Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark a historic day in the history of public health. Fifty years ago today, Dr. Thomas Francis, Jr. announced from the University of Michigan's Rackham Auditorium words that people around the globe were waiting to hear: the Salk polio vaccine works. With those simple words, eradication efforts began in earnest to rid the world of this terrible disease.

For generations in the United States, the polio disease struck fear in the hearts of millions of American parents and children. Late every summer, hot weather brought with it a rash of new cases of paralytic polio. No one knew how to I prevent polio, nor was there a cure. Epidemics of polio could devastate whole communities. For example, an epidemic struck the state of New York in 1916 killing 9,000 people and leaving 27,000 disabled. In the 1940s and 50s, the number of cases reported in the United States ranged from 40,000 to 60,000 each year. This was the state of our nation affected by polio pre-1955.

Mr. Speaker, all that began to change in the early 1950s. At that time, Dr. Jonas Salk, a postdoctoral student of Dr. Francis's at the University of Michigan, developed a promising vaccine against poliomyelitis in his laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh. In what has been called the largest cooperative effort undertaken in peacetime, the Salk vaccine was tested in the most comprehensive field trials ever conducted. Overseeing those trials was Dr. Francis, Director of the Poliomyelitis Vaccine Evaluation Center and founding chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

Mr. Speaker, the polio field trials were unprecedented in scope and magnitude. Dr. Francis and his team of more than 100 statisticians and epidemiologists tabulated data received from hundreds of public health officials and doctors who participated in the study. The trials involved 1,830,000 children in 217 areas of the United States, Canada and Finland. No field trial of this scale has been conducted since.

This historic event is a source of pride for the University of Michigan and the state of Michigan as a whole. Since that day fifty years ago, polio has been nearly eradicated. In August 2002, there were no confirmed cases reported in the United States, and only 483 confirmed cases of acute poliomyelitis reported to authorities worldwide. These successes all began with the announcement from Rackham Auditorium fifty years ago today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding citizen of my district who will be receiving special recognition soon for a lifetime of service to his community.

William C. ``Bill'' Martin is best known for his leadership as Director of Intercollegiate Athletics for the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. But his work in the Washtenaw County community goes far beyond his work in the field of sports.

Whether creating First Martin Corporation for real estate development, founding the Bank of Ann Arbor, creating a three-on-three basketball tournament to raise money for the public schools or helping rebuild Isle Royale's ranger station on Lake Superior, Bill Martin has been a community leader whose work has benefited thousands of his fellow citizens.

On several occasions, Bill has been asked to step in and help turn around troubled programs, including both the UM Athletic Department and the U.S. Olympic Committee. In both cases, his hard work and leadership helped right the ship and get things moving forward. That metaphor is quite appropriate, since Bill also has had a very successful competitive career in sailing and has contributed time and energy to the sport, both nationally and internationally.

He also has served with distinction on the board of his alma mater, Wittenberg University and also spent many years on the Washtenaw Land Conservancy Board, including ten years as president. He also has been a member of the advisory board for the University of Michigan Center for the Education of Women.

On May 2, 2005 the Jewish Federation of Washtenaw County will present Bill with its Humanitarian Award, an honor bestowed every other year to an outstanding citizen of the community. Bill Martin is truly one of those deserving citizens, and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating him on this upcoming award and thanking him for his outstanding leadership in Michigan and around the nation.

Mr. Chairman, I will oppose this ill-advised budget proposal and I urge my colleagues to join me. Every year, we set our priorities through our budget. The priorities in this budget are all wrong. Our priorities should focus on helping those who need help before we begin to help those who don't. However, although we may not all agree with these concerns, one priority which we can all agree on is that we must reduce the deficit. Incredibly, the proposal before us does absolutely nothing to accomplish this goal. Despite all the assurances I have heard from my colleagues and the Administration, this legislation actually increases the deficit!

With record deficit levels, how is it possible that the majority has completely ignored fiscal responsibility? By passing tax givebacks, over half of which go to households earning over $1 million--that's 0.2 percent of the population. Although many of us find this appalling, unfortunately, it has become predictable behavior of the majority party.

How can we justify this fiscal recklessness to our children and grandchildren? How can we justify it to hard-working Americans who live paycheck to paycheck, unable to save money for emergencies or even just to see the doctor? Can we honestly look them in the eye and tell them that we are more concerned with millionaires and billionaires than with struggling middle-class Americans, brave soldiers, the sick, the poor and the hungry? I, for one, dread the thought. Yet, that is the message this budget sends. And, although my colleagues try to cloud its destruction with their transparent gimmicks, the message shines through crystal clear.

The resolution before us provides for total tax giveaways of $106 billion over five years. Every child in America knows that you must save first before you splurge. They know that they must patiently fill their piggy banks with coins until they have enough to buy that toy they have been eyeing for weeks.

My colleagues do not seem to understand this common notion of balancing income and spending. They continue to splurge on our national credit card, racking up astronomical bills which our children and grandchildren will be obliged to pay. Soon they will ask for their fourth credit increase in four years, to enable the continuation of this reckless abuse of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

The pay-as-you-go rule, or PAYGO, would solve the issue of unlimited spending by requiring new spending to be offset in other areas of the budget. Again, common sense would dictate that tax giveaways, totaling $106 billion over five years, would count as new spending. The money is being removed from the country's revenue without replacement. The PAYGO rule would essentially require us to stop and think about how we are going to pay for things before we hastily enact them and end up in this ill-fated fiscal jam. Not surprisingly, however, many of my collegues have insisted on exempting the billions of dollars in tax givebacks from the PAYGO rule. They do so without an explanation of how they plan to restore the lost revenue. There is no good reason, particularly when we are running record deficits, to reject the very successful practice we used in the 1990's to produce record surpluses.

Unlike the federal government, states are not permitted to spend without restraint. States cannot run up their credit card bills or repeatedly increase their credit limits. Yet, this budget increases the financial burden on the states. The federal government has an agreement with the states--we will help pay for programs which we mandate-- programs vital to America, including education, healthcare and job training. And we have been successful in our partnership with the states, ensuring that millions of Americans are able to go to school, to the doctor and to work.

However, in their spending schemes, my Republican colleagues neglect our obligation to the states. More and more, states are picking up the tab for unpaid federal bills.

At a time when states are struggling under the burden of Medicare cost shifts and a growing number of uninsured, I find it particularly disturbing that the Republicans have chosen to cut funding for Medicaid--a critical safety net for our most vulnerable citizens.

The Republicans are specifically proposing to cut an unprecedented $60 billion from the program, which is the equivalent of completely eliminating the Children's Health Insurance Program over 10 years.

These cuts would roll back health care coverage and protections for millions of Americans including the elderly in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities, infants and working families. Also, hospitals, physicians and other safety net providers will face payment reductions threatening their viability--and these reductions will mean more lost jobs in our communities.

The assault on the environment also continues, including a massive, unjustified cut to the Superfund program. The Inspector General has identified, and senior EPA officials have acknowledged, that in FY2003 there was a funding shortfall of $174.9 million, and it has been widely reported that the funding shortfall for FY2004 reached approximately $250 million. This leaves dozens of highly contaminated Superfund sites where cleanups are being delayed due to inadequate funding. Public health is endangered and local economic redevelopment hurt, yet this budget irresponsibly seeks to reduce cleanup funding.

These are just two examples of critical programs this budget neglects and two examples of why I will oppose this legislation and I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Republican budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dolly Seelmeyer on the occasion of her recent retirement from the United States House of Representatives after 34 years of distinguished Service.

Shortly after she began to work for this august institution, Dolly became the first female photographer in the Office of Photography. To understand the length and breadth of the times she witnessed, one only has to know that when she began her tenure, Richard Nixon was President of the United States and Carl Albert was Speaker of the House. My friend, colleague and fellow Michigander Gerald Ford was Minority Leader of this body. She not only observed, but was able to record for posterity many significant events in the history of this body.

In addition to her expertise as a photographer, Dolly was of tremendous assistance to our offices as she helped us to obtain and preserve visual records of bygone times. Her professionalism and courtesy were always present as she helped us to document the history of the Congress. In addition to her official photos, her office was decorated with wonderful photographs of plants and flowers that she took in her own time.

We thank Dolly for her ongoing assistance in helping us to keep a record of the last quarter of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that my colleagues join me in thanking Dolly Seelmeyer for her 34 years of commitment and devotion to the House of Representatives and also to join me in wishing her the very best that life has to offer in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005.

I commend my full committee and subcommittee chairmen, Representatives Barton and Upton, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Markey for their work and efforts to bring this ever-improving bill to the House floor so quickly. H.R. 310 is strong, bipartisan legislation worthy of support. This legislation is nearly identical to the bill passed by the House almost 1 year ago by a vote of 391 to 22. That bill failed to become law.

The need for this legislation, however, has not diminished in the past year. For too long, the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, has been asleep at the wheel when it came to incidents of public broadcast indecency and the ensuing complaints. Congress's attention to the issue of broadcast indecency last year awakened the commission from its years of slumber. We finally saw an FCC that more properly understood the need to enforce laws against indecency over the public airwaves.

Unfortunately, consumer complaints continue to receive haphazard treatment at the commission. Moreover, there continues to be a betrayal of the public trust. Some broadcasters persist in crossing the line, putting their own drive for ratings and profits ahead of their responsibilities to the public. This is regrettable behavior. Most broadcasters are decent and proper stewards of the public airwaves, but the poor judgment of a select few casts a dark shadow on the entire industry. Perhaps these wayward broadcasters mistakenly thought that the kickoff of a new Super Bowl would see this issue recede and lawmakers would ``let it be.'' Let me be clear, the need to enforce the indecency laws is greater than any one malfunction.

It is important for Congress to ensure that the FCC not only maintains its newfound alertness, but that it also has the right tools to ensure proper enforcement against indecency over the public airwaves.

H.R. 310 will ensure that the FCC has such tools. First, the bill responds to the overriding need to raise the maximum indecency fine to a level that will deter even the largest companies. Second, the bill compels the FCC to use the license renewal and revocation processes to examine more closely the fitness of certain licensees, particularly broadcasters that repeatedly violate the FCC's rules. Third, needed attention is also paid to the consumer complaint process by compelling the FCC to act on complaints within a specific time-frame. Fourth, this bill will make the FCC more accountable by requiring regular reports to Congress on its enforcement activities. This reporting requirement should encourage any new FCC chairman to carry on the moral virtue that came rather late to the outgoing chairman.

Our constituents have made it clear that they are fed up with the level of sex and violence on television and radio. They deserve to be able to turn on their television or radio at appropriate times without being bombarded by filth and smut. The increased oversight and penalties contained in H.R. 310 should provide the proper incentive to broadcasters to keep it clean. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this sensible bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 91 honoring the life and legacy of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Extremely well thought of by the international community, Mr. Hariri's tragic and untimely death is a great loss to us all.

Mr. Hariri was born in Southern Lebanon in 1944 to a family that was neither political nor

powerful. Mr. Hariri attended the Beirut Arab University where he was trained as a teacher. After leaving the University, however, Mr. Hariri went abroad to seek his fortune. He found that fortune in Saudi Arabia, where he established his own construction firm. Mr. Hariri became the personal contractor to Prince Fahd, who later became king of Saudi Arabia. Mr. Hariri's company, Oger, became one of the region's largest and most profitable construction companies. Mr. Hariri amassed a fortune that propelled him into Forbes richest 100 people in the world, with an estimated net worth of $4 billion.

While Mr. Hariri's rags to riches story is noteworthy, it is not what he will be most remembered for. Mr. Speaker, Rafiq Hariri loved Lebanon. He genuinely wanted to give something back and to serve his country. During the civil war he mediated between rival militia groups. And in 1989, Mr. Hariri was a primary architect of the Taif Accords, which finally put an end to that war. In 1992, Mr. Hariri returned to Lebanon to serve as a Member of Parliament, and was appointed Prime Minister. The first order of business for Prime Minister Hariri was to restore the Lebanese economy and rebuild the country after the 15 year civil war. Mr. Hariri left office in 1998 and returned as Prime Minister again in 2000. During his tenure, he was successful in attracting foreign investment, rebuilding Beirut and reviving Lebanon's tourism industry.

I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not mention Rafiq Hariri's humanitarian work. Over the course of his life he found several philanthropic, humanitarian and educational foundations which aided poor Lebanese with schools, healthcare and college tuition. In the midst of the civil war, during cease-fires, he sent Oger trucks into Beirut's streets to clear away the rubble.

Mr. Speaker, the death of Rafiq Hariri leaves a void in Lebanon, a void that will not be easily filled.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge the international community to fully investigate this act of terror. In addition, I advise the United States to offer forensic assistance to Lebanon. We have vast experience with bomb investigations, and I feel confident that our expertise could be used to help identify those responsible for this assassination, and bring them to justice.

I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life and legacy of Rafiq Hariri, extending our deepest sorrow to the Lebanese people, both in Lebanon and around the world on their loss, and in condemning the heinous act that cut short this still promising life. I would also ask that my colleagues join me in offering our deepest condolences to the families of all those killed and our prayers for the swift recovery of the wounded.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. Not only has the House failed to consider the sweeping changes in this bill through the thoughtful and deliberative committee process, we have failed our duty to the American people to ensure that this bill will not have unintended consequences.

You may ask, ``Dingell, what unintended consequences? Doesn't this bill just keep the bad guys from harming us again?''

Well, my friends, read the fine print.

Look at Section 102 of the bill. That section allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive ANY and ALL federal, state, or local law that the Secretary determines should be waived to ensure the construction of physical barriers and roads to deter illegal border crossings.

It would also allow waiver of laws to knock down existing structures or other obstacles.

It would give power to the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any public health law such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, as well as transportation safety, hazardous materials transportation and road construction standards.

In addition, it would grant DHS unchecked authority to abrogate criminal law, child labor laws, laws that protect workers, civil rights laws, ethics laws for clean contracting and procurement policy.

It goes even further. No procedures for using this authority are established, and judicial review by federal or state courts is expressly prohibited. It even appears there would be NO judicial review concerning the taking of private property.

The breadth of this provision is unprecedented and must not stand.

Now let's look at Section 101. This section requires that in certain asylum claims, applicants must prove that their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion ``was or will be a central reason'' for their persecution.

In effect, this will bar many legitimate refugees who have fled brutal human rights abuses, including torture, rape, and other horrific violence, from receiving asylum.

This section creates new burdens on those seeking asylum, including a corroborating evidence test, empowering an immigration officer or immigration judge to deny asylum to a refugee because he believes, in his discretion, that the refugee should have somehow been able to obtain a particular document when fleeing her country.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that we must protect our borders, but we must still allow those decent freedom loving people fleeing their countries to be able to continue to seek asylum.

I would also note that Sec. 103 specifically identifies officers, officials, representatives or spokesmen of the Palestinian Liberation Organization as terrorists, thus not able to enter the United States. Mr. Speaker, this would mean that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would be barred from the United States. Given the great progress we have seen in the Middle East in the past week and that the Bush Administration is in the process of setting up meetings with Dr. Abbas in Washington, it hardly seems wise to pass a bill barring the newly elected President of the Palestinian Authority from the country.

Finally, I note that I have concerns about this bill and its unintended consequences on the Second Amendment rights of gun owning Americans like myself.

Section 203 calls for the linking of databases and creates a floor for the requirements of what can be included in the database. However, this legislation fails to create a ceiling. What could stop a State from requiring databases to contain information about gun licenses issued and gun ownership records?

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this broad overreaching legislation. Let's have hearings. Let's have real deliberation and debate. I will vote against this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong Support of H. Con. Res. 6 and the Boy Scouts of America. I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Joel Hefley, for introducing this important resolution to support the Boy Scouts of America and their Jamborees.

To all Scouts everywhere, I say continue to live your life according to the Scout law, and you will find that you will go far in life.

To those adults involved in the Scouts, I say, thank you. Thank you for your work to mold young people into fine citizens that will do great things for our country.

The Scout leaders who teach Scouts about self respect, self reliance, and the wonders of our natural world do our nation a great service. Without the Boy Scouts and others who have worked to instill these values in our society, many in this institution would not be able to carry on the hard work to protect our natural resources and wild lands.

Last Congress, I introduced H.R. 5428 which, if passed, would restore the ability of our armed forces to directly support Scout troops and ensure that the Scouts will continue to have the use of Fort A.P. Hill and the assistance of our armed forces for its jamboree. I intend to work with my colleagues to introduce similar legislation again in this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I grew up a Boy Scout, became a Scoutmaster, and watched proudly

as both my sons became Scouts. I will continue to protect the Scouts from those that wish to harm this fine organization.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for H. Con. Res. 6.

Mr. Speaker, last week I missed two important votes relating to elections in the troubled Middle East. H. Res. 56 commends the Palestinian people for the free election held on January 9, 2005, and H. Res. 60 relates to the election held in Iraq on January 30, 2005. I rise today to say that I would have voted ``yes'' on both H. Res. 56 and H. Res. 60.

On Sunday, January 30, millions of Iraqis voted in a free election for the first time in their lives. Many walked great distances and nearly all risked their lives to exercise this new right. Though I opposed the war, the election that took place in Iraq is something to be celebrated. In addition to commending the people of Iraq, I would like to commend our men and women in the armed services. Without their hard work and bravery in developing and executing a complex security plan, this most successful election would not have been possible.

Now that the people of Iraq have had a free election, we need to put our efforts into helping them find ways to defeat the insurgency, involve all religious and ethnic persuasions in the political process and ensure that the rights of minorities are protected as they continue to draft a Constitution.

In addition, it is important that the United States look toward developing an exit strategy. In reality, this should have been done before we initiated military operations. We need to continue to train and equip Iraqi security forces. In order to properly do this, we need to have an accurate assessment of the capabilities of those forces now.

The free election in Iraq was an achievement that cannot be understated. That said, we have a vested interest in a secure and democratic Iraq and while the election was an important milestone, we need to look ahead to a time when our work over there is done and our troops can come home.

Now, turning to the recent elections in the Palestinian Territories. I would like to commend Dr. Mahmoud Abbas on his election as the second President of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people for making their voices heard. The elections on January 9 were conducted under difficult circumstances, including ongoing violence and a limited ability for candidates to campaign. Despite these challenges, an amazing 70 percent of registered voters turned out, according to Dr. Hana Nasir, head of the Palestinian Central Election Commission. The Palestinian people, political organizations, and presidential candidates all deserve praise for this significant step forward. Moreover, although voters in East Jerusalem experienced difficulties, elsewhere in the West Bank and Gaza Israel facilitated the election process. For this Israel also deserves commendation.

International observers--including some of our colleagues here--state that the elections were free and fair. Allow me to share a few key observations of the International Observer Delegation organized by the National Democratic Institute and the Carter Center.

The election was contested vigorously and administered

fairly. Election day was orderly and generally peaceful.

The process, organized in just 60 days in accordance with

the Palestinian Basic Law and under difficult circumstances

of the ongoing conflict and occupation, represents a step

forward for Palestinian democracy.

Seven presidential candidates competed in the election,

presenting Palestinians with a choice among distinct points

of view. . . . This is a tribute to the seriousness of the

political competitors and to the Palestinian people's desire

to respect political pluralism.

Following the death of Yasser Arafat, many predicted that the Palestinian Authority would crumble into complete chaos. In fact, Palestinian institutions proved more resilient, and the Palestinian people showed greater determination for peace and self-determination than many expected. Consequently, the transition of power from President Arafat to President Abbas stands as a model for the region to emulate.

Mr. Speaker, the Palestinian elections of January 9 were clearly a proud day for Palestinians and a very positive step forward in the effort to broaden the reach peaceful, civil interaction. It is a clear mandate for President Abbas to pursue his agenda of peaceful negotiations with Israel in order to establish a viable, sovereign, and independent Palestinian state. It is now incumbent on the United States and Israel to support President Abbas in his effort to consolidate power, to generate political and economic benefits for the Palestinian people, and to engage seriously in the negotiation of a peace settlement. The recipe for a final agreement has been apparent to most of us for some time. Now all the ingredients appear to be assembled. Those interested in creating peace have no reason or excuse not to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, as has been the case for a number of years, the rules package put forward by my Republican colleagues continues to trample on the rights of the minority. It will do nothing to stop the abusive practices in this House such as the 3-hour vote on the Medicare bill in the middle of the night. In fact, it allows the Speaker added discretion to reconsider votes that the Republican majority loses. In addition, the new rules require an affirmative vote by the Ethics Committee before any action can be taken. This, in effect, gives my Republican colleagues the right to block any investigation.

I would like to focus on one portion of the package that will create a permanent Committee on Homeland Security. While I am sure some of my colleagues believe that the new committee will improve our security, unfortunately this new committee will be nothing more than a costly addition to the expenditures of the legislative branch, and it will likely breed a new wave of ``turf warfare'' among the committees of the House. We simply do not need a special committee every time we face a crisis.

The process under which we are being asked to approve this change is particularly troublesome. I call your attention to the last time the House felt compelled to create a new committee. In 1980, some Members of the House believed that it would be wise to create an energy committee. It used a careful process in which a committee on committees was created, consisting of Democrats and Republicans. When that committee reported its recommendations to the House, substitutes were permitted, and the result reflected a thoughtful understanding of how best to achieve the objectives.

In contrast, we are now being asked to consider a proposal which was sent to us just yesterday. It was hatched in secret by our Republican colleagues without the input of any Democrats. While many of my Democratic colleagues may agree with the need for a new committee, the right of the minority to have their views considered and voted upon has been trampled once again.

I also oppose the notion that a new committee is needed. If the main concern is one of oversight, we can use our existing committees to do the job. If Members still believed that a new committee was necessary, it need not have legislative jurisdiction.

I am certain that is such a committee had legislative recommendations of merit, the appropriate committees along with proper actions by respective party leaders would ensure the bill would come to the floor.

Instead, I foresee a new committee that will seek to increase its powers by introducing bills granting all manner of new authorities to the Department of Homeland Security. In addition,

thoughtful bills addressing aspects of homeland security reported by the existing committees will now be delayed as the new committee will seek referrals. And needed responsiveness by the executive branch to the existing committees may be hindered.

While the 9/11 Commission urged a reorganization of congressional committees to deal with homeland security, it is odd that this new committee will have no jurisdiction over the issues that were identified by the Commission that led to the 9/11 tragedy. The new committee will have no jurisdiction over the intelligence community, the law enforcement community, or immigration enforcement.

It is a shame that the first day of this new Congress should be marked by an attempt to authorize a new committee without so much as an open markup to consider its merits. Moreover, it would be extremely unwise to ignore the expertise and experience of existing committees as we address homeland security issues, but we are starting down that path today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Marvin Kirsh, a noted cardiothoracic surgeon, who is on staff at the Ann Arbor Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and to express my deep gratitude for his enormous contributions to the field of medicine.

Dr. Marvin Kirsh has been an integral part of the center staff for more than 36 years and has been the Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery since 1990. Although he has chosen to retire at the end of this month from his post, he will continue to use his extensive expertise in the educational community as a member of the University of Michigan School of Medicine teaching staff.

In his capacity as a Professor of Surgery at the University of Michigan, Dr. Marvin Kirsh

was honored by The American Heart Association and received its Lifetime Achievement Award.

Dr. Marvin Kirsh is also an accomplished writer and has authored and co-authored more than 200 published articles on cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery and contributed to the works of nearly two dozen other authors. One of his best-known works is ``Blunt Chest Trauma'', published in 1997.

Because of the dedication, devotion and skill of Dr. Marvin Kirsh, the lives of hundreds of military veterans have been touched.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and all my colleagues rise and join me in honoring Dr. Marvin Kirsh and his legacy of surgical excellence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to reauthorize the Qualified Individual program, or QI. This program helps low-income Medicare beneficiaries, who earn just a little too much to qualify for Medicaid assistance, but are still struggling with living and health care costs. The QI program pays the cost of the Medicare Part B premium for seniors with incomes of approximately $11,000 to $12,500 a year. This is a good program that helps thousands of low- income seniors each year.

The initial program was a block grant enacted in 1997. Because it expired in 2002, Congress has had to reauthorize this program a number of times since then. However, the uncertainty surrounding funding for this program has had a dampening effect on enrollment. States are hesitant to reach out to eligible individuals, resulting in artificially low enrollment figures. I hope that my colleagues across the aisle will join me in fixing this problem in the future--but, I am pleased that we are at least extending this program an additional year, through September 2005.

I thank Senators Grassley, Baucus, Bingaman, Lautenberg, and Smith for their work in the Senate, and thank Chairman Barton, Chairman Bilirakis, and Ranking Member Brown for their work in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to University of Michigan Professor Brian Coppola on his selection as the 2004 Michigan Professor of the Year. Professor Coppola was chosen for his dedication to teaching and commitment to his students.

The Professors of the Year Award Program was created in 1981 to increase awareness of the importance of undergraduate instruction at all types of higher education institutions. The program rewards outstanding professors for their devotion to higher education. They seek excellence in their recipients not only in their involvement and interest in students, but also in their contribution to the academic community. Professor Coppola demonstrates an incredible involvement with his students, as well as using his innovative teaching techniques to contribute to the university and the teaching profession as a whole.

Professor Coppola contributes immeasurably to both the University of Michigan and to and to the field of teaching and learning through his commitment to students and teaching. In his classes he strives for a more involved role for students--instead of a traditional lecture format he encourages student-to-student learning--forcing students to understand and apply what they have heard and read. He has researched his innovative method of teaching, and has found that 80 percent of the students in his classes who have been critiquing their peers and thinking on their own develop analytical abilities comparable to second and third-year graduate students. This number is in contrast to 10 percent of students in a traditional lecture course. Through his unique and involved focus on individual students, he challenges undergraduates to express ideas clearly and apply them to case studies, thus helping them to develop skills that will help them throughout their future careers.

Professor Coppola has extended his ideas to the academic community as a whole. He has published 83 articles on teaching and learning, making his findings available to colleagues across the country. He supplements his written findings with numerous lectures, both as an invited speaker and by organizing his own education symposia. In addition to his impressive publication record, he has been involved with 38 successfully funded external grants related to teaching that total over $8.5 million. These grants have allowed him to continue building on his research while teaching various undergraduate courses, ranging from large introduction classes to smaller, studio format, groups of students.

Professor Coppola is highly esteemed not only at the University of Michigan, but in the larger academic community. His work in the field of teaching and learning should be applauded. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Professor Coppola for his accomplishments and his dedication to the future of this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) provides critical support to distressed communities. Assistance for the productive reuse of abandoned industrial facilities and the redevelopment of brownfields is encouraged by the EDA Reauthorization Act and I agree with this worthy goal.

To the limited extent EDA is involved in funding assessment or cleanup of brownfields sites, the intent of the EDA bill is that grant funds shall only be provided consistent with the ``Polluter Pays'' principle. When federal funds are provided for assessment or cleanup, it is important to ensure that the costs not be shifted from the polluter to the taxpayer. This principle applies broadly whether the projects are addressed under CERCLA, in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, or under other environmental laws. For example, in a statement to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on April 28, 2004, David Sampson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, told the Committee that ``EDA is not seeking to in any way relieve a responsible party from liability under CERCLA nor to provide funds to a party to undertake clean-ups required under CERCLA, since to do so would undercut the `Polluter Pays' principle on which CERCLA was founded.''

I intend to follow up on the progress of the EDA brownfields program, and to see that taxpayer funds do not bail out responsible parties. On October 5, 2004, I sent a letter to EDA with the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, Representative Solis, requesting detailed information on the brownfields cleanup program. A successful brownfields program assists in the redevelopment of abandoned sites with limited contamination. This goal must be achieved without sacrificing environmental protection and without shifting the burden of the cleanup to taxpayers when the polluters can be held accountable.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with Chairman Barton that the digital television transition has taken too long and that we need to quickly get our police officers, firefighters, and other first responders an additional 24 megahertz of spectrum to help them safely do their jobs. This spectrum, currently occupied by television channels 63, 64, 68, and 69, is set to be turned over to first responders once the stations broadcasting on those channels transition to digital. Can the federal government speed this up?

Some have proposed getting first responders this spectrum more quickly by requiring certain broadcasters to return their spectrum by the end of 2006. This suggestion, though well intentioned, is a simplistic approach to a complex problem. It does not ensure that the public safety sector will be ready to use this new spectrum. Also, this suggestion, by supplanting certain broadcasters directly, and shutting down others to prevent interference, will prevent many consumers from receiving important programming such as local news and weather. Finally, it will also disproportionately harm the Hispanic community by shutting down a number of Spanish-language stations.

Likewise, the amendment before us today does not reflect the complexity of this issue. Although I agree with Chairman Barton that we need to speed up the digital transition, the amendment declares that we should establish a hard deadline of December 31, 2006, when all analog television broadcasts on all channels would cease. Such an absolute declaration is premature. It would not allow enough time for affordable equipment to come to market or to properly educate consumers about the transition. Moreover, it could result in many consumers losing their television service. That must not happen.

Congress needs to address the digital transition issue soon in a comprehensive way, addressing, among others, three major issues. First, we need to expedite public safety's access to new spectrum and provide them with certainty so they know when they will be receiving new spectrum. Certainty will allow first responders time to plan how to use the spectrum. It will also allow them time to line up the funding necessary to make use of the spectrum once it becomes available.

Second, we need to implement a far-reaching plan to educate consumers on what will happen once the digital transition is complete. It is important that consumers know when the transition will take place, how it will take place, and what it means for them with regard to their television viewing.

Third, consumers should not bear unfair cost burdens, and we need to have a program in place to provide subsidies so that no one is left behind as the United States transitions to digital television.

I am pleased that Chairman Barton recognizes the need to tackle these issues in a thoughtful and comprehensive way. Unfortunately, I cannot support the amendment before us today because it is premature and could lead to consumers losing their television service.

I am confident, however, that regardless of which party controls the House next Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will work on a bipartisan basis to properly address these issues in a way that will speed up the digital transition, provide certainty to public safety regarding new spectrum, and protect consumers from losing their television service.