Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dedicated and devoted community leader and a dear friend, Mr. Harold Schuitmaker of Paw Paw, MI. Harold has been very active in our community, lending his hand wherever he can to help our neighbors. As a Rotarian, United Way board member, an Elk, an advocate for children, an active member of his church, Harold has always been there for the community of Paw Paw. I talked to a few of our neighbors, and they all agree when it comes to this community Harold has never said no. In fact, I first got to know Harold through his fine work with the child and family services organization. Harold has also been an active leader in our Republican Party. For as long as anyone can remember he has been at the helm of the Republican Party in the Sixth District serving as its Chair, and at convention after convention, whether it be on the local, State, or national level, Harold has exhibited the kind of leadership that is both admired as well as respected. But his efforts are about a lot more than just working for today. One of the indelible images of Harold that sticks out in everyone's mind is him holding his 2-year-old grandson Jordan at every event, the get- togethers, Harold brings his grandson Jordan. He starts early showing the next generation what leadership and service and dedication are all about, and he also helps to remind us what we are working for as well here in this House. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Harold for all his efforts. I would also like to thank a special woman in his life and for everyone's life for that matter, Zoe, for her dedication. Thanks, Harold. The whole community joins me in thanking you for your fine work. You have made a difference for all of us.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, sadly a number of us sat on an airplane for 6 hours in Detroit. We unfortunately missed two previous votes today. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye'' on both the Klug amendment as well as the Fazio amendment.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop this Federal subsidy of a crop that is both addictive and causes cancer. The passage of this amendment does not stop small tobacco farmers from growing tobacco. It just says we will stop one of the subsidies, one of the incentives for them to do so. Earlier today we read the debate on the Durbin amendment which bans smoking on airplanes from a couple of years ago. Many of the same folks that are arguing for a ``no'' vote were the same folks arguing ``no'' then. Guess what? The Airline Flight Attendants Union has now filed a $5 billion suit against the airlines for allowing this to happen. Would it not have been nice if they had not been able to file this suit at all and had this Durbin amendment passed many years earlier?

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas, Mr. Barton, and the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. Castle, as well for their fine work to get this bill on the floor today for a vote. For my colleagues I have to say that this bill is much along the lines of the Castle-Upton-Martini approach that was adopted in the last Congress and was supported in fact by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget as well as the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. I am proud to be labeled as the deficit hawk because I know that deficits are harmful to our economic growth and our future prosperity. All of us in this body are heartened by the recent news that the deficit in fact is coming down. Who would have guessed the deficit this year could have been as low perhaps as $50 billion? I once worked at the Office of Management and Budget. I watched a Congress that back in the 1980's promised to cut taxes and cut spending. They only did one: cut taxes, did not cut spending. We saw the deficit balloon by trillions of dollars, of which we are paying almost some $300 billion in interest just this year. Our country has always been based on checks and balances. That is what this bill does. If we do not hit the deficit target, we will not see the tax cuts come into play. We need this. We need this measure as some version of an accountability so that we can reach a balanced budget. We will not see our deficits increasing the debt. I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for this.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 2208--the Consumers' Nutrition and Health Information Act. I am pleased that my colleagues Representatives Ed Towns, Martin Frost, and Bobby Rush are joining me in supporting this legislation as original cosponsors. The Consumers Nutrition and Health Information Act is designed to increase consumers' access to timely, accurate information about the health benefits of foods and nutrients. It is very similar to the language on health claims contained in the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] reform bill reported with bipartisan support by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee last month. The bill would permit manufacturers to make health claims on food labels without having to go through the long, complex FDA preapproval process when claims were based on authoritative statements published by the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other Federal scientific organizations with official responsibility for public health protection or research relating directly to human nutrition. The manufacturer would be required to notify the FDA of the proposed claim 120 days before its introduction to the market and would have to provide the FDA with an explanation of the basis for the claim. The need for this legislation is perhaps best demonstrated by history of the health claim for the nutrient folic acid. In 1992, the Public Health Service reported that about half the 2,500 neural tube birth defects such as those that result in spina bifida that occur in the United States each year are preventable with sufficient folic acid consumption among women of childbearing age. One of the most effective means of getting this information out to women would have been on food labels. But the FDA did not approve this claim for food labels until 1996, a 4-year lag. By giving a presumption of approvability to health claims for foods based on official, authoritative statements by Federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, this legislation will better ensure the public's timely access to this important information. And by retaining the FDA's right to review such claims for 120 days before they are made, the legislation protects against false or misleading claims going to market. I encourage my colleagues to join Representatives Towns, Frost, Rush and me in cosponsoring this bill. Your support will highlight the importance of this reform and ensure that it is a key element of any broader FDA reform effort that may be undertaken in this Congress.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in strong support of this legislation and in praise of the leaders of the committee and the fine staff. The educational needs of our youth indeed have changed since 1917, which was when the Federal Government first began to support vocational education. Today, still, vocational-technical education programs fill a very critical need. As my colleague from Delaware indicated, the programs prepare 75 percent of American youths who do not complete a 4-year degree for jobs requiring advanced training and knowledge. The programs demand a strong background in math and science, as they should, and students have to be prepared for the technical and competitive jobs that exist today. I know this because I have frequently visited with students and teachers and wonderful facilities throughout my district who use and support these programs, and they strongly support it. The bill before us today builds on that success. It encourages stronger academics, greater opportunities for use after high school and targets more dollars to the classroom. In fact, 90 percent of the Federal dollars will be sent to the local level under this bill, and that is how it should be. Finally, I am also pleased that the bill preserves the strength of the very popular tech prep program. In southwest Michigan this program has quickly become an integral part of students' learning experience. Our businesses today are rightly demanding a better prepared work force. This bill helps in a major way, and I urge all members to support H.R. 1853.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, most of us here in this body and citizens across the country were offended with some of the arts that were funded by the NEA in years past. We had a fellow colleague, Paul Henry, who led the successful fight to stop much of that abuse of taxpayer money several years ago. I am delighted that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], his successor, has followed that same trail. Because we did not have an authorization, money could and was struck for the NEA. That is a simple tact under the rules of the House. The Ehlers amendment is a step in the right direction for allowing the funding for the arts. No, the Ehlers amendment is not music to everyone's ears. It does not fund symphonies and a number of worthwhile organizations, museums that today are funded. I know that there are a number of things that we need to correct in the future with those things in mind. But today we need to adopt the Ehlers amendment and we need to let the Committee on Education and the Workforce reauthorize this very valuable program for the future. The bottom line here is that we would rather have something than nothing, and the Ehlers amendment is a good step in the right direction. I would urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit about why Congress should retain the States' option to provide services as well as insurance coverage with their child health assistance program grants. The children's health provisions of this budget agreement state that ``the resources will be used in the most cost-effective manner to expand coverage and services for low-income and uninsured children with a goal of up to 5 million currently uninsured children being served.'' Simply having a Medicaid card or private insurance plan is no guarantee of access to health care services in the many medically underserved rural and inner-city areas of this country. Community health centers are located in medically underserved rural and urban areas and may be the only source of care in many of those areas. These centers serve one out of every six low-income American children and one out of every seven uninsured children in the United States. In addition to providing health care services, community health centers are experienced in dealing with barriers to health care for children, such as transportation and language and cultural differences.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to deny most- favored-nation trading status. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to renewal of most-favored- nation trading status for China. I supported MFN renewal last year believing that I should try the theory of engagement for 12 months and see what happens. Well, it's now 12 months later and what actions has the Chinese leadership undertaken. Allow me to read some headlines for some of our Nation's papers this year: ``U.S. Confirms China Missile Safe to Iran'', ``China called Obstinate over talks about Tibet'', ``China Buys U.S. Computers, Raising Arms Fears'', ``China joins forces with Iran on short-range missile''. The United States has given the Chinese 8 years of warnings and demands for improved human rights and to stop selling weapons and advanced missile and nuclear weapons technology to rogue nations like Iran or Pakistan. It's time to act now and take decisive action. No more carrot and stick approach. Just as the United States brought pressure on the Soviet Union to allow Jews to emigrate and on South Africa to end apartheid, and on South Korea to become more democratic, we must keep up our pressure on China. Conditioning MFN for China provides the United States with the best leverage to improve human rights and send a strong signal about its weapons sales because preferential access to the United States market is critical to China's authoritative regime. Societies based on democratic principles and respect for basic human rights and freedoms make the best neighbors and the best trading partners. I'm aware that United States business exports to China in 1993 totalled $8.8 billion. In the meantime, China's trade surplus with the United States has grown from $6 billion in 1989 to $45 billion last year with many of the Chinese products being produced by forced labor. While I recognize the importance of MFN renewal to my home State of Michigan and its businesses, this must be weighed with the overriding goal of trying to foster a more humane way of life for the Chinese people, particularly as it impacts the rest of the world. Last week the Spence amendment restricting supercomputers to those countries that violate nonproliferation agreements passed by a 332 to 88 vote. Last night, this House passed the Rohrabacher amendment restricting funds to Russia if they transfer certain missile systems. Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House. We need to send a message to the people around this globe that human rights violations and the transfer of horrific technology-chemical and nuclear proliferation must end today. China MFN will continue. The President has the votes, but we can send a message that this practice of so many bad things must end.

Mr. UPTON

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

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues Ron Klink and Rick Boucher in introducing legislation that will place a 4-year moratorium on the Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] authority to promulgate new or revised ambient air quality standards for ozone or fine particulate matter. We are introducing this legislation because the Administrator of the EPA appears determined to finalize the highly controversial new standards she proposed in November--in spite of widespread disagreement within the scientific community that they will produce any measurable improvement in human health and widespread certainty among State and local government officials across the Nation and even within other agencies of the Federal Government that the proposed new standard will wreak economic and social havoc. Consider, for example, these excerpts from an November 20, 1996, letter from the Assistant Secretary of Transportation to Sally Katzen, Director of the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] office responsible for reviewing and signing off on the EPA's regulatory impact analysis of the proposed new standards. The letter calls into question not only the EPA's estimate of the cost of these new standards, but also its determination of the standards' positive impact on public health and the environment: The social and economic disruption that the proposed changes will cause are not understood. The costs associated with the standards changes, both in terms of cost of compliance as well as economic impacts, will likely be large. . . . [It] is critical that the Administration understand the implications associated with such costs up front. The impacts of the Clean Air Act sanctions on highway funding, as well as on stationary sources, could affect much larger areas, going well beyond those envisioned when the 1990 Amendments were passed. The enforcement consequences of these mandates would thus likely be profound. Better estimates of the impacts on transportation programs and the economy in general are necessary before the Administration commits to far more stringent standards. There are substantial uncertainties and numerous subjective judgments required about the health effects and levels and form of the proposed standards . . . Control measures needed to meet the standards could have significant economic impacts on industry, including previously unregulated businesses, and require lifestyle changes by a significant part of the U.S. population. Or consider these excerpts from an November 18, 1996 letter from the Small Business Administration to the Administrator of the EPA; [Regarding the EPA's conclusion that the proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on small entities] Considering the large economic impacts suggested by the EPA's own analysis that will unquestionably fall on tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of small businesses, this would be a startling proposition to the small business community. . . . EPA's own draft November 3 analysis (admittedly very approximate) reveals shockingly high impacts . . . Furthermore, these costs are in addition to the costs required by the current standards. Thus, this regulation is certainly one of the most expensive regulations, if not the most expensive regulation faced by small business in ten or more years. (emphasis in original) The grave concerns these and other Federal agencies, offices, and advisory councils--such as the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Council of Economic Advisors--have expressed about the proposed new standards underscore the concerns felt by communities across my district, my State, and this Nation. For example, Michigan currently has six ozone nonattainment counties. According to information provided by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, under the EPA's proposal, an additional 11 counties would violate the standard, based on data from the 1994-96 ozone monitoring seasons. When all associated urbanized areas and adjacent counties are included, most of lower Michigan would be thrust into nonattainment status, seriously undermining and perhaps reversing the progress we have made in recent years to diversify and develop our economy and produce good jobs. The proposed new standard pose a particular problem for western Michigan, which is overwhelmingly affected by transient ozone from Gary, Chicago, and Milwaukee. No matter how many costly restrictions and regulations might be imposed on many western Michigan communities to reduce local emissions, they would still not meet the proposed new standards. Take Muskegon County, for example. We could close down every factory, turn off every car, douse every backyard grill, and remove every occupant and the county would still fail to meet the standards because of transient ozone from the other side of Lake Michigan. The proposed regulations do not appear to provide any regulatory relief for such areas victimized by transient ozone, in spite of the fact that the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments gave the Administrator the authority to take such situations into account in promulgating regulations. Instead of imposing stringent new air quality standards that will thrust many communities now in attainment back into nonattainment and that will be impossible for areas impacted by transient air pollution from heavily polluted cities to meet, no matter how stringent their pollution reduction restrictions, the EPA ought to be focusing its efforts on the nearly 50 percent of cities that have not yet come into compliance with the current standards for ozone and particulate matter. That is only common sense. I am also concerned that imposing new standards when many areas have yet to come into compliance with the current standards could actually slow progress toward cleaner air. The promulgation of new standards will require the development and implementation of new State implementation plans and will reset the compliance clock. The Administrator of the EPA is rushing to judgment, imposing new standards which will wreak havoc on economic growth, jobs, and even personal lifestyles without solid evidence that these sacrifices will be worth it in improved health. That is why the legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today is vital to the future of my State and the nation. I encourage you to join us in cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty today to report the death of a very good friend of this House, Jonna Lynne Cullen. J.L., as we called her, was a special staff member who served this Nation for many, many years as a staff member to Trent Lott in the Committee on Rules; she worked this House in many different ways. I got to know her when I began to serve at the Office of Management and Budget under President Reagan, where she was the first director of the Office of Legislative Affairs, the first woman director of that office. Several weeks ago there were a number of Members on both sides of the aisle that held a special tribute to her. They included, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry], the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], and myself. A similar tribute was held on the Senate floor. Both Majority Leader Lott, Senator Cochran, Senator Snowe, and Senator Dorgan were involved, with very kind words for a woman with a very distinguished career. I would like to announce that there will be a special tribute to her this Friday in the Russell caucus room at 11 o'clock for her friends and family. Saturday there will be a service, a memorial service, at the Presbyterian Church in Georgetown at 2 o'clock. I just want to wish her family well. This was a tremendous loss for this country, for a woman that bridged both sides of the aisle. She was one that many Republicans and Democrats held in special love and grace for the work that she did. We wish to send condolences to her family as well. Jonna Lynne ``J.L.'' Cullen--A Tribute to a Remarkable Woman Dear Colleague: As many of you have heard, our dear friend Jonna Lynne ``J.L.'' Cullen lost her long and courageous fight with cancer late last week. She served Congress as a prominent and distinguished staffer from 1967 until 1981. Her energy, expertise and acts of kindness blessed many lives, including our own. Starting her career as a staff assistant on the House Rules Committee for the late Chairman William Colmer (D-Miss), J.L. rose through the ranks to ultimately serve as Associate Minority Counsel for the Republican minority. In 1981 she served as the first female Director of Congressional Relations at the Office of Management and Budget. She contained to be heavily involved in the political process after leaving the administration, serving on President Reagan's Bipartisan Commission on Central America. Beyond her many professional accomplishments, J.L. was one of those rare and wonderful individuals who relished being a mentor, role model and always a generous friend. In her honor, we are pleased to announce two services allowing all who loved her to attend and pay their respects. First, a special tribute will be held to celebrate J.L.'s life on Friday, June 20, l997 at 11:00 a.m. in the Senate Caucus Room in room 325, Russell Senate Office Building. A reception with J.L.'s family will be held immediately after. On Saturday, June 21, 1997 at 2:00 p.m., a Memorial Service will be held at the Georgetown Presbyterian Church, 3115 P Street, northwest Washington. A reception at the church will follow. Notes of condolences can be sent to her mother, Mrs. Joel Shipp, 5480 Meadow Oaks Park Drive, Jackson, MS 39211 and her stepmother Mrs. John Cullen, 490 Stonewall, Memphis, TN 38112. In lieu of flowers, a contribution in J.L.'s memory can be made to the Hospice of Northern Virginia, 6400 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 1000, Falls Church, VA 22042 or the Cancer Research Foundation of America, 200 Dangerfield Road, Alexandria, VA 22314. Trent Lott, Senator Majority Leader. Thad Cochran, Member of the Senate. Fred Upton, Member of the House. Nancy Johnson, Member of the House.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and now I want to yield time to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman raises a good point about J.L. being a vote counter. She has the votes here on both sides of the aisle to get through this thing. Mr. Speaker, at this point I want to yield some time to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, at this point I yield time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I know we just heard that the Speaker of the House was unable to come this afternoon, but he intends to do a 1- minute on her behalf next week, because he was also very close to J.L. I want to say a few things before we end our time here this afternoon. Particularly as I look at the gallery and think about the people listening this afternoon, there is an element of Washington that a lot of folks do not understand. There are very powerful parts of this institution. One is the Committee on Rules, which meets behind those doors to my left. The Committee on Rules really runs this place in lots of ways. Every bill that comes to this House floor has a procedural vote first, and the Committee on Rules dissects those bills. They are the ones that decide what amendments, who will offer them, how long we will debate things, what is the procedure of each piece of major legislation as it hits the House floor. J.L., through her role working for then Chairman Colmer, got to know those rules of the House, which are this thick. She knew every I and every T in those rules, and she was one that tried to figure out where the votes were going to come. Because of her expertise, a young man who probably learned a lot of the ropes from her, one of my predecessors, David Stockman, hailed as probably one of the greatest directors of the Office of Management and Budget and who helped run the think tank, the executive branch, for President Reagan, selected her to run that Office of Legislative Affairs. Again, for people outside of the beltway in many respects, at least until 1981, not a lot of people knew what OMB did, either, sort of like the Committee on Rules, though it is a very intricate part of the way things work; because the Office of Management and Budget decides the battles between all of the different agencies within the executive branch on where the administration stands. They are the ones that give the final recommendation to the President as to whether he should sign a bill or veto a bill. They are the ones that decide whether they support an amendment or oppose an amendment. They are the ones at the table, whether it is the budget agreement which was adopted this week and determining where the President's policy was. Because of J.L.'s experience of running this House and knowing where all the things were, she was a perfect selection to run that Office of Management and Budget legislative office. And really through her skills, Ronald Reagan, who is certainly going to be hailed as one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever seen, who marshaled an agenda through this House, particularly in the early years of his Presidency when he did not control the House. Republicans were 80, 90 votes down, yet he saw victory after victory after victory. She was the one that helped work the strategy, engineer those votes so that President Reagan could get the credit and see his program come through. We look at the people that she worked with, Ken Duberstein, later chief of staff, she taught Ken a lot of things in terms of what went on. Look at some of the Members that are here. I think there are about 50 some Members at least on the Republican side today that were here in 1981 when she left, but as the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] said, if you wanted to know what was going on, you sidled back with J.L., back at the back rail, and she knew everything that was going on. We look at some of the former staff people that have served in this House and some that serve today: Ron Lasch, Bill Pitts, Martha Morrison, Keith Kennedy in the Senate, Sheila Burke, Jim Whittinghill. Those are the names that Members of Congress often go to to find out what is going on and how they can work an amendment or a bill, and they are the ones we go to when we want some straight advice, to be a straight shooter. J.L., I think it was the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] talked about her red wig. Some of us have seen that red wig before. She has tried to battle this chemotherapy and has worn this cheerful red wig. I can remember that same wig a decade or so ago when she came out to Michigan and dressed up as a Raggedy Andy, waving a little sign, ``Vote for Fred,'' standing on street corners and getting people's attention. She is a great painter. Magnolias. She has a terrific sense of humor. Lots of jokes. And it kept everyone going when we worked sometimes 15, 18, 20 hours a day when I worked with her, when I also worked at the Office of Management and Budget. She got things done and she still is, and that is why so many of us here wish her the best.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a tribute to a special friend who sadly is fiercely battling this awful disease called cancer. Jonna Lynne Cullen, J.L. as we call her, served in this House as a staff member from 1967 until 1981. I got to know her very well when she was my boss at the Office of Management and Budget. She headed the Office of Legislative Affairs and to everyone's recollection she probably is the first woman that ever headed that office working for President Reagan from 1981 until 1984. Mr. Speaker, she was a special friend. She was back here on the back rail. Many Members of Congress from those years, as they came into office, really learned the ropes in terms of what was going on, her ability to understand legislation, to work with all Members on both sides of the aisle. And it was sort of interesting, when she came in 1967, she worked for then the chairman, the Democratic chairman of the Committee on Rules, Bill Colmer. Trent Lott was his administrative assistant. And Trent Lott came into office, of course, later on and is now the majority leader in the Senate. I know as I have spoken with both Trent Lott and other Members of the House that have moved to the other body, whether it be Olympia Snowe, Jim Jeffords, a whole host of Members that served here, they would very much like to speak this afternoon but of course as Members of the other body they are unable to do so. As I look around the floor today and we have adjourned with legislative business, I have a number of my colleagues that are anxious to catch their planes and go back, but I wanted to recognize them in this hour that I have. First, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 7 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the honor of meeting personally with Mary Fisher, founder of the Family Aids Network, and of hearing her address a congressional briefing on the AIDS Drug Assistance Program [ADAP]. Her speech, ``If Not Now . . .'' is one of the most powerful and compelling statements I have heard on the need for a strong national commitment to assist persons with HIV and AIDS. Due to remarkable progress in the development of AIDS drug therapies, we now have combination drugs that can dramatically lower virus levels, that appear to be transforming AIDS from a fatal illness to a manageable chronic condition, and that may actually eliminate the virus entirely or almost entirely from the body. But, Mary asks, do we have the national will to make these drugs available to all who need them? That is the question posed by the availability of these new therapies. I am entering Mary's speech in today's Congressional Record because I believe it should be required reading for every Member of Congress--and every American. ``If Not Now . . .'' (By Mary Fisher) Thank you very much, Bill. I appreciate your kind words. In order to be very brief today, I intend also to be very direct. I do not mean to be brusque, but I do want to be blunt. The good news is that I won't elongate your program with a massive keynote address. The bad news is that I have no time for good jokes. Let me begin with a happy idea. We should be ashamed of ourselves. Like evangelists caught in cheap motels with bad magazines, we are where we ought not to be: Nearly two decades into an epidemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, we have gathered to discuss how many more should die. I regret that we have come to this point and, as an American, I am ashamed of it. And I want you to be ashamed of it too. We should never have gotten ourselves to the place we find ourselves. And we should get out of this as soon as possible. Pharmaceuticals represented here this noon have, by virtue of hard work and well-principled research, produced drugs that may prolong my life and the lives of others with AIDS. They should take great pride in what they have achieved. I am in their debt. Members of Congress and their staff here this noon have, through consensus-building and budget-brawling, protected funds needed for AIDS research, AIDS-caregiving, and AIDS- intervention. I am also in your debt. And colleagues from the AIDS community are here who've fought this epidemic with unimagined creativity and unheralded courage, not out of a desire for national recognition but out of a commitment to keep alive those who are dying. I take enormous pride in being one of you, and in the moral legacy written by pilgrims on the road to AIDS and those who have cared for them. In this afternoon's program, expert colleagues are going to explain hard facts, large figures and complicated realities. I am here not to give their speeches, but simply to set a context. And the context I want to set is, in a word, shame. For twenty years, this nation has treated persons with AIDS as uniquely responsible for their own condition. Despite what we know about smoking and cancer, we have not done to smokers what we have done to persons with AIDS; despite what we know about diet, we have not done to heart-attack sufferers what we have done to persons with AIDS; despite what we know about bucking horses and skydiving, we have not done to Christopher Reeves what we have done to persons with AIDS. Senators debating HIV-infected immigrants have used, as their point of useful reference, ``infested fruits''--a double entendre' on both ``infection'' and the word ``Fruit.'' And because we have labored against such stigma and dsicrimination, such ignorance and evil, we have not reached common agreement on the most basic of all understasndings: That Americans with AIDS do not deserve their disease but do deserve our assistance. Failure to achieve consensus across moral and political lines on that fundamental reality has done more to contribute to the destruction of the AIDS community than the virus itself. So deep has the stigma been, so controversial the epidemic, that more than a hundred thousand Americans had died of the disease before an American president dared say the word ``AIDS'' in public. Tens of thousands of obituaries have lied about the cause of death, out of families' fear of shame. And those of us who are left are often mute. How do I explain to my sons Max and Zachary their father's death and my disease, on the one hand, and the nation's response on the other, with anything less than shame? Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said that the South African Truth Commission was created to ``release our shame, to move us from anger to healing, from futility to hope.'' It is Tutu's sense of shame--an active shame, a useful shame; shame that says ``for crying outloud, it's enough already''--which should motivate us to do what we've not done before. The epidemic is nearly two decades long. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died. Hundreds of thousands more are in danger of dying. What stands between these Americans and death is drugs; what stands between these Americans and drugs is money; and what stands between these Americans and money is...us, the American people, the United States government, and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. I've spoken in many settings, but I've never before stood in public to argue for any single piece of legislation. I've worked quietly, confidentially, off-the-record with countless legislators and leaders, including some of you here today. But the time has come for many of us to do what we've not done before, including me. I need to say publicly that we, as a nation, should be ashamed at how we have treated those with AIDS. And I need to call all of us, you and me, to assure that life-prolonging and death-deferring drugs are available for every HIV-infected person in this nation, not when we stand at death's door, but while we stand in the public square. Politics and science make it possible, economics and morality make it imperative. If we do not embrace the opportunity now, we have consciously and unconscionably prolonged the legacy of shame. We have a new person filling the position popularly known as ``AIDS czar.'' Sandy Thurman is a good and decent person, committed and compassionate. She has no history in this position and, therefore, no enemies' list. Democrats and Republicans alike have every reason to work with Sandy. And if she requires the assistance of people from both sides of the aisle--whether we are homemakers or newsmakers--if we understand the shame that our national response to date has earned us, we will work with her. The Vice President has argued, recently, for expanding Medicaid coverage to provide interventions earlier in the case of persons who are infected. This proposal makes enormous sense scientifically, morally, and economically--it will absolutely decrease, not increase, Medicaid spending. To my knowledge, no Republicans have responded with assaults. Therefore, the idea is still alive that common sense and common decency would have a place in common policies. We need not have another bureau or department to consume funds, nor does ADAP propose one. We need not have another study to justify funds, nor does ADAP require one. What we need is consensus that those who are infected deserve an opportunity to live. It is a proposition so simple, and so morally compelling, that both AIDS Action and the Catholic Archbishops can agree on it. It is, at its simplest root, merely a pro-life argument. Others here today will present the scientific data and the economic numbers. I do not doubt how convincing the case will be. What I wonder about, even worry about, is this: that after two decades of death and dying, we will not yet have the will to move toward hope, even when hope is staring us in the face. I spoke last week in Arthur Ashe's hometown. I admitted that the AIDS community is no longer certain what to hope for. My own care for my late husband Brian, in the days before he died, is not uncommon--many of us with AIDS are cared for by others with AIDS. But now we face an altogether new situation, unimaginable the Sunday morning Brian died. One of us will respond well to the new [drug] cocktail, and one of us will not. How then will we live together as one rises up from the grave and another sinks into it? Does ``survivor guilt'' leave room for love? ``One of us will be able to afford protease inhibitors,'' I said in Richmond, ``and one of us will not. How, then, will we live together in community? How will I love you, if I know you are staying with your children while, for lack of money, I am losing mine?'' The fragile bonds that hold together the weakening, fragile AIDS commnity, cannot withstand such division. Which is why I have come to argue for a legislative action. Make no mistake about it: the reason AIDS-related death rates have gone down for American men and gone up for American women \1\ is access to drugs--early access, complete access, sustained access. In the AIDS community, the great difference between men without children, and women with children, is this: One group is living longer, and one is not. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\The CDC recently released a morbidity report on American AIDS-related deathrates, 1996, showing that such deathrates had decreased 21% for Caucasians, decreased 10% for Hispanics, and decreased 2% for African Americans; decreased 15% for males and increased 3% for heterosexual transmissions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The power to change these deathrates is in this room. If those of you who are Republican leaders will say to those who are Democrats, ``We should be ashamed of these deaths,'' these statistics can be changed. We have no cure, but we have within our power the ability to end the immoral discrepancy between those who live and those who die for lack of access to drugs. If the AIDS organizations will work with the religious community; if the pharmacies will work with the legislators; if those on the Hill will work with those in the White House; if staff members from both sides of the aisle will make vulnerable lives more important than political ambitions--it can be done. We can have the experience with AIDS that South Africa has had with apartheid: we can put behind us the darkest days. When I imagine that goal being attainable, and I look at an audience of such concentrated power, I cannot refrain from asking, ``If not you, who? And if not now, my God, when?'' You must go explain your actions to your colleagues and your constituents. I must go explain mine to two children not-yet-ten years old. But both you and I must first explain them to ourselves and to Our Maker. In that private chamber of our own souls, surely we can agree that there's been dying enough, and discrimination enough, and injustice enough. What's offered us here, today, of science economics, of policies and protocols, may not give us a cure. But it can take us away from shame toward hope. If you would act on that, then I and my fellow-pilgrims on the road to AIDS will offer you more than our thanks, and more than our votes. We will offer on your behalf this ancient prayer, ``Grace to you, and peace.''

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, during last year's Food and Drug Administration [FDA] reform deliberations, two proposals stuck me as particularly innovative, commonsense approaches to simplifying the regulation of medical devices while fully protecting public health and saving agency resources. Today, with my colleagues Representatives Eshoo, Greenwood, Towns, and Hall of Texas, I am introducing the Medical Device Regulatory Flexibility Act, legislation incorporating these proposals, to highlight them and ensure that they are central to FDA reform efforts. First, this legislation would provide the FDA with greater flexibility in classifying devices than current law provides. Under current law, lower risk--class I and class II--new devices may go to market if the FDA finds that they are ``substantially equivalent'' to ready marketed devices. If the new device is unique and the agency cannot make a determination that it is substantially equivalent to a marketed device, current law requires that the device be automatically classified as a class III--high risk--device, regardless of the actual level of risk posed by the new device. The manufacturer must then either complete costly and time-consuming clinical studies and submit a new device approval application to the agency or must petition the agency for reclassification, which is under current law a complex and time-consuming procedure. Under my bill, the FDA would be given the statutory flexibility to classify a new device based on the risk posed by the device, at the request of a manufacturer whose device was determined to be ``not substantially equivalent'' to a marketed device. Under the bill, the FDA would retain full authority for determining the classification of a device. The agency would simply receive a new, risk-based classification option. Since class III devices require the most intensive review, this proposal should free up agency resources to focus on truly high-risk devices. Second, this legislation will provide the FDA with a much simpler way to recognize device performance standards. Under current law, the FDA has the authority to promulgate standards, but the process for doing so is tortuous. As a result, the agency has rarely used this authority. Under our bill, the agency would retain the authority to promulgate its own standards, but could also recognize national and international performance standards by identifying and listing the standard in the Federal Register. Devise manufacturers would then have the option of certifying to the agency that their products met the standard as a way of fulfilling all or part of the applicable statutory requirements which must be met before devices may be marketed. Devise performance standards form the basis for device regulation in the European Community. Providing U.S. manufacturers with this option would move forward our efforts to harmonize our regulatory systems. I would welcome additional cosponsors of this commonsense regulatory reform measure. If you would like further information or would like to cosponsor this legislation, please call me or Jane Williams, 5-3761, of my staff.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I prefer to talk about the Wolverines instead of the Cubs, I would have to say, this year. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer-Ganske amendment. Before I was in the Congress, this Congress made the decision to go ahead with the space station; but when they made the decision to go ahead with it, I in fact worked at the Office of Management and Budget. And I remember well the argument that took place within the Office of Management and Budget in terms of what the cost was going to be. The suggested cost was about $8 billion. Then it was $12, then it was $15, now I understand we have spent $18 billion already. Three years ago I took to this floor and argued in support of this amendment, they were saying then that the cost was going to be $45 billion. I come today and it is $94 billion. No, that is not million, that is billion dollars. I listened to the comments of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] today about one of the great NASA supporters of all time, Dr. van Allen, what he had to say. It is not worth the bang for the buck. I can remember talking to some of my colleagues in the past years about how this amendment or how this space station is so important for the advancement of science. They said: Fred, go back to your districts and talk to your pharmaceutical folks, talk to some of the people there and find out what this science will do. I did. And they came back and they said, it is not worth the bang for the buck. It is not worth it; $94 billion. Mr. Chairman, we have heard from a lot of newspapers, and some of them have suggested that we just simply vote for the continuation of this program to keep the dream alive. Well, I have to say something, that when we see a budget increase grow from $8 billion to $94 billion, it sounds more like a nightmare, it does not sound like a dream. The Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Citizens Against Government Waste all say support the Roemer amendment. As we think about our children and their future, the $5.5 trillion national debt, the almost $300 billion that we are going to spend on interest. We have to start making some tough choices. One of those is supporting this amendment.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th anniversary of the Portage School District in southwest Michigan. Much has changed since the school doors opened in 1922, but throughout the years the Portage schools have consistently succeeded in providing a high quality education and outstanding services for students. Formed in 1922 as the Portage Agricultural School District, the district then had five teachers. Today, 550 professionals educate nearly 9,000 students who fill 8 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, and 2 high schools. The school district boasts student achievement scores that are 15 percent to 20 percent higher than State averages with 83 percent of their students going on to higher education. The strength and excellence of the school district's curriculum and programs prepares youths for the challenges they will face following graduation. It is with great pleasure that I am able to represent the Portage schools and witness their remarkable growth. I consider their comprehensive programs to be a model of success, and I have the utmost confidence in their ability to continue serving students for another 75 years with the same excellence they have achieved. Mr. Speaker, I know that the people of Portage have always stood behind their schools, just like the school district stands behind its students and staff. As their Representative in Congress, it is a great honor for me to rise today in recognition of their accomplishments and wish them many more years of prosperity.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege today to join with Represenatative Henry Waxman and 106 of our colleagues in introducing H.R. 1260, the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research Act of 1997. This legislation is designed to expand and coordinate research on Parkinson's disease to speed the discovery of a cure for this devastating disorder. The bill authorizes $100 million in fiscal year 1998 and such sums as may be necessary in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to expand basic and clinical research, establish up to 10 Morris K. Udall Parkinson's research centers across the country, provide for a coordinated program of research and training with respect to Parkinson's disease at the National Institutes of Health, and establish a grant awards program to support researchers who demonstrate the potential for making breakthrough discoveries in Parkinson's. Parkinson's disease is a chronic, progressive disorder affecting 1 million Americans. In its final stages, the disease robs individuals of the ability to speak or move. Although Parkinson's disease costs society an estimated $26 billion a year in medical and lost productivity costs--costs which will escalate as the baby boom generation ages--Parkinson's research is severely underfunded. The research funding level has essentially been flat for the past 5 years, averaging about $26 million a year, or only $26 per patient in direct research funding. I encourage my colleagues who have not already done so to cosponsor the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research Act and join us in the search for a cure for this devastating disease.