Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1608) to enhance Federal Trade Commission enforcement against illegal spam, spyware, and cross-border fraud and deception, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

This is just a bill on spam and enforcement of antispam and spyware, things of this sort. The bill would provide additional authority to the FCC to investigate spam that originates overseas and fraudulent practices of that sort.

I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6143) to amend title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend the program for providing life-saving care for those with HIV/AIDS, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1554) to enhance and further research into paralysis and to improve rehabilitation and the quality of life for persons living with paralysis and other physical disabilities, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

We have to ask the desk. I think the answer is yes. The desk has the copy. The number is on the bottom left-hand corner. It has been cleared.

We can withdraw it. I have no problem asking unanimous consent to withdraw this request to verify that what you have is the right version.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment to H.R. 1554.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5280) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the distribution of the drug dextromethorphan, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the bill I called up, it came over from the Senate and we do not have a copy of it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion on H.R. 5280 until we get everything straightened out.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1554) to enhance and further research into paralysis and to improve rehabilitation and the quality of life for persons living with paralysis and other physical disabilities, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 6164, H.R. 5280, H.R. 5472, H.R. 1245, S. 3718,

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 707) to reduce preterm labor and delivery and the risk of pregnancy-related deaths and complications due to pregnancy, and to reduce infant mortality caused by prematurity, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

That is exactly the bill that is at the desk. I have a copy here and I have read it and I can assure the Members that it is okay on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill, S. 843, as amended, also known as the Combating Autism Act. This legislation takes several important steps intended to improve and intensify the Federal response to the problem of autism in the United States.

As many of my colleagues are aware, autism is a brain disorder that appears in childhood and persists throughout a person's life. Autism affects crucial areas of a person's development, including communication, social interaction, and creativity. Recent studies estimate that autism afflicts more than 3 of every 1,000 children between ages 3 and 10. While autism varies widely in its symptoms and severity, early diagnosis and treatment can help autistic people to live independent and productive lives.

Today, little is understood about the causes and mechanisms of autism. Many studies have been conducted into possible genetic and environmental causes of autism, and scientists are learning more about this disorder and how its effects can be lessened or eliminated. But there is no cure, and much more work needs to be done to pinpoint the true causes of autism before we'll know how to cure it.

This legislation contains provisions designed to intensify and coordinate the Federal response to autism. It instructs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to expand and update its efforts to monitor autism incidence and prevalence around the country. The legislation also requires the CDC to educate parents and health care providers about the early warning signs of autism as well as the need for early and regular screenings.

Another section of the bill addresses autism research conducted at the National Institutes

of Health. Building on provisions contained in the Children's Health Act of 2000, the bill requires the Director of NIH to expand and intensify autism-related research, including research into possible environmental causes of autism. The expansion and intensification will include research to be conducted at the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and a number of other institutes at NIH. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences already has two centers, one located at the University of California at Davis and one at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey, funded to study possible environmental causes of autism. In conjunction with the bill's authorizations of appropriations, these provisions will ensure the continuation and intensification of crucial research at NIEHS so that it is able to conduct all necessary research to determine the environmental factors in autism.

With respect to possible environmental or external causes of autism, some have suggested a link exists between autism and childhood vaccines. In the past several years, several major epidemiological studies have been conducted to look into the question of whether vaccines cause autism. Examining the published studies, the non- partisan Institute of Medicine has concluded that the weight of the available evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between vaccines and autism. However, I recognize that there is much that we do not know about the biological pathways and origins of this disorder, and that further investigation into all possible causes of autism is needed.

This legislation is not designed to predetermine the outcome of scientific research. Rather, the legislation rightfully calls for renewed efforts to study all possible causes of autism--including vaccines and other environmental causes. Simply put, we should leave no stone unturned in our efforts to find a cure, whether it means exploring possible environmental factors, paternal age, genetic factors, or any other factors that may hold answers. Perhaps further inquiry will show that it is not a single factor but a combination of two or more factors that cause what we know as autism. For example, a child might have a genetic predisposition that is triggered by an external, environmental factor that causes autism. The important thing to understand is that there are no preconceived notions contained in this bill; the bill language is clear that we should follow every avenue that science opens to us in searching for a cure.

During the House consideration of the NIH reauthorization bill, we found that the NIH has created centers of excellence to promote collaborative research into a particular field. A center of excellence is a designated entity, such as a university or a hospital, that receives NIH funding to study a particular research area. At their best, centers of excellence can foster collaboration and communication between scientists in a concentrated research area that can benefit from such an environment. However, the proliferation of centers of excellence, especially congressionally mandated centers of excellence, is a concern because it diverts precious resources away from other promising avenues of research that may be worthwhile. If Congress were to mandate new centers of excellence without sound scientific justification, it could greatly fragment NIH's research budget, increase administrative and overhead costs, and slow down important medical and scientific breakthroughs. The right funding and the right minds will cure autism, but even staggering amounts of money won't do the job if our efforts are not focused on the most promising research. I think, it is important to let scientists decide how to conduct the medical research. They must be held accountable, too, but this is a job for science, not politics.

The amended bill before us today does not create new centers, nor does it remove any of the old ones. There were five autism-related centers of excellence mandated in the Children's Health Act of 2000. In the intervening years, NIH created the five statutorily required centers of excellence that study various aspects of autism. NIH then went on to create an estimated 21 to 28 centers of excellence dealing with various aspects of autism research, including research into possible environmental causes. Rather than mandating in statute the creation of a specified number of additional centers on top of those centers already in existence, this bill lays the groundwork for effective congressional oversight of centers of excellence. It requires the Director of NIH to submit a report to Congress detailing the effectiveness of centers of excellence across the NIH and how they can be improved. The bill also gives the Director of NIH the explicit authority to consolidate centers of excellence if it would lead to improved program efficiencies and outcomes.

Next, the amended bill expands and reauthorizes an existing Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, or IACC. The coordinating committee will be made up of relevant government officials, experts, and parents and families of those suffering from autism. The committee's far-reaching mandate will be to compose and annually report to Congress on a strategic plan for Federal autism activities and to make important recommendations to both Congress and the executive branch on ways to better coordinate and conduct Federal autism-related activities. Further, this legislation increases the amount of public participation on the IACC from two individuals to at least six. In addition, the IACC has been tasked with making recommendations to the Secretary regarding the public participation in decisions relating to autism. For instance, the committee notes that the IACC may recommend providing other formal mechanisms, such as an Autism Advisory Board, to provide public feedback and interaction. Further, the Secretary may opt to provide such a mechanism under existing statutory authority, without the recommendation of the IACC. Public participation, especially among the parents and families of those affected by autism, is necessary to emphasize the human side of autism research and to ensure that Federal resources are used wisely.

This legislation takes several important steps forward in continuing the fight against autism, and I support its passage. Should the Senate also take up and pass the bipartisan NIH reauthorization bill overwhelmingly passed by the House earlier this year, Congress and the public will benefit from increased transparency and accountability at NIH that will benefit research into all diseases, including autism. I urge swift passage of both bills so we can get them to the President's desk before the end of this Congress.

At this time, I'd like to thank the sponsors of both the House and Senate bills who have worked tirelessly on this issue as well as the members of the autism advocacy community who have contributed constructive ideas and insights into this legislation. With that Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of our consensus substitute to H.R. 5782, The Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006. This legislation represents a broad, consensus-based process that exemplifies what can happen when different interests come together in order to produce a successful product.

I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar for working with Mr. Dingell and myself on reconciling our two bills and for the open and fair process between the two Committees of jurisdiction.

Reauthorizing the Pipeline Safety laws became more complicated after BP's inexcusable Prudhoe Bay oilfield shutdown in August. After rigorous enforcement and analysis, and after a thorough investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, DOT was able to approve restart of some of these lines at the Prudhoe Bay oilfield.

This substitute to H.R. 5782 retains compromise language that was marked up in the Energy and Commerce Committee to address the low stress pipeline exemption, as well as several other provisions that were worked out in bipartisan fashion. For example, the bill strengthens state one-call requirements for excavation damage, provides new authority and grant money to the states to develop their own damage prevention programs modeled after the successful programs already in place, and puts some sunshine on enforcement actions.

The low stress language preserves exemptions for gathering lines, flow lines, and other integrated pipeline facilities, but removes the exemption from DOT Part 195 regulation that was used by the BP Prudhoe Bay transit pipelines. The low stress language should also preserve the inherent flexibility that is already built into DOT's integrity management program.

In addition, in crafting the administrative procedures implementing the safety order authority under sec. 2(f), DOT should provide a pipeline operator an opportunity to confer with DOT before exercising the operator's right to a hearing. Informal consultation has the potential to produce remedies acceptable to both operator and DOT that will resolve the vast majority of concerns without the need for a formal hearing. Any action taken by mutual agreement as a result of any such consultation should be reduced to writing and made both public and enforceable. This approach will save time and legal costs and bring about safety improvements sooner.

I urge our friends in the other body to take this bill up and pass it this week, as it reflects changes that were drafted in order to reach agreement with the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege on behalf of the Texas delegation to introduce to the 109th Congress the Honorable Shelly Sekula Gibbs, Dr. Gibbs. She is a dermatologist in Houston, Texas. She serves on the Houston City Council at large. She has been active in the Ellington Field task force to help renovate that part of Houston, Texas.

She is a fifth-generation Texan. She has two children, two stepchildren, and, I think, three grandchildren. She is married to a graduate of Waco High School, which is the high school that I graduated from. She is going to do great honor to the 22nd Congressional District of Texas for the rest of the 109th Congress and it is with a great deal of personal Texas pride that I introduce to this body the Honorable Shelley Sekula Gibbs.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House debated the Conference Report for Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Section 535 of the conference report included a provision that will allow individuals to import into the U.S. from Canada a 90- day supply of a prescription drug, on their person, for their personal use. The provision specifically exempts controlled substances and biological products.

As the Chairman of the authorizing Committee with jurisdiction over the regulation of drugs and biological products, it is important for me to clarify what the language in this section means in regards to biologic products. The exemption applies to biological products, as that term is defined in Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act. The legislation does not confine the exception of only to those products licensed under Section 351 of the PHSA. This is an important distinction. To be clear, the language exempts biologic products licensed under the Public Health Service Act and those approved under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Members have also asked questions and offered various wishful opinions as to whether the chemical security section of the 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill preempts state or local law. Perhaps a review of the evolution of this provision would shed some light for Members. The House Committee on Homeland Security considered a bill in July that carried an amendment to explicitly state that the bill would not preempt state law. Why? Because Members recognized correctly that State or local laws that conflict with or

frustrate the purpose of Federal laws are preempted by the Federal law in the absence of explicit Federal language to the contrary, and the amendment's proponents wanted to ensure that States would not be so constrained. However, that bill was never considered by either body of Congress. When Senator Byrd initiated the process of using the 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill as a vehicle for legislating a Federal chemical security program, and then other Members began to venture suggestions to amend Senator Byrd's language in conference, the Chairmen of the three authorizing Committees, one in the other body and two in this body, were consulted.

During negotiations it was discussed and consciously decided among the authorizing committee negotiators to not include a provision exempting this section from Federal preemption because we do not want a patchwork of chemical security programs, and we do not want chemical facilities that are trying to secure themselves against threats of terrorism caught in a bind of wondering whether their site security complies with all law. It was only upon the agreement of the three authorizing Committee Chairmen that the Appropriations Conferees included the chemical security provision in the Appropriations Conference Report.

During Appropriations Conference deliberations, some Members argued and voted against including the chemical security section, in part because it was silent on preemption. However, they were outvoted. We are fully confident that courts of law, if ever faced with such a question, will examine the State or local provision and decide for themselves whether it conflicts with or frustrates the purpose of Federal law, including the chemical security section of the 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill and Section 101(b)(1)(F) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which states explicitly that the mission of the Department of Homeland Security includes ensuring ``that the overall economic security of the United States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and the provisions dealing with chemical plant security.

I truly regret this issue is being debated in the context of an appropriations bill. As Chairman of one of this Body's two Committees of jurisdiction, I am committed to engaging the policy debate in the future on chemical plant security legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have been astounded by the lack of real knowledge by some professed experts about the way that chemical plants are already regulated under existing Federal laws. When Congress resumes this debate in the next couple of years, it is essential that all interested persons know what their government

and the private sector are already doing before heaping an array of well-intentioned mandates on government and the private sector.

America does not become more secure by piling on more laws, it just become more regulated.

These provisions on chemical plant security are a step forward in making America more secure--and this is the only criterion by which I find myself supporting them. The legislation is far from perfect. However, it does establish, for the first time, an actual, and enforceable chemical plant security program for the whole Nation.

Let me highlight some key provisions:

First, this legislation requires chemical plants to conduct vulnerability assessments and site security plans. Similar steps have been required of other facilities by Congress and have passed without a dissenting vote.

Second, this legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop risk-based, performance-based regulations for securing high risk chemical plants within the next six months. This provision includes a much wider scope of plant coverage than what the Senate spending bill contained and it also makes the critical distinction that not every chemical plant is created or operates equally, has the same risks, or is similarly vulnerable.

Third, this legislation allows the Department to approve chemical plant regimes that other public or private interests develop that meet the criteria in the Department's regulations. This is crucial because it allows parties that have already invested in protecting chemical plants from terrorist attacks to avoid having those costs stranded simply because they had the foresight and initiative to act before this legislation became law.

Fourth, this is legislation protects sensitive information. We must never make security-sensitive information about chemical plants' available to anyone for the asking, including terrorists. Information protections have been included in every homeland security related bill since 9-11 and there is no good policy reason to end that practice right now.

This provision does not shield any chemical plant from FOIA requests for emissions data under existing Federal environmental statutes; it merely covers vulnerability and security information. I hope we all support this necessary protection.

Fifth, this legislation keeps the Department focused on chemical plant security. Some people want to have the Department's mission diluted with extraneous tasks such as regulating chemical plant pollution, chemical plant manufacturing processes, or chemical plant workplace relations.

We must not dismiss the volumes of environmental and manufacturing laws and enforcement expertise at both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, not to mention their state counterparts, so another Agency of the Federal government can get into the act.

Sixth, under the catch-phrase ``inherently safer technologies'' some want to vest in the Department of Homeland Security the power to regulate chemical feedstocks, processes, and products. One environmental protection agency is enough, Mr. Speaker. EPA has the authority and expertise it needs under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Clean Air Act, and other laws to protect our environment from harmful chemical exposure.

Let's let the Department of Homeland Security focus on protecting us from the threat of chemical terrorism so that our plants and communities are secure, and manufacturing facilities can continue to meet the needs of the American consumer, the American worker, and the American economy.

Seventh, this legislation distinguishes facilities that are already regulated by Federal law to prevent terrorism consequences. This includes drinking water and Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) facilities. Some misread this distinction as meaning drinking water and maritime transportation facilities do not get protection. On the contrary, the protection from terrorism we've already given them is so good we don't want conflicting regulatory programs to interfere.

We don't want DHS, which is not an environmental or public health agency, setting de facto drinking water standards under the guise of security regulations. Both the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Acts and presidential directives on homeland security place EPA in charge of drinking water facilities. Let's keep it there.

Eighth, this legislation requires DHS to audit and inspect chemical facilities to ensure compliance. Further, any facility not in compliance faces civil penalties and those facilities who do not obey an order to take corrective action face the prospect of being forced to cease operation. Considering its consequences for dedicated workers and its downstream impacts on interstate commerce, I trust this power would be used, if ever, only as a last resort.

Last, this legislation prevents private rights of action against the chemical facility solely as a means of private parties enforcing the security provisions in this section. This bar against third-party suits does not extend to any presently existing right a person might have under any other law. Simply, this provision prevents self-deputized persons from using the courts to enact national security policy.

Mr. Speaker, imperfect as the chemical security section is, it is better than current law and should make us a more secure nation. I urge all my colleagues to support its inclusion in this bill and adoption of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I am told that the gentlewoman from Dallas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) will also yield me 1 minute. If that is true, could she yield it at this time so I can do my speech at one time?

Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his gracious offer; and I rise today in strong support of Senate 3661, the Wright amendment compromise of 2006. I want to use the brief time that I have to explain what the compromise is all about.

Back in the 1960s, the two cities of Dallas and Fort Worth could not agree on anything, including where to locate their two respective airports. The Civil Aeronautics Administration said we will fund one Federal Aviation airport in the D/FW area but not two. That brought the two cities together to create what is now known as Dallas/Fort Worth Airport.

When a struggling airline called Southwest decided to fly their one plane out of Love Field to Houston and to San Antonio, they went to court and won the right to fly commercial air service out of Love Field, which had been suspended when D/FW came into existence. Hence, we got what is called the Wright compromise, which restricted flights from Love Field to an area within Texas or States contiguous to Texas.

Today, D/FW Airport is one of the five largest commercial aviation airports in the country. Love Field is a regional airport that currently has in use, I believe, 13 gates and several hundred flights per day. The compromise before us would repeal the Wright amendment over an 8-year period. It would allow thru-ticketing immediately from Love Field, and it would create what I call a super-regional airport, where the majority of the gates, over 100 gates, would be at D/FW, and no more than 20 gates would be at Love Field, which, as Congressman Johnson pointed out, is only eight miles from the eastern-most runway at D/FW.

There are currently only in use at Love Field 13 gates. So this limitation, so-called, of 20 gates, would actually allow an expansion of gates in actual use at Love Field. There are more empty gates at D/ FW right now today than there are total gates at Love Field.

This compromise is supported by almost every member of the Texas delegation and may yet be supported by every member of the delegation. It would put to bed an issue that has been vexatious for a number of years, in fact, you could say a number of decades.

I know my good friend from the Judiciary Committee has some antitrust exemptions, but again I will point out there are more empty gates at D/ FW than there are total gates at Love. This would be pro-competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 3661, ``The Wright Amendment Reform

Act.'' This is a very timely bill that will help resolve, once and for all, a local dispute stemming from the Wright Amendment. What we are doing here today is important to my constituents and the north Texas region.

I want to thank the Speaker and the Majority Leader for their willingness to schedule this legislation. I also want to give special thanks to Chairman Don Young; Ranking Member Oberstar; and Subcommittee Chairman Mica for their leadership and excellent contributions in crafting this responsible and beneficial compromise into legislation. Their committee staff members also deserve a big, Texas ``Thank You'' for all of their hard work and support in this effort. I also want to thank my staff director, Theresa Lavery, for her tireless work on this issue.

As you may know, I have long supported the covenant between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth because I believe the best public policy for the north Texas market is to have competing airlines, not competing airports. Today's legislation embodies a compromise intended to firmly cement the role of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport and Love Field Airport, and put to rest calls for immediate repeal of the Wright Amendment.

This bill, once signed into law, will give our region and the traveling public resolution on this issue and leave time for public and private stakeholders to plan for final repeal in eight years. In the interim, consumers across the Nation will reap the benefits of immediate thru-ticketing at Love Field.

The compromise was hammered out in a deliberative fashion, considering valid concerns and unique factors of operation that have benefited the growth of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex since enactment of the Wright Amendment. This bill is a balanced compromise that has the support of Dallas and Fort Worth, as co-owners of DFW Airport.

Finally, this agreement ensures that Love Field will continue to offer an important alternative for consumers while not diminishing the capacity for competition available at DFW Airport. Growth at Love Field is restricted, as it is a land-locked airport and therefore should not be reconstituted for greater traffic with repeal of the Wright Amendment. Love Field will be reduced to 20 gates over time, and this will allow the residents of the area peace of mind concerning pollution, noise, traffic, and safety concerns.

I view this agreement as facilitating a ``super'' airport, where the terminals at DFW Airport serve national and international destinations, and Love Field's gates provide a regional function with select national routes offering direct competition via thru-ticketing. Importantly, after eight years the Wright Amendment as it exists today will be repealed. This is truly the best of both worlds for consumers in Texas and throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker, local leaders have negotiated a thoughtful, viable alternative to the status quo that should be supported. I commend everyone involved for their efforts. I urge my colleagues to support S. 3661.

My fellow north Texas colleague, Congressman Burgess, has traveled to Texas today for the funeral of his friend, Byron Nelson, but he would like me to express his support for S. 3661. As a representative of DFW International Airport, he feels strongly in protecting the economic engine of north Texas. While he believes in the integrity of the original Wright Amendment, he is pleased that the local entities' constructed a compromise that met the needs and wishes of all parties. Not only will the airports and airlines benefit from the compromise but also the tens of thousands of employees and residents of north Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope we will get a two-thirds vote, and I again thank Mr. Sensenbrenner for yielding me 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be given control of the time on the majority side.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6143, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006. This legislation was introduced by Congresswoman Bono. It is the product of a year of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. The bill reauthorizes and reforms the Ryan White program, the Federal Government's largest discretionary grant program specifically designed for people with HIV/

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put into the Record a letter dated September 19, 2006, from the County of Los Angeles signed by Reginald Todd, the Chief Legislative Representative for that county to Congresswoman Bono, where he states strong support of the current bill before us, and I want to read one sentence from this letter:

``The county understands that absent this legislation the Health Resources and Services Administration will count only HIV cases for States with mature named-based HIV reporting systems in allocating Federal fiscal year 2007 Ryan White CARE Act funds. This would have a devastating fiscal impact on California and the County of Los Angeles. The proposed CARE Act reauthorization effectively addresses many of the concerns raised by the County's Board of Supervisors in its August 30, 2006, letter to you.''

County of Los Angeles,

Washington, DC Legislative Office,

Washington, DC, September 19, 2006.

Hon. Mary Bono,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Bono: I am writing to communicate Los

Angeles County's support for the Ryan White HIV/AIDS

Treatment Modernization Act of 2006, which is due to be

marked up by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on

September 20, 2006.

This Ryan White CARE Act reauthorization legislation would

allow states, such as California, which have converted or are

converting to a names-based HIV reporting system to use the

data collected through their code-based HIV reporting system.

As you know, this is extremely important for California and

Los Angeles County, which is the nation's second most HIV/

AIDS impacted local jurisdiction. The Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC) currently does not count

California's HIV cases, as it does not consider the State's

name-based HIV reporting system to be mature. While hard work

lies ahead for California to fully implement its names-based

HIV reporting system, we are confident that this provision in

the legislation will adequately protect existing systems of

care for its residents who live with HIV and AIDS.

The County understands that, absent this legislation, the

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) will

count only HIV cases for states with mature name-based HIV

reporting systems in allocating Federal Fiscal Year 2007 Ryan

White CARE Act funds. This would have a devastating fiscal

impact on California and the County. The proposed CARE Act

reauthorization legislation effectively addresses many of the

concerns raised by the County's Board of Supervisors in its

August 30, 2006 letter to you. To further strengthen this

legislation, the County encourages you to support efforts to

extend the hold harmless provision for a total of 4 years,

and a provision that counts HIV cases in states working

toward mature HIV surveillance systems in periods when a hold

harmless provision is not in effect.

Thank you for your assistance to the County on this

important issue.

Sincerely,

Reginald N. Todd,

Chief Legislative Representative.

What we have before us, Mr. Speaker, is a classic case of a formula funding fight. Those States and those cities that were the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic 10 to 15 years ago benefit greatly from the current formula. However, the AIDS/HIV epidemic is moving. It is actually, luckily, thankfully, declining in some of the areas where it began; but, unfortunately, it is growing in other areas where it wasn't prevalent 10 or 15 years ago.

The proposed legislation reallocates the funds based on HIV cases and AIDS cases. The old formula only counts AIDS cases. The old formula only counts what is called a named-base case. The new formula would allow for, in addition to named-based cases, also what are called code- based cases, where individuals still have to be counted, but they are not collectively sent to HHS.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's passion, but I just want to point out the facts. If we don't pass this bill today, the City of Los Angeles, in 3 days, is going to lose over $4 million, and the State is going to lose over $6 million. The State could lose up to 21 percent of its AIDS funds.

Now, those are the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record a list of over 20 organizations that have endorsed the bill, as well as a letter from the AIDS Institute dated September 28, 2006, signed by Dr. Gene Copello.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read from the AIDS Institute endorsement letter that was dated September 28 by Dr. Gene Copello. I won't read the entire letter, but I want to read parts of it.

It says, ``Dear Representative: The AIDS Institute,'' and this is a nonpartisan institute, ``urges you to vote `yes' today on the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act, H.R. 6143.

``While no bill that is crafted through a series of compromises is perfect, the AIDS Institute strongly supports its immediate passage because it would better direct limited resources throughout the country in a more equitable fashion. Additionally, it contains a number of important reforms that seek to update the law to better reflect today's epidemic.

``If the bill is not passed this week, a number of States and the District of Columbia will lose funding, and the important reforms contained in the bill will not be allowed to be implemented for the coming year.''

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is the result of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations over a several year period. It is not perfect, but it is a better bill and better legislation than current law. It more equitably allocates the funds not just for AIDS patients but also for HIV patients.

The States that lose in the new formula are guaranteed 95 percent of their current year funding for 3 years, 95 percent. And then, in the fourth or fifth year, they are allowed to petition through a supplemental fund to make up for these losses under the old baseline formula.

This is a very fair compromise. It begins to treat all States on an equal footing; and it also, for the first time, begins to count HIV cases as well as AIDS cases. It deserves to be supported.

Please vote ``yes.'' We do need a two-thirds vote to pass this, because it is on the suspension calendar. So we need more than a majority vote.

Please vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6143.

Organizations That Support the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment

Modernization Act

AbsoluteCare Medical Center.

ADAP Coalition.

AIDS Action Coalition; Huntsville, AL.

AIDS Alabama, Inc.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

AIDS Outreach of East Alabama Medical Center.

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium.

American Academy of HIV Medicine.

American Dietetic Association.

Am I My Brother's Keeper, Inc.

Brother 2 Brother.

Carepoint Adult, Child and Family.

Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth.

First Ladies Summit.

Harabee Empowerment Center.

HIV Medicine Association.

Latino Coalition.

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

Log Cabin Republicans.

Lowcountry Infectious Diseases.

Montgomery AIDS Outreach.

National Black Chamber of Commerce.

National Coalition of Pastors Spouses.

National Minority Health Month.

New Black Leadership Coalition.

President's Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.

Rep. Linda Upmeyer (Iowa State Rep, District 12).

South Alabama Cares.

Southern AIDS Coalition.

Mr. Speaker, please include this exchange of correspondence in the Record for H.R. 5533.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, September 26, 2006.

Hon. Tom Davis,

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Davis: I acknowledge and appreciate your

willingness not to exercise your referral of H.R. 5533,

Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of

2006. In doing so, I agree that your decision to forgo

further action on the bill will not prejudice the Committee

on Government Reform with respect to its jurisdictional

prerogatives on this legislation or similar legislation.

Further, I recognize your right to request conferees on

those provisions within the Committee on Government Reform's

jurisdiction should they be the subject of a House-Senate

conference on this or similar legislation.

I will include your letter and this response in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 5533.

Sincerely

Joe Barton,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6164) to amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend the authorities of the National Institutes of Health, and for other purposes.

Madam 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 matter under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this is a big day for me, or I guess I should say a big evening for me. When I became chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee 3 years ago, I asked the staff to do two things: number one, prepare a list of all of the major agencies and major pieces of legislation that were under the jurisdiction of the committee; and then, number two, to prepare a list of those agencies and those major bills that were not authorized.

I was extremely surprised to find out that the National Institutes of Health, which at that time we were doubling the budget of, had not been authorized in 10 years. I said that is a very, very important agency, and because there is tremendous bipartisan support for the NIH, let's make that the first agency that we bring up to speed and reauthorize and, if necessary, reform. I thought, quite frankly, that that effort might take 3 to 6 months.

Well, 3 years later, as one of the last acts of this Congress, we are bringing to the floor an NIH reauthorization bill. It is a bill that has been the result of tremendous cooperation in the stakeholder community and within this Congress, Mr. Dingell and myself as leaders of the committee, and many, many Members on both sides of the aisle, rank and file Members in terms of input.

The bill has gone through three to four drafts. We had a very intense markup on this bill in committee last week, and the result is a work product that is before us.

Fifty-one stakeholder groups have endorsed the bill, and I will put the endorsement sheet into the record. I am not going to read all 51 out, but I do want to read some of them: the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Physical Therapy Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Association of America and Universities, the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the Friends of Cancer Research, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Lance Armstrong Foundation, the March of Dimes, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, the National Coalition for Cancer Research, and the Parkinson's Action Network are just a few of the national organizations that have endorsed or supported this legislation.

Why is NIH reauthorization important, beyond the mechanical aspect of trying to have funding that is authorized and is given full oversight? Well, I think when you talk about major pieces of legislation you tend to talk in abstract terms, but I want tonight to personalize it a little bit.

My brother, John Barton, died of liver cancer 6 years ago. At the time that he passed away, he was taking an experimental NIH drug that, had it worked, would have saved his life. We were told by his doctors there was an 80 percent chance it would really, really help him, but there was a 20 percent chance it would exacerbate the disease. We took that risk. He signed the protocol, took the medication and, obviously, in his case it didn't work. He is no longer with us, but that NIH research program later did make a significant breakthrough that is helping liver cancer patients today.

My father passed away 10 years ago from complications of diabetes. The NIH has invested and is investing tremendous resources in trying to find a way to combat the scourge of diabetes.

I had an aunt who passed away from breast cancer 16 years ago. As we all know, that is one of the priority areas for NIH research.

I myself had a heart attack last December 15th, but I was able to be successfully treated because of NIH research that has created what we now call these coated stents. I have a number of these stents in my heart; and, because of prior NIH research, I am able to give this floor speech.

So when I talk about the need to reauthorize and reform the NIH, I am talking in an academic sense, but I am also talking very personal. It helps my

family. It helps every American's family sense.

The bill before us would authorize the NIH for 13 years. It would freeze the number of existing institutes, there are 27, at 27. It would set up an internal time line controlled by the scientists and the administrators at NIH to review their internal organizations. If they want to make some changes, they can. They have to report to the Congress what those changes are.

For the first time, it would set up a common reporting system so that we know all the research that is being done at NIH and give the public an opportunity to track that research. It would set up for the first time a common fund which, over time, we would put sufficient funds in so that you could have peer-reviewed grants across the NIH structure so that the scientists in one institute that were working on, let's say, lung cancer in the Cancer Institute might work with people in the Lung Institute might work with the people at the Institute of Applied Biology. So they would all come together, and they would share their research on a merit-based research grant project.

It sets up a formal reporting system with NIH and again requires that those reports be standardized in a format that the public can easily understand and easily have access to. It gives the director of NIH some discretionary funding in which he can apply towards specific projects that he thinks are high-priority areas.

The bill before us sets up and maintains the merit-based peer review program that is already in existence at NIH, but it creates a reporting system, an accounting system of transparency that allows the public to see what is going on, and through the creation of this common fund actually gives the ability on a merit-based, peer-reviewed process to put the research dollars where they will do the most good and have the biggest impact.

So I think this is a very, very important piece of legislation. I consider it the signal achievement of the Energy and Commerce Committee in this Congress. I hope that, if we pass it this evening, that we can get the other body to take it up very quickly and also pass it over there. It will really, really help the NIH maintain its status as one of the crown jewels of the Federal Government.

I do want to thank Ranking Member Dingell for his cooperation and his staff. John Ford of his staff has worked very, very hard working with the majority staff. Katherine Martin has worked on the majority side. And from the leadership side, Cheryl Jeager has worked very, very hard. We could not have done it at the Member level if it had not have been for the hard work at the staff level.

Again, I am very proud of this piece of legislation. I hope everybody in the body votes for it this evening.

Support for NIH Reauthorization

American Association for Cancer Research

American Cancer Society

American Heart Association

American Physical Therapy Association

American Society of Clinical Oncology

American Society for Microbiology

American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology

American Stroke Association

Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)

Association of American Universities (AAU)

American Urological Association

Autism One

Autism Society of America

Autism Speaks

California Healthcare Institute

Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation

Christopher Reeve Foundation

Coalition of Cancer Cooperatives Groups

C3: Colorectal Cancer Coalition

Community Oncology Alliance