Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge, honor and celebrate the City of Dearborn on the occasion of its 75th Anniversary. Incorporated on January 9, 1929, Dearborn's roots as a community date to the mid-19th century. With a balanced mix of commercial, industrial and residential development sewn together by progressive city leaders, excellent schools and a unique sense of civic pride, Dearborn is the epitome of a successful American community.

Modern day Dearborn was created by the consolidation of Dearborn and Fordson cities and Dearborn Township. Henry Ford had a significant attachment or interests in all three jurisdictions and was an important advocate of the consolidation. The area that had served principally as the Detroit Arsenal between 1833-1875, was now poised to take on an identity all its own.

In the 1920 census, the villages of Dearborn and Springwells (renamed Fordson) had a combined population of less than 5,000 residents. It was between these two villages that Henry Ford built the Ford Rouge Complex, at which more than 85,000 men would one day work simultaneously. Such burgeoning manufacturing combined with the unheard of salary of $5 per day attracted workers literally from throughout the world to the newly formed city of Dearborn.

Such cultural diversity, coupled with Ford's benevolence, helped shape the newly formed city of Dearborn into a model of prosperity, civic virtue and individual opportunity. Dearborn has always provided its citizens with exemplary public service. Dearborn's reputation for public safety and education is second to none. Its residents have transcended cultural, ethnic and religious customs to form strong neighborhood associations that further contribute to the quality and diversity of living in Dearborn.

Dearborn continues to thrive today as a result of such active involvement and partnership from its corporate and individual residents alike. Today, Dearborn is home to colleges and universities, hospital facilities, appealing and expansive shopping areas and business districts, the Henry Ford: America's Greatest History attraction, the Automotive Hall of Fame as well as countless restaurants and numerous specialty and boutique shops.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in honoring Dearborn on its 75th Anniversary. The city of Dearborn is home to vibrant and stable neighborhoods, significant industrial production, cultural and artistic attractions and commercial business opportunities. Taken collectively, in celebrating Dearborn's 75th anniversary, we are really celebrating all the best that America represents.

Mr. Speaker, we can work well together around here. I am sure that a lot of people are surprised.

I want to pay a congratulations and compliment to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the committee, and also to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his labors. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for his leadership in this valiant effort and undertaking, and I want to pay particular tribute to both the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and the wonderful gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for their outstanding leadership, for the courage and for the dedication with which they stood hitched on this difficult issue and these difficult negotiations. Congratulations to all of the above. And also to Mr. Gregg Rothschild, Mr. David Cavicke, Mr. Bryce Dustman, and Peter Filon of the staff; also David Schooler and Shannon Vildostegui for their wonderful work as members of the staff because their efforts have helped make this possible.

This is a good bill and it is worthy of our support. There are things that we could have done that would have been a little better, but it is a piece of legislation which is going to solve a concern of the American people, something which is good and is in the public interest. And it is an important first step in restoring consumers' control over their inboxes and stopping some of the evil and rascality that we are seeing in the telecommunications industry. It requires marketers to let people know who they are and where they can be located. It prohibits false and misleading transmission information so that marketers cannot hide their identity. It prohibits marketers from deceiving consumers by using false headers or subject lines. Importantly, it affords the Federal Trade Commission and the States full enforcement authority over these consumer protection provisions.

I am particularly pleased that the bill permits law enforcement to go after those who disguise sexual messages and through such deception are able to send sexual material into our homes and into the hands of our children. This is a critical first step against those who profit by sending unwanted and offensive sexual commercial messages. It will stop much wrongdoing.

I am also pleased that the House has adopted the Senate provision creating a do-not-spam registry. I expect the FTC to take their charge seriously under this provision and to do all that is necessary to implement such a registry at the earliest possible time.

Finally, I am pleased that the House has added a new provision to grant even stronger protections from spam to users of wireless cell phones. The gentleman from Massachusetts deserves the thanks of all of us for that. In connection with this provision, I commend the hard work of our dear friend, the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that I do not expect this bill to solve totally the growing problem of unwanted spam. It must be recognized that the people who engage in this practice are most diligent, most able, and have a huge financial incentive to do it. It is quite possible that we will have to visit the matter again. It is regrettable that it does not contain an important deterrence against spam, citizen suits; but we can address that at a future time. It also has the regrettable practice in it of preempting stronger State laws, something which I do not favor. It is, however, a distinct improvement over the Senate-passed bill, and the hard work that has brought us to agreement on the part of those who have worked on it is something which merits the thanks of the public for work in the public interest.

I plan to work to try and expand this in future times and to do the things that are necessary to assure that our people are not abused by these people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time.

And I just want the attention of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr). I want to pay tribute to him for the very honorable and splendid way in which he has worked with us to bring this matter to conclusion. Without his labors and those of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we would not be here talking about this matter. And I thank both gentlemen, and I thank also Jonathan Cordone.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, almost 40 years ago, this body enacted Medicare. It was a great triumph for the senior citizens. Perhaps the most beloved program, with the exception of Social Security, was Medicare. It is also one of the most financially responsible and successful programs in the history of this country. Tonight, the fight is not about whether or not we are going to give prescription drugs to our seniors; it is about saving Medicare from my Republican colleagues, who now, finally, have figured a way to destroy it.

I want my colleagues to look at the kind of competition that the Republican Party is forcing upon the senior citizens of the United States: 120 or 125 percent of the costs of competing with Medicare is going to be given by the Federal taxpayers and by Medicare to, guess who, the HMOs. The Republicans have been trying to destroy this part for years. They are very close tonight.

A flawed process has brought forth a bad bill, which is laid before the House of Representatives in the wee hours of the morning so that the people will not know what is going on. What is at stake here is the existence of the most successful program to provide health care for our senior citizens.

Let me just tell my colleagues, the competition is unfair, 120 percent and more they give. They put forward a sham discount card, which will probably be given mostly by the retailers, not by the prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers. The senior citizens will not get much out of that.

Now, Medicare is going to be rewarding now the Republicans' friends in the HMOs and the pharmaceutical houses, huge amounts of money to each. No competition whatsoever will take place with regard to prescription pharmaceutical costs. Why? Because the Republican Members absolutely forbid that.

No wonder they want to do this at 2 a.m. in the morning. No wonder they want to foreclose the public from knowing. No wonder they would not let the people on this side of the aisle, they would not allow the Democrats into the meeting. Because it was the only way they could bring forward this slippery and dishonest program which is directed at destroying Medicare as we know it. And take the word not of myself on this, but of Mr. Newt Gingrich, of Mr. Armey, and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means on the Republican side. They want to destroy Medicare as we know it. That is what is at stake.

We can anticipate that they will allow Medicare to slowly wither away. And the senior citizens who are dependent upon it will no longer have the assurance that a program that they know they can choose their doctor and their hospital will be available to them. They will have to belong to the HMOs or pay more for it, and all in exchange for a proposal which has a huge donut hole which denies senior citizens care after they pay $2,000.

It does not add it at that point, it takes it away. This is a sham. It is a bad bill. It is one which takes from the senior citizens. It is one which threatens Medicare. It is an unfair, dangerous piece of legislation conceived in the darkness of night and slipped through over the heads of the senior citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

(Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for purposes of explaining the motion to recommit, which will be offered at the conclusion of the debate. I hope my colleagues will listen closely to this.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would inform my distinguished friend in the House, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that we have only one speaker remaining who will close for this side.

Mr. Speaker, is my good friend assuring me he has only one speaker remaining?

Mr. Speaker, then with a great deal of pride and pleasure I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I support S. 650, the ``Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003.'' This bill will make clear that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to require testing for drugs that are administered to children in appropriate cases. This legislation will effectively moot pending litigation. Last year, a Federal district court held that FDA lacked statutory authority to promulgate the pediatric rule. While appeals are pending, this bill will provide a speedy and certain resolution of that question.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to express my concerns with a provision in this bill which sunsets FDA's authority on October 1, 2007. Why on earth should a regulatory authority to protect the health of children be time limited? There are reasons, none of them good. This date just happens to coincide with the expiration of a provision of existing law which provides a financially powerful incentive to drug makers to test drugs for children. Whatever the perceived merits of the incentive, it costs consumers a lot of money because it delays generic drug entry into the market for six months beyond what would normally be the case. The rule is being tied to the incentive and that, in my view, is just plain wrong.

We should have had an opportunity to debate and offer amendments to improve S. 650, but this bill is being brought to the floor without being reported or otherwise considered by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. This is an unnecessary and unwise bypass of the committee of jurisdiction. The health of America's children is too important for us to avoid careful consideration of matters that affect them. For us to merely adopt the work product of the Senate is to shirk our duty for our children. We can do better, and the fact that we did not do better is unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support S. 286, the ``Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act of 2003.'' I would like to commend my colleagues, particularly Representatives Brown and Stupak for working so diligently on this legislation.

Birth defects are the leading cause of infant mortality in the United States, accounting for more than 20 percent of all infant deaths. About 150,000 babies are born each year with birth defects; this means frightening news for the parents of one out of every 28 babies. Both genetic and environmental factors can cause birth defects; however, the causes of 60 to 70 percent of all birth defects are unknown. These shocking numbers compel us to take steps to learn more about their causes, to identify factors that may cause or increase the risk of a baby having a birth defect, to educate the public about these potential risks, and to inform women about how to protect themselves and their babies.

S. 286 reauthorizes the programs of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct research on and promote the prevention of birth defects and developmental disabilities. This legislation also supports a National spina bifida program to prevent and reduce suffering from the Nation's most common permanently disabling birth defect. All of these measures will enable the CDC to both expand and continue its work in promoting the health of babies, children, and adults by working to identify the causes of birth defects and developmental disabilities.

The Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act of 2003 is supported by many organizations, including the March of Dimes and it deserves our support as well.

Mr. Speaker, as a ranking member of the House conferees on this energy bill, I would observe that like most of the other House conferees on the Democratic side, I was a conferee in name only. We had a ceremonial meeting to start it out, created no change in the bill. It was followed by a ceremonial meeting last night in which, again, no significant changes were made in the bill, which was written in the dark by, for, and with the assistance of the different special interests.

The conference on this bill does not reflect well on this body. Questions began early when the Senate decided to pass last year's energy bill and then to ignore its contents. Since the conference began, Democratic conferees were not invited to any substantive discussions. We have been forced to read the papers to find out what is in the bill.

The Record must be clear. Democrats were only provided drafts of certain titles of the bill at the same time they are made available to the public. Democratic staff made comments, but significant recommendations were diligently ignored. I suspect the comments of lobbyists were met with vastly more success.

With regard to the controversial provisions of the bill relating to electricity, ethanol, and taxes, Democrats were never allowed to see any drafts until Saturday. We had no input in these matters. The rule waives the 3-day layover rule for conference reports, yet one more attempt to prevent Members of this body from having adequate opportunity to review the bill.

My Republican colleagues have decided to totally ignore any rules on scope. For example, there are amendments to the Clean Air Act that are neither bill. They have salted the report with dozens of special interest provisions, many of which were put in the tax title. Speaking of the tax title, it has grown like Topsey to $23 billion, nearly three times the amount requested by the administration. So much for Republican fiscal discipline.

We held a conference meeting yesterday that helped shed some light on the bill, but little more. The Senate adopted seven amendments on a bipartisan basis. Within minutes, however, of the beginning of the debate on these recommendations on the House side, my Republican colleagues moved to reject all but two of the provisions they had previously worked out, and without debate the Senate then agreed.

I note the conference report includes a 139-page statement of the managers, nearly all of which relate to the tax portions. These pages on taxes were not made available to the conferees before the report was made available.

I am unable to support this bill for a number of substantive reasons, and I cannot recommend that the House should do so. I will discuss them during the debate on the conference report. The bill is an assault upon the Nation's environment. Rollbacks of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, attacks on the Nation's rivers and the conservation provisions that protect fish and wildlife, abusive new provisions conferring special benefits on electrical utilities. The bill harms consumers and investors by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act and refuses to address the abuses of Enron and other companies that gouge consumers in California and other States west of the Rockies. Finally, the bill includes unattainable and massive subsidies to industry that are unlikely to affect the energy needs of the country.

I have worked on a lot of comprehensive energy and environmental bills during my time in this Chamber. All of them were the result of extensive bipartisan cooperation. This is the first energy bill I have had to oppose, and I regret that we were not permitted to develop a bipartisan bill that will bring real benefits to all Americans. Instead, we have before us a mishmash of controversial special interest proposals that were drafted in the dark of the night with little participation by anybody, including the American public and the Members of this body, especially on this side of the aisle. This is an outrageous rule. Vote no on the rule. Vote no on the previous question. And when the Members get a chance, vote no on this outrageous legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a highly partisan project, written in secret and kept from the light of day just like the Cheney task force. The result speaks for itself. And when you lift the lid, like lifting the lid on a garbage can, you get a strong smell of special interest provisions.

There are some worthy titles and some worthy items, but they are much submerged in the special interest provisions of this legislation. The conference report does include consensus electric reliability provisions that the Democrats have supported, but the report will probably handcuff the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's ability to prevent future blackouts. It repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 with its consumer and investor protections. It favors certain utilities and other special interests. It preempts State and local authorities on transmission line siting decisions.

The conference report shortchanges our rivers and conservationists as well. It tilts the relicensing process in favor of utilities by giving them special rights and procedures not afforded to other parties who have interests in these same uses of special public resources, such as the States, the Indian tribes, the sportsmen, or the conservationists.

One of the more troublesome aspects of this report is its direct assault on the Nation's safe drinking water supply. It weakens the Safe Drinking Water Act. It forces State and local taxpayers to pay billions of dollars to clean up the MTBE manufacturers' mess and requires taxpayers, not polluters, to pay for the cleanup of contamination caused by leaking underground storage tanks, even when the responsible party can afford to pay.

The bill contains a number of provisions which are not included in either bill and on which there is no legislative record at all, including significant Clean Air Act rollbacks. The conference agreement includes even worse provisions outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. For example, the tax subsidies alone will cost about $23 billion compared with the President's request of $8 billion, but I note there are no complaints from the administration which regularly objects to smaller amounts being spent for education, health care, or for our Nation's veterans.

The bill was conceived in a secret, one-sided process; and, as a result, flawed provisions are obvious to all who would observe. I must oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do likewise. This is a bad bill. It is a special interest bill. It does not help the people. It takes care of the special interests, and it is not going to save or emancipate this country with regard to the energy demands that we confront.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of this resolution, H. Con. Res. 313, urging President Bush to present the Presidential medal of Freedom to Pope John Paul II.

Mr. Speaker, Pope John Paul II is a leader who has truly made this world a better place to live. His dedication and devotion to religious freedom for all people aided in bringing about a peaceful end to communism in Eastern Europe. His courage to defy the Nazis during World War II not only helped preserve Poland, but kept the flame of hope alive to all free people during those dark years.

He stood up when the tyranny of Soviet Communism darkened Eastern Europe, and helped ignite the spark of revolution by his visit to Poland in June 1979. His insistence on the dignity of the human spirit, and the call for religious freedom as the first of human rights, aided all Poles in their crusade against their Communist oppressors.

Mr. Speaker, he not only inspired millions suffering under communism, but he also inspired millions more when, just four days after an assassination attempt he said, ``Pray for the brother who shot me, whom I have sincerely forgiven.''

He is a rare individual. He is someone who has truly changed the world. His papacy has affected not only Catholics, but also Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who value freedom over oppression. Citizens of the world owe a debt of gratitude to Pope John Paul II.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate him in celebration of his Silver Jubilee. I call upon my colleagues to vote for this resolution and call on the President to honor Pope John Paul II with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to offer my support to this conference report. The conference report includes a much needed pay raise and much needed support for our military families. In typical fashion, however, my Republican colleagues have taken a good bill and bogged it down with extraneous and extreme measures. The conference report does not include the stronger House language on Buy America and allows research on low-yield nuclear weapons--a practice prohibited by Republicans and Democrats over the last 20 years because it violates the non-proliferation treaty and makes it easier for questionable regimes to obtain nuclear weapons. The conference report also exempts the military from complying with two of our most important environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

When this authorization process began, Secretary Rumsfeld came to Congress and told us that in order to maintain readiness, they needed exemptions from the Clean Air Act, the Resources Conservation Recovery Act, Superfund, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Fortunately, the Congress saw fit to exclude most of what the DOD asked for with regard to environmental exemptions.

The conference report directs the Secretary of Interior to substitute the Department of Defense's land management plan, known as an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, for critical habitat designation under the Endangered Species Act, if the plan provides a ``benefit'' for threatened species. Further, the conference report does not require that the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan benefit the species.

This is a much lower standard than the current law, not to mention the DOD has enough trouble coming up with a management plan for

things it is supposed to know about, let alone fish and wildlife. If the military is able to escape the critical habitat designation, private property owners will have to bear the burden of providing for the recovery of threatened and endangered species. This is simply not right.

Just this week, the Committee on Resources passed a bipartisan reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. That legislation was the culmination of over 4 years worth of hearings and the testimony of dozens of witnesses. Contrary to what happened in the committee of jurisdiction, where they were able to successfully compromise to address the definition of harassment, the language in the conference report would overturn a recent court decision and construct a wall against any further litigation against the Navy.

Over the last 5 years our troops have toppled a dictator in Iraq, stopped a genocide in Kosovo, and defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan. Our troops prepared for those missions without exemptions from our cornerstone environmental laws--laws that administration officials and the General Accounting Office do not believe are hampering our military readiness.

Indeed, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley Clark recently stated, ``Additional exemptions aren't needed. I spent a lot of time in the Army and, in all my years of service, complying with the environmental laws never compromised the military readiness of troops under my command.'' Mr. Speaker, we need to ask ourselves why we are passing language that neither the Resources Committee nor a four-star general deem necessary.

In short, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support this conference report. I must draw a line in the sand. My Republican colleagues have got to stop looking for ways to put bad and extraneous language in good bills in an attempt to force the hands of those who disagree with them.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1829, the Federal Prison Industries Act. I am a proud cosponsor of this sensible legislation, and believe that private businesses from my State and others can now compete for government contracts that they were barred from in the past. The exemption of Federal Prison Industries (FPI), Inc. has allowed for higher prices, and fewer choices for Federal agencies. With enactment of this bill, Federal agencies will now be able to choose the products and services offered by FPI rather than the other way around. It is a good bill, a sensible bill that helps businesses and workers in my district.

In these tough economic times, when well paying manufacturing jobs are leaving the great State of Michigan, this is an opportunity to help unemployed workers get back to work. H.R. 1829 opens to competition Federal contracting opportunities reserved for FPI. Private sector firms, and their non-inmate workers, will, for the first time, be able to bid on these Federal business opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill that has the overwhelming support of business and many labor unions. I am proud to support this bill, and call on my fellow Members to do the same.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to H.R. 1829, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003.

In my home State of Wisconsin there are many small businesses that provide parts for FPI products. These are vital businesses that will be hurt if the contracting procedures of FPI are changed. Additional job losses would be devastating to an area that has already lost many manufacturing jobs.

The supporters of this bill say that small businesses would be helped by its passage. That simply isn't true for the Sixth District of Wisconsin, and we will find that it won't be true in many other communities.

There are currently over 145,000 federally incarcerated inmates. It is our responsibility to provide meaningful work and job-training opportunities for these inmates while balancing the needs of the business communities. I have visited the Oxford Prison in my district, one of the institutions where FPI contracts are filled. The inmates there put together a good product, learn a skill, and importantly, must take responsibility and initiative, all of which will serve them well upon their release. H.R. 1829 would tie the hands of the Bureau of Prisons, preventing them carrying out these goals. Supporters of this bill seem to think that this isn't true.

Passage of this bill would be detrimental to businesses throughout the Nation, not to mention the thousands of inmates who benefit form the opportunities that FPI provides.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1829.

Mr. Speaker, consumers who dial 911 from their wireless phones expect emergency responders to be able to locate them, just as if they had dialed 911 from a wireless phone. All too often today, however, emergency responders have no such ability.

The House is poised to take an important step to address this problem. To this end, I am pleased to support H.R. 2898, the ``E-911 Implementation Act of 2003,'' as amended. This bill will take three important steps to help ensure that first responders can rapidly locate persons dialing 911 from a wireless phone. First, it will set up a federal office to help coordinate E-911 build-out. Second, it will provide federal matching grants to assist cash-strapped states and local communities in deploying E-911 technologies. Third, it will provide strong incentives to ensure that states no longer raid their E- 911 funds for non-E-911 purposes.

I commend Chairmen Tauzin and Upton for working closely with Representatives Eshoo and Shimkus, the authors of the underlying bill and co-chairpersons of the Congressional E-911 Caucus. I am pleased to support this important bill and look forward to working with the appropriators to ensure that this grant program is fully funded.

Mr. Speaker, Ranking Member Dicks, I would like to draw the managers' attention to the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge.

In Fiscal year 2003, the Committee appropriated $3.5 million for land acquisition in the Detroit Rive Refuge. For this I was grateful.

Mr. Speaker, the Trust for Public Land, recently acquired an ecologically significant tract of land known as Humbug Marsh and Island. This is a tract I have been working to acquire for many years. This funding in FY 03 made this acquisition possible. And this year I was seeking addition funds to complete this acquisition. The Humbug project is wired and ready to go.

Unfortunately, the conference report includes language, inserted by the other body, indicating that further appropriations for the Refuge have been delayed because additional funds could not be obligated in 2004. It also states that there are outstanding issues related to contaminants. In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, neither of these statements has any basis in fact.

I would ask, at this time, for unanimous consent to insert into the Record a letter from Mr. Eric Alvarez, Chief of the Reality Division of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Alverez writes to me, ``With adequate funding and no unforeseen problems...we anticipate a February or March 2004 closing date `for the Humbug property.''

I would also note to the Chairman and the committee that Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton was at the Detroit River Refuge for a centennial celbration event in September. I would like unanimous consent to insert into the Record a letter I have just received from Secretary Norton demonstrating her commitment to the conservation values of the Detroit River Rufuge.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we can work together to address this issue as the process moves forward.

Department of the Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John D. Dingell,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Dingell: The Fish and Wildlife Service's Division

of Realty has been working on the Detroit River International

Wildlife Refuge since December 2001. Since that time we have

been evaluating a number of properties for inclusion into the

refuge while developing our land protection plan. Recently, a

key tract, known as the Humbug Marsh tract, was acquired by

the Trust for Public Lands. Until this acquisition the

Service did not have many viable tracts where the existing

funds would have been obligated.

Preliminary information indicates that the tract may be

worth around $4.9 million. The Service is currently working

on the contaminant survey and the appraisal that will

indicate the actual purchase price.

The contaminant survey has yet to be completed, therefore

we do not want to speculate on the presence or absence of

contaminants. conversations with TPL representatives indicate

that they believe that there

should not be significant contaminant issues.

An appraisal will indicate the purchase price and the

service has $3.4 million available for the acquisition. The

difference between the remaining amount and the original

appropriation ($3.5 million) has been used to pay for the

contaminant survey and the appraisal.

With adequate funding and no unforeseen problems, with

title or contaminants issues, we would anticipate a February

or March, 2004 closing date.

Please feel free to contact me at 703-358-1713 if you or

your staff require more information.

Sincerely,

Eric Alvarez,

Chief, Division of Realty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and to honor my dear friend, Michael Berry on the occasion of the dedication of the Michael Berry Amphitheater at Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn, Michigan.

The son of Lebanese immigrants, Michael Berry came of age in Depression Era South

Dearborn. Transcending life's circumstances, Mr. Berry graduated in Fordson Junior College's (now Henry Ford Community College) inaugural class of 1940. He went on to earn a Bachelor's degree and ultimately a Juris Doctorate, becoming the first Muslim attorney in the state of Michigan in 1949.

With his law degree in hand, Mr. Berry embarked on a distinguished career in law, government and public service that continues to this day. Among his many significant accomplishments, Michael Berry served twenty years as the legal counsel to the United Auto Workers Local 600 (the UAW Local born out of the Hunger March and Battle of the Overpass, and which, at its zenith had more than 100,000 members and retirees).

Mr. Berry was also a longtime member of the Wayne County Road Commission, serving as Chairman for a period of ten years. During his tenure as Chairman, Michael Berry oversaw the completion of numerous infrastructure projects, not the least of which were substantial improvements to Detroit-Wayne County's Metropolitan Airport. Mr. Berry's contributions in this regard positioned the airport to become the national and international hub that it is today and resulted in the dedication of the Michael Berry International Terminal in 1974.

Given Mr. Berry's personal and professional accomplishments, you can understand why I consider myself extremely fortunate to have him as a close personal friend and to have benefited from his advice and insight over the years. I worked especially closely with Mr. Berry during the eight years he served as Chairman of the 16th District Democratic Party--a time that I recall fondly as being a particularly constructive and productive one.

The privilege of knowing people who are as decent and accomplished as Michael Berry is an aspect of public service that I enjoy greatly. The ``Michael Berry Amphitheater'' will inspire students for generations to pursue their full potential and ambitions. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in recognizing the lifetime achievements of Michael Berry, one of Dearborn's native sons.

Mr. Chairman, I commend my good friend and colleague. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Listen to what is at stake here. Halliburton buys gas over there at 71 cents a gallon. It sells it to the Federal Government at $1.62 to $1.70 a gallon. They make huge sums of money at the expense of the taxpayer. This was done on a very quiet, secret no-bid contract, without anything else other than a GAO audit triggered by my good friend, and which I am happy to have assisted with, which brought this whole sorry mess to light.

In a nutshell, they are buying 190 million gallons of gasoline from Kuwait that is going to be moved into Iraq. Imagine that, the second biggest oil pool in the world is going to be getting gas and gasoline from the United States. It is going to cost something like $1.59 per gallon. It is going to also be marked up to $1.62. It goes for 71 cents a gallon in the market over there in the Middle East. That shows what a fat deal they have gotten. Support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to reduce the appropriation to pay Halliburton to supply gasoline to Iraq.

From the moment Representative Waxman and I learned about secret no- bid contracts given to large companies like Halliburton and Bechtel for activities in Iraq we have tried to get the facts on the matter. As a result of our letter to GAO on April 8, the General Accounting Office is looking into the process of those bids.

Among those contracts was a no-bid contract to Halliburton that provided for a variety of activities dealing with oil. At first, the Administration tried to portray the contract as dealing solely with putting out oil fires. We now know it is far more extensive.

When the President sent up his supplemental request before us today, we spotted a request for an additional 2.1 billion dollars for Halliburton under its oil contract. On September 12, we wrote to OMB Director Joshua Bolten to explain the request. To date, we have not received the courtesy of a response.

What we learned is that included in the request is $900 million to import petroleum products into Iraq. We subsequently learned some interesting facts:

As of September 18, 2003, the United States has paid Halliburton $300 million to import 190 million gallons of gasoline. That is an average price of $1.59 per gallon. On top of that Halliburton receives an additional fee, increasing the cost to the taxpayers to $1.62 to $1.70 per gallon. This gasoline is being imported from Kuwait.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the average price for gasoline in the Middle East was about 71 cents per gallon. In other words, Halliburton was collecting an additional 91 to 99 cents a gallon from the U.S. government for every gallon of gasoline. When our staffs contacted independent oil experts about such a markup, they said that if those were the prices being charged the government, it was a ``huge ripoff'' to the taxpayers.

According to interviews conducted by the Minority staff of the Committee on Government Reform, the gasoline is then resold to Iraqis for just 4 to 15 cents a gallon.

This oil contract is just one example of the potential ripoff of the American taxpayer through the granting of no-bid deals to companies like Halliburton. It is also an example of the attitude of this Administration that it owes absolutely no explanation of how these funds are being spent. And it is an example of the lax oversight being conducted by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in examining these deals.

The amendment simply cuts $250 million from the oil purchase account, in order to provide for the reasonable cost of importing the oil while preventing Halliburton from price gouging the American people.

Whether price gouging occurs here in the United States or in Iraq, we should not allow it. But it is particularly disturbing in this bill, where this gouging comes at the expense of the safety and well-being of our troops in Iraq.

Perhaps in the future when Members of Congress have legitimate questions about the Administration's requests for money, we will receive answers. For now, we must send a signal that we will not pay outrageous and unjustified prices to a no-bid contractor like Halliburton, while failing to meet the needs of our troops.

Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I am troubled about the supplemental which is to come before us today. Like all of us, I wish to support our troops. But I am troubled about the fact that there have been no legislative hearings on this matter and that the authorizing committees have not spoken. I am troubled about mixing defense and reconstruction. I am troubled about the way that this matter has been handled up to this particular time and about the way the administration has used the military to handle the reconstruction, which was not done in the time after World War II.

I am troubled about the need for audits. I am troubled about the fact that we have here no protection against sole-source and contracts not subject to bidding. I am troubled about the buying of non-American goods by the agencies in charge of these things. I am troubled about the postal reform that we are going to be financing, or the building of the ZIP code for Iraq. Neither is an emergency need for Iraq.

Why are we funding two prisons at $50,000 a bed. I would suspect that Iraqis might very well decide it would be useful either to shoot Americans or Iraqis just to get into a prison of that luxurious quality. I would note that pickup trucks at $33,000 a piece or trash trucks at $50,000 tend to be something that looks fine to the Iraqis, but I think not so well to the American taxpayers who are going to be footing the bill and giving up programs needed here at home for our people.