective program to protect and improve children's health. The bill before us today makes some important improvements in current law. Under current law, there is little incentive to perform the studies necessary to label off-patent drugs for pediatric use. This bill establishes a federally funded program operated through the NIH and the FDA to contract for studies of off-label drugs. It also establishes a nongovernmental foundation to fund these studies as well as other pediatric research. I have confidence that this foundation's work will be generously supported by the pharmaceutical industry, which indicated in a recent letter to Chairman Tauzin that ``such a charitable foundation is an excellent idea.'' Third, the bill provides the user fees that the FDA has requested to speed up the consideration of applications for labeling changes to reflect pediatric use and gives priority status to the review of these applications. Fourth, the bill establishes an Office of Pediatric Therapeutics at the FDA to coordinate and oversee pediatric activities across the agency. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. In the interest of children's health, we cannot allow the pediatric exclusivity provisions to expire at the end of this year.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that you have called up for our consideration this evening H.R. 717, the Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research, and Education Amendments of 2001. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation designed to substantially strengthen support at the national Institutes of Health for research on Duchenne and several other types of muscular dystrophy, coordinate that research across federal agencies, and translate discoveries in the lab into improved patient care. I have seen the human face of Duchenne muscular dystrophy and the toll that it takes on children and families. Some time ago, I had the opportunity to visit with Don and Joyce Carpenter of Kalamazoo, Michigan, and their courageous son Ben, who suffers from Duchenne muscular dystrophy. From them I learned that Duchenne muscular dystrophy is the most common and the most catastrophic form of genetic childhood disease. Sadly, it generally kills its victims in their late teens or early 20s. For decades, the only drug treatment known to somewhat alter the course of the disease is the use of steroids--whose serious side effects are well known. We've simply got to do better. We have to find a way to prevent this devastating disorder in the first place--perhaps through the promise of gene therapy. And until we learn how to prevent it, we've got to learn how to treat it more effectively. This legislation has strong bipartisan support. It has 310 cosponsors and was unanimously approved by both by the Health Subcommittee and the full Energy and Commerce Committee. I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. What we are doing here this evening is giving hope to Don and Joyce and Ben Carpenter and many others who suffer from Duchenne and other devastating forms of muscular dystrophy in this nation and across the world. We can work miracles when we really try.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, this has been a long day, and somehow we knew last night that this nightmare would not go away when daybreak came this morning. This has been a long day, particularly for those families that have lost a loved one, and also for the emergency personnel, friends, and neighbors. This has been a long day for America, as we come to grips with this attack on America and the values that we hold so dearly. I spoke earlier this afternoon with a family in my district whose son, Brad, worked on the 93rd floor of the World Trade Center. Their news was no news, no word, no good. As we struggle with our grief and pray for those families, we are reminded that this is a country that stands for freedom and justice, and, yes, we will prevail. We stand here tonight united behind our Nation's efforts to seek swift justice. We will find all the people who orchestrated and participated in this evil web. I have no doubts. These mass murderers, wherever they are, will be identified and, yes, justice will be served. Tonight I participated, like thousands of Americans, in a prayer vigil, and I said a prayer for Brad. I asked for a miracle to save him and so many others like him. I say to our fellow citizens across the country, thank you. Thank you for your prayers for us, for the leaders of this country, and the so many public servants. They are appreciated, and they help right the mayhem to lift us all. Yes, we are united. We are the United States of America. God bless America.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the Boehlert amendment, but I cannot. The technology just is not ready yet. One of the arguments presented here today is that the auto industry cried wolf in the 1970s on new CAFE standards and at the end of the day met the standards. But at what cost? More job loss and more market share loss. Can the auto industry meet this new standard called for in this amendment? Of course they can. But at what expense? More market loss and more job loss. Last year, this year, next year the auto industry will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on new technologies designed to improve efficiencies and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. One of them is the hydrogen fuel cell. Well, guess what? There is a limited supply of R&D dollars; and if they are forced to meet this new standard, there will not be the dollars to develop this new standard. It is hoped that those cars will be in the showrooms in the next 8 to 10 years. If this amendment passes, it will not be 8 to 10 years; it will be more than 10 years away. Is that what we want? I do not think so. Please join me in voting no. We have the technology to make this thing work. This amendment takes those dollars away and will hurt all consumers, period.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would confess that the Gutknecht amendment sounds good on the surface, but when you begin to scratch that surface, it is not so good. In fact, as some have suggested this afternoon, it is outright dangerous. Americans want a standard of excellence, and this amendment, at least the way it is worded, simply does not work. Under present law, the FDA can stop drugs at the border if they appear to not be approved. That is sensible. If something looks bad, it certainly should not be allowed into this country. But under this amendment, it says that the FDA cannot stop a drug if it appears to be in compliance, even if it is not approved. The FDA simply does not have the resources or the manpower to enforce an amendment of this magnitude, and as my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) suggested a little bit earlier, this amendment could actually legitimize counterfeiting of drugs. I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would join my Michigan Republican colleagues who have spoken in support of this amendment, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), also in support of the amendment. Some say that this is a safe process, slant drilling. Well, I have to say that I am not convinced that the science, in fact, will protect us. No one has ever suggested that the oil perhaps underneath the Great Lakes is an Arab oil field. It will not provide a lot of oil under anyone's estimation. So why should we take the risk? I grew up on the shores of Lake Michigan, and I can remember as a young boy in the 1960s and even into the 1970s there in fact had been an oil spill on the southern shore of Lake Michigan, and I will say virtually every day, every day in St. Joe, Benton Harbor, my hometown and along the southern shore of Lake Michigan, anyone that went to the beach got oil from the sand on themselves. I do not think there was a house along the street that did not have a little bottle of Mr. Clean on the kitchen step, which was the only stuff that would take that oil off our clothes, off our shoes, name it. That smell of Mr. Clean stays with me from this day, from those summer days of always getting oil on our feet. One of the first pieces of legislation I passed as a young Member of this House was oil-spill legislation. I remember almost a catastrophic event in Bay City, Michigan, that would have destroyed, I think, the ecosystem of the Great Lakes for decades, if not more than 100 years. This is a Great Lakes watershed area that is not like someplace else. When the oil is there, it stays there and it stays there for a long time. I support this amendment. It is bipartisan. For those of us that have districts along the Great Lakes, I think that all of us, I would hope, would support it. After all, we know our Great Lakes area better than just about anybody else. This is a wise amendment. I support the amendment. I would hope that my colleagues would also vote for this when we take it up tomorrow. I appreciate the bipartisanship that it certainly has, and I would just compliment my colleagues in support of this amendment to make sure that, in fact, we do not have oil spills throughout the Great Lakes.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the outstanding career of John W. Clark, who, after 16 years of service to CMS Energy Corporation, will retire as Senior Vice President of Governmental and Public Affairs. As a result of his hard work, expertise and character, Mr. Clark has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues and of countless individuals who have benefited from his capabilities. The success Mr. Clark has attained throughout the years will stand as a testimony to his integrity, dedication and loyalty. Mr. Clark's efforts and achievements have established him as an invaluable asset to Consumers Energy and will reflect positively for many years to come--his talents will certainly be missed. It is with great pride and respect that I join with John Clark's friends and colleagues in paying tribute to his many years of service to CMS Energy Corporation, and in wishing him the very best that retirement has to offer.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Representative Anna Eschoo and 55 other colleagues on both sides of the aisle today in introducing the Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Amendment Act of 2001. In the last Congress, we amended the Medicare program to provide coverage for medical nutrition therapy services provided by registered dietitians and nutrition professionals for persons with diabetes or renal disease. The legislation we are introducing today will add Medicare coverage for services for beneficiaries with cardiovascular disease. Medical nutrition therapy provided by registered dietitians and nutrition professionals is sound health care policy. It can save millions of dollars for a health care system beleaguered by escalating costs, and it can prevent unnecessary pain and suffering for millions of people and their families. In response to a request in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences studied the value of adding medical nutrition therapy services for Medicare beneficiaries and the Medicare program and issued a report recommending that this benefit be added to the program. The report stated that coverage for medical nutrition therapy will ``improve the quality of care and is likely to be a valuable and efficient use of Medicare resources, because of the comparatively low treatment costs and ancillary benefits associated with nutrition therapy.'' The report concluded that nutrition therapy has proven effective in the ``management and treatment of many chronic diseases that affect Medicare beneficiaries, including . . . hypertension, heart failure, diabetes, and chronic renal insufficiency.'' I urge my colleagues who have not yet cosponsored this bipartisan, sound health policy proposal to join us in this effort.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Tiberi- Castle amendment. I visit a school almost every week in my district; and I talk to a lot of teachers, parents, administrators, and, yes, school board officials, too. I have always believed in strong local control, that the folks at the local level know best what they need to do for their students and their teachers and their systems. This is not a mandate. This amendment allows the school district to participate if they choose to participate. It is their decision, not some boilerplate language that comes down from on high. Now, as I have been listening to the debate for the last few minutes, I hear a number of Members on the other side of the issue in fact saying these words. They talk about we need to look at and define what the needs of our school districts are; ``we'' being, I guess, the Federal Government. No, the locals need to decide what is best for the needs of their school districts, and that is exactly what this amendment does. The school districts themselves determine what their needs are. They alone decide whether they want to participate or not, and whether it be teacher training or the Safe and Drug Free School Act, technology training, or all those things. No, they cannot steal money from title I, but they can put some of this money into title I to expand that program. The flexibility is there. If my colleagues are for local control, if they want those decisions made at the local level, they need to vote for the Tiberi- Castle amendment.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 1648, the Emergency Ambulance Services Access Act of 2001. This legislation will ensure payment for emergency hospital services and emergency ambulance services under a ``prudent layperson'' test under group health plans and health insurance coverage. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Ed Towns in introducing this legislation, which we hope will be included in any patient protection legislation that moves through the House in this Congress. Individuals suffering from what they have every reason to believe to be life threatening conditions should not have to call their insurance plan before they call for an ambulance. And patients and ambulance services should not be stuck with the bill should the condition turn out to be less than life-threatening once the patient is diagnosed in the emergency room. Some people assume that because a patient protection bill which includes a prudent layperson standard for emergency room services also covers emergency ambulance services. But that wasn't the case at all before we introduced this legislation in the last Congress at the start of the debate over patient protection. Most of the bills amended the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. That Act covers only what happens after you enter the emergency room. It does not include ambulance services. As the debate progressed, most of the bills and amendments that received active consideration in the House and Senate were amended or redrafted to apply the prudent layperson standard specifically to emergency ambulance services. I urge my colleagues to join me and Ed Towns in cosponsoring this legislation. You will be demonstrating your support for ensuring that emergency ambulance services are included in the more comprehensive patient protection legislation that will be considered in the House. To become a cosponsor or obtain further information, please call us or Jane Williams of my staff, who may be reached at 5-3761.