Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I support this smallpox vaccine compensation program. The nurses and first responders recognize that this framework is, unfortunately, the best we can get from this Administration. And even though this compensation program may not be sufficient to build the necessary confidence in those we are asking to receive this risky vaccine, it is better than nothing. We need to begin protecting those we are asking to protect us.

Of course, it remains in the Administration's hands to determine whether this program will ultimately work. Will the Administration devote the necessary resources to do a proper job of education and screening? Will the Administration work with those directly affected as it implements the program? Will the Administration take necessary steps to assure any inured party that the money to protect their families will be there?

Given that Democrats have been seeking a viable and effective screening and compensation program for months, and given that any concessions from the Administration have been grudging at best, I am not optimistic. But because of the importance of the program, I will continue to fight on behalf of the nurses and other first responders to see that the Administration does not let it fail.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, I rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise in opposition to the previous question. None of them are in the public interest and none of them should be voted for.

The simple fact of the matter is that if this bill is as good as the chairman of the subcommittee has just indicated, then they ought to give us a fair and an open rule. That is not before us today at all. It is a rule which denies a number of Members the opportunity to offer amendments, one of the traditional classical rights of a Member of this elected body, and one of the distinguishing characteristics of this body versus many of the others. That right is denied.

Very specifically, with regard to the question of the conservation in the hydro relicensing provisions, that provision is a bad provision. It is opposed by State conservation organizations, by State regulatory entities, and it is also opposed by every hunting, fishing, conservationist, and environmentalist group in the United States.

It is a bad provision. It puts the thumb of the electrical utility on the licensing and relicensing process. It denies citizens and citizens' groups rights to be heard before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It sees to it that we have a skewed result.

It does not, for example, require that fishways be included in dams which are relicensed, so as to denigrate the opportunity of fish to migrate up and down the stream.

It does deny citizens the right to be heard before regulatory agencies. The communities of interest in this country oppose it. Conservationists say it denies them the right to be heard.

I had sought to have an opportunity to offer an amendment to this, one which would be the exact same language that was bipartisan last year and on which the chairman of the Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), sent a Dear Colleague letter around describing the amendment that I would like to have offered today, saying, ``The hydroelectric licensing language contained in Division A of H.R. 4 is a bipartisan consensus provision that carefully balances energy and environmental priorities to achieve the significant breakthrough in licensing reform.''

They are afraid of that. They will not allow that amendment to come to the floor so they say, you cannot offer it. The reason is, it probably would have carried.

So if you were to believe that this is a bipartisan package, then my suggestion to you is, take a look at the rule and ask the Members of the Republican side why it is they do not allow us to offer amendments to this bill. What are they afraid of? Why is it they refuse to allow us to protect fish and wildlife and conservation values which were negotiated over many years with the industry in question and which would permit the industry a fair opportunity to be heard, but also the ordinary citizen?

Vote ``no'' on the bill. Vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on the previous question. All of the above are outrageous.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. It is an odd mishmash of special interest provisions, deregulatory actions, degradation of our environmental laws. It gives away billions of dollars to powerful industry, courtesy of the taxpayer. It undermines existing environmental protections.

In the area of hydroelectric power, the bill undercuts safeguards for dam relicensing, jeopardizing not only fish but the overall health of our river systems. It weakens the Safe Drinking Water Act and environmental protections and safeguards in oil and gas production.

H.R. 6 eliminates requirements for public participation and deference to the States in decisions where electric transmission lines can be sited and whether natural gas facilities should be constructed in coastal waters. It undercuts natural resource agencies' role in determining whether transmission lines should be constructed in our national forests and on other public lands.

But that is not all. Certain favored industries get big benefits. Energy consumers are left unprotected. I guess average customers and consumers were not in the room when the Vice President held closed-door meetings of his Energy Task Force.

It is hard to imagine a better case for increasing consumer protections than the debacle that took place in 2000-2001 in California and other West Coast electricity markets. In fact, a recent report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, whose Chair was appointed during the administration, found that so many companies participated in Enron's scams that it was necessary to launch multiple new enforcement proceedings, many of which would be adversely impacted by this legislation.

Most shocking, FERC found some practices that significantly raised consumer prices were not only not illegal under current law, but would be sanctified under this legislation.

If there was ever a case for legislative reform, this is it, but this legislation is not legislative reform. It does not help consumers. It only includes cosmetic reforms while repealing important consumer protections under the Public Utility Holding Company Act and weakening protections under the Federal Power Act. Indeed, it also sanctifies fraud.

So if the Members like fraud, vote for the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker and he is not here right at the moment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Chairman, before I yield my remaining 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) to close, I gather my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has one speaker remaining, and that that speaker will be closing; is that right?

Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to my good friend, the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Chairman, briefly reclaiming my time, they have very carefully strained these amendments in the Committee on Rules so that they are either inoffensive to my Republican colleagues, or they are ones on which the Republican colleagues would lose. My Republican colleagues have also denied us the right to offer the amendments which we would most assuredly have won on.

There is very great finesse in the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Chairman, I again yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).

Mr. Chairman, in order that I can give my full and undivided attention to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for whom I have immense respect even though he is dead wrong on this one, I yield myself 2 minutes to close.

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

Mr. Chairman, this wonderful amendment, it just does not work. Although I love my good friends, the authors of it, they are dead wrong. It is going to cost jobs. The UAW says so. It is going to hurt the auto industry. The auto industry says so. It is going to force every American to ride around in a mini-car. It is going to fix it so that SUVs and decent-sized pickup trucks are not going to be available to people. It is going to mean that the auto industry is going to have to produce larger vehicles, such as larger than light-duty trucks, for purposes that ranchers and farmers and businessmen will have need of. And it is going to require unsafe vehicles, or at least less safe vehicles to be available to the American motoring public.

The simple answer is, it is going to require almost exclusively the production of mini-cars. The result is going to be a significant loss of safety.

The thing that we must understand about this is that the law on CAFE is now working. Automobiles and light pickup trucks and so forth are about twice as efficient as they were before we passed it. That has been an enormous advance of great benefit to the American people, and it has been something which has been of great help and done at great cost to the auto industry.

Something else that needs to be known: These cars are not manufactured on the basis of arithmetic averages. They are produced to meet CAFE standards on the basis of geometric or harmonic averages, which means that to produce one decent-sized car in which an individual or a company or a family may successfully and safely drive, the companies must produce many smaller cars.

So what are we looking at? We are looking at something which is going to adversely impact the American consumer with this amendment and also something which is going to adversely impact the auto industry.

Let me remind my colleagues that one job in seven in this country is an auto job, a supplier or a manufacturer. Look here, see where our people work and what this is going to do. There is no one in this country who is not dependent upon the automobile industry for a livelihood.

Mr. Chairman, let us have a responsible, sensible package of automobile fuel efficiency legislation. Let us not grasp at straws, and let us not push forward with legislation which, very frankly, although it sounds good, is wondrously mischievous and is going to not only hurt the country, the consumer, but also the auto industry and the auto workers.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, my substitute amendment replaces the electricity provisions of H.R. 6. My amendment is supported by all of labor, by all of consumer groups, by the public power industry, and by a host of other consumer and business organizations.

This is the first time that the House of Representatives has considered changes to the Nation's energy laws since the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Given the volatility and market manipulation that occurred in California

and other West Coast markets during 2000 to 2001, and the real need for reform, I wish I could muster kinder words for this portion of the bill which the amendment changes.

Unfortunately, title VI underscores the continuing lack of consensus about the direction of the Nation's electric markets. In the rush to produce an electricity title, a strange, hybrid, amphibian monster has come forth. It has produced something which has neither competition nor market reform and, indeed, there is not mention of the word ``competition'' anywhere in the bill. Instead, title VI combines elements of industry deregulation with provisions favoring special interests. Sadly, neither of these has much to do with protecting consumers or investors in this critical industry.

Among its deficiencies, title VI repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. It ties Federal regulators' hands in reviewing unjust and unreasonable electricity contracts. It codifies into permanent law a patchwork of different transmission regimes, placing some lines under Federal jurisdiction and others under State jurisdiction. While the utility may tell us that this last provision takes care of things, do not believe it, because it is going to make a fine controversy, which will continue to plague us.

Just as important, the bill lacks fundamental reforms needed to prevent recurrence of the abuses which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission uncovered at its recent western markets investigation, and proposes only limited and superficial market reforms.

It is both because of what the title does and what it does not do that I am offering this substitute amendment. My amendment takes a different tack, setting aside deregulation proposals like PUHCA repeal; and instead, provides for a number of common-sense reforms. By curbing fraud and manipulation, which is not done under the committee bill, my amendment will protect consumers and reassure Wall Street and small investors that the industry is again stable.

This amendment gives FERC broad authority to take action against fraud in both electricity and natural gas markets. The Commission's report recently found that some of the abuses in western markets during 2000 and 2001 were not even illegal. This bill would correct that.

The amendment also gives FERC the necessary tools in the form of audit trail authority and robust transparency requirements to detect and deter manipulation.

One disturbing aspect of the Enron scandal was the timing of the Securities and Exchange Commission's decision this year to revoke Enron's ``exempt'' status under PUHCA, under which they have committed all manner of outrage on consumers and investors alike.

My amendment would also reform FERC's market-based energy rate policy and permit refunds for electricity overcharges from the date it began, not just from the date upon which they were filed with the FERC.

Finally, the substitute amendment increases civil and criminal penalties to the level of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation enacted in the 107th Congress.

If my colleagues wish to vote for reform, this is the proposal. It is not one which is sought by the special interests; but it is one which is sought by consumers, investors, and others.

I urge my colleagues to vote for protection of consumers and investors and against future Enrons. In short, vote for the Dingell substitute amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand a letter from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. It will be useful information for my friends, the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the committee.

It says,

Dear Representative Dingell:

Electric cooperatives do not endorse the electricity title

of H.R. 6. We have serious problems with the repeal of Public

Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA), and with incentive

rates and participant funded transmission.

H.R. 6 expands Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

jurisdiction over electric cooperatives' transmission through

the so-called ``FERC Lite'' provision. The Dingell amendment

is more narrowly crafted and related to fraudulent,

manipulative or deceptive practices.

For the information of my good friends on the other side of the aisle, the public power folks support our amendment, not the committee bill.

Mr. Chairman, with all respect for all of my colleagues, there are certain things that are very simple and very clear here.

The bill before us does not address the problem. It repeals PUHCA. It eliminates the merger protections. It has virtually no protections in it against fraud. It raises the bar significantly for FERC to modify contracts. And it fixes it so that you cannot get speedy refunds going back to the date that the wrongdoing occurred.

Now, what does the substitute do? It gives FERC broad antifraud authority in every part. And I would note that it is supported by both the public power people and by the co-ops. It directs FERC to establish audit trails that do other things, including requiring transparency of transactions and rate-making so as to more easily detect and deter wrongdoing.

It requires the SEC to review existing PUHCA exemptions to prevent future Enrons from obscuring its actions, and I would note that SEC and FERC have pointed out the huge number of improprieties associated with Enron.

It increases civil and criminal penalties, and it reforms FERC's authority to permit refunds of unjust and unreasonable market-based rates back to the date that they began.

If my colleagues represent any place West of the Continental Divide in the United States, they should support the amendment because the amendment is crafted to address the problems which we found in the different reviews which took place of the misbehavior of Enron and others in the electrical utility industry. I would note that the abuses there cost consumers billions, not millions, billions of dollars, and in almost every State West of the crest line of the Rocky Mountains, including California but also including Nevada and Utah and Washington and Oregon.

If my colleagues want to stop fraud, if they want to stop wrongdoing, if they want to protect consumers, if they want to protect the American investing public, if they want an honest rate-making system, vote for the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw my colleagues' attention to the death of Rachel Corrie, an American citizen who was killed recently by an Israeli Army bulldozer. Rachel was a 23-year-old college student, due to graduate this year from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. On March 16, Rachel was crushed to death by a bulldozer as she peacefully protested the demolition of Palestinian homes in Rafah, a Palestinian village in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli government continues to destroy Palestinian homes with impunity in the Occupied Territories and Gaza.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my profound sympathies to Rachel's parents, Craig and Cynthia, their extended families, and to all of Rachel's friends, colleagues and co-workers. My heart and my prayers go out to them in their time of grief and need.

Sympathy, however, Mr. Speaker, is not enough. The tragic death of Rachel Corrie is yet another example of the failure of the current Israeli government's policies regarding the Palestinians. Mr. Speaker, the Congress must speak forcefully on this matter. I am calling for a full, fair and impartial investigation into Rachel's tragic death by the United States government. Rachel's family, the Congress and the American people deserve to know what happened to Rachel and why.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this much-needed commonsense legislation.

I am the proud and original supporter of this legislation entitled the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms

Act. It will shield gun manufacturers from irresponsible lawsuits and from damages in cases where firearms are used during criminal acts of third parties, and only there. It does not protect them against wrong- doing and negligent entrustment; it does not protect gun manufacturers against negligent manufacture of dangerous firearms, but only where the firearm is sold legitimately and lawfully.

The legislation is based on a simple, sound premise. We ought not sue Boeing because somebody took a Boeing jet and crashed it into the World Trade Center. We ought not sue Ford Motor Company because of negligence of a drunk driver.

The bill has broad support with 251 cosponsors, including some 46 Democrats. The legislation is supported by organized labor, including local affiliates of the United Auto Workers and the United Mine Workers. It is necessary simply because there are junk lawsuits which are being filed to harass law-abiding businessmen. If successful, such lawsuits would bankrupt U.S. firearms manufacturers and destroy a legitimate, lawfully, and carefully and intensely regulated industry in which the manufacturers and sellers are regulated intensely by ATF and other Federal and State regulatory agencies.

Some two dozen lawsuits have been filed in States and municipalities that would be dealt with under this. The courts have spoken with regard to these lawsuits, dismissing them almost entirely. In spite of the fact that the lawsuits filed against the firearms industry have produced no lawful or successful results, cities, counties, and others continue to file them, mostly for harassment purposes. These lawsuits cost not only the firearms industry, but municipalities, hundreds of millions of dollars. This legislation is directed at curtailing that.

The bill does not affect the right of a lawsuit to sue for negligence or other wrong-doing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 289, legislation that I co-authored with the distinguished gentlewoman from Toledo, Ms. Kaptur. This important fish and wildlife conservation measure will expand the boundaries of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge to encompass important lands in Southeastern Michigan and Northern Ohio. It is of immense importance to the people of Southeast Michigan and our neighbors to the South in Ohio.

I would like to thank Chairman Gilchrest and Ranking Member Pallone for their leadership and their assistance. I would also like to thank the Chairman of the full Committee, Richard Pombo, and Ranking Member Nick Rahall, for their assistance is shepherding this bill to the floor. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, in 2001, thanks to the leadership of the Resources Committee and the support from local grassroots organizations, conservation groups, state and local governments, as well as our Canadian neighbors, we were able to create the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. Our refuge on the Detroit River is already demonstrating how--working as a team--federal, state, and local officials in the United States and Canada, can work with businesses, conservationists and private citizens to preserve our remaining wildlife habitat along the River and improve the quality of life. H.R. 289 builds on that success, expanding the refuge south into Ohio, to protect the Lake Erie shoreline.

The lands we are talking about encompass an area of tremendous bio- diversity, with unique geological features and a wide variety of plant life that attracts numerous species of fish, birds, and waterfowl.

In the Great Lakes region, there is a tremendous urgency to protect our remaining high-quality habitats before they are lost to further development. We must also do our utmost to rehabilitate and enhance degraded habitat. This is essential to sustain the quality of life enjoyed by the people living along the Detroit River and the Lake Erie corridor.

The Western basin of Lake Erie is vitally important to the economic and environmental future of the United States. In the 1970s and 1980s, the ecological health of Lake Erie was a running joke--fisherman derisively renamed Lake Erie ``The Dead Sea.'' Water quality was poor, and fish and wildlife suffered as a result.

But in the past two decades, the citizens and governmental institutions of both the United States and Canada have devoted increasing attention and resources to the restoration of the water quality and the fisheries of the Great Lakes, including the Western basin. Numerous grassroots environmental and conservation organizations have worked dutifully to address environmental degradation in the region. I am happy to say that these efforts have been successful, though there is still much more that must be done.

The coastal wetlands of Lake Erie support the largest diversity of plant and wildlife species in the Great Lakes. More than 320 species of birds and 43 species of fish have been identified in the aquatic and wetland habitats of the Western basin. The shallow Western basin is home to the largest concentration of marshes in Lake Erie, which makes it a major migratory bird corridor. Seventy percent of the Mississippi Flyway population of black ducks is concentrated in the Lake Erie marshes during fall migration.

The important of Lake Erie is manifested in the United States congressional designation of the Ottawa and Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuges. Lake Erie has an international reputation for walleye, perch, and bass fishing, as well as duck hunting. On an economic basis, Lake Erie tourism accounts for an estimated $1.5 billion in retail sales and more than 50,000 jobs.

In Michigan, the Refuge will run from the southern boundary of Sterling State Park to the eastern edge of Sandusky Bay, Ohio. The Secretary of Interior is authorized to acquire by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or grant conservation easements with the boundaries of the Refuge. Any and all acquisitions of lands are voluntary, and federal takings are strictly prohibited. I would note that the Secretary shall administer all federally owned lands, waters, and interests within the Refuge in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Thus, the rights of sportsmen and waterfowlers like myself to hunt and fish in accordance with state law will be protected.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the Resources Committee for their assistance. Ms. Kaptur's bill is an important piece of legislation which will be great benefit to the people of Michigan, Ohio, and Ontario, and represents a sound approach to protecting, preserving, and restoring the wildlife habitat of the Great Lakes. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I join the millions of our Nation's first responders in opposition to H.R. 1463, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003.'' Right after we defeat this bill, I hope that we set about the task of crafting bipartisan legislation that all members of the House can support. The very people this bill purports to help--nurses, EMTs, police officers, firefighters--find this hastily crafted legislation lacking. Why? Because it fails to address their very significant concerns.

Mr. Speaker, we are voting on smallpox vaccine injury legislation today because the Administration's current vaccine program is not working. Only a fraction of the number of first responders that the Administration has said are needed to protect us have volunteered to take the smallpox vaccine. The Administration has recommended that as many as ten million first responders be vaccinated for smallpox so that if we ever are attacked by the use of smallpox we will have a core capacity of health care and emergency personnel vaccinated and able to take appropriate action right away. The latest numbers from CDC indicate that less than 26,000 of them have been vaccinated. Why so few? Because the vaccination carries with it substantial risks, including adverse affects that could cause disability and, in some cases, death.

Proponents of H.R. 1463 will make much of what they think that bill does. I ask you to focus on what it lacks. H.R. 1463 does not do enough to ensure adequate screening and education and otherwise prevent adverse events from happening in the first place. In the event that tragedy strikes and someone is injured or killed by the vaccine, H.R. 1463 does not make adequate provision for lost wages. And, what H.R. 1463 lacks is support from the people to whom it is intended to appeal. H.R. 1463 is opposed by the American Public Health Association, the International Union of Police Associations, the American Nurses Association, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union, and the Infectious Disease Society of America.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of accounts of three deaths in the last week or so from cardiac arrest in persons who received the smallpox vaccine. Health care officials cannot positively rule out the smallpox vaccine as the cause or a contributing factor in these deaths. The CDC has taken swift action to revise its guidelines and has indicated that there may be further revisions. These uncertainties about the known, and I hasten to add the unknown, risks of the smallpox vaccine have greatly increased the fear factor among prospective vaccinees. We should be doing all we can to obtain and assess the relevant information on the vaccine and smallpox risks. That cannot be done by using the process by which this bill is before us today. We have had no hearings, no markups, and no opportunity to perfect this bill on the floor with amendments. All we have is the administration's proposal and a take it or leave it procedure.

I recommend that we listen to our first responders, vote ``no'' on H.R. 1463, and get busy writing legislation we can all support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th Anniversary of Fordson High School in Dearborn, Michigan.

Dedicated on March 22, 1928, Fordson High School was designed and built on 15 acres to accommodate 2,300 students at a cost of $2 million. Fordson was heralded in the 1920's for being the first million-dollar high school. However, it is the steadfast dedication to education and more specifically, Fordson's national reputation for helping establish immigrants in the United States that has truly set it apart.

Mr. Speaker, the City of Dearborn experienced unprecedented growth with the rise of the automotive industry in the 1920s and 1930s. It was during this time that Fordson became the center of a community increasingly noted for the number of immigrants and for its ethnic diversity. Today, the activities of the Arabic and Romanian clubs at the school continue the tradition of community outreach programs. A plethora of diverse languages and cultures have walked the halls of Fordson High School over the past 75 years. In fact, Fordson pioneers a program teaching non-English speaking students in their native language to keep up with their class work until their English skills are proficient.

Education has remained a top priority for Fordson producing many distinguished graduates. Local businessman and philanthropist Michael Adray; Walter P. Reuther, former president and founder of the UAW; Chuck Rossi, comedian with Martin and Rossi; name only a few of the noted graduates.

Mr. Speaker, as Fordson embarks on its 75th Anniversary, and in honor of their unfaltering dedication to diversity and education within the community, I would ask that all of my colleagues rise and salute this wonderful school.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the St. Mary Catholic Central High School (SMCC) volleyball team for winning the Class C state championship for the first time in the school's history.

It is the first state title for any SMCC girls team, and in fact it is the first state crown for any girls team from a Monroe County high school in any Michigan High School Athletic Association-sanctioned competition. It is quite a feat considering their opponent, the North Muskegon Norsemen were ranked third in the state after the regular season. SMCC was unranked most of the year before finally making No. 10 in the last week.

During the regular season, the girls were known for their astonishing comebacks. In the State final, the girls were down 9-0 in the first game before they embarked on their amazing comeback that will go down in state volleyball history. The team finished their remarkable season with a 40-10-4 record.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all my colleagues to rise and join me in congratulating the St. Mary Catholic Central girls' volleyball team for their perseverance, hard work and well-deserved championship.

Mr. Chairman, the lengths to which my Republican colleagues will go to in order to help out their fat-cat buddies will never cease to amaze me. We are considering a budget resolution today that is so bad and so draconian that the Republican leadership is having trouble convincing some of their own rank and file to support it.

I am outraged, Mr. Chairman, absolutely outraged that at a time when this nation is at war, my Republican colleagues are attempting to cut funding for veterans. Have they no shame? Mr. Speaker, these men and women were willing to risk their lives for this nation and many lost limbs in the process. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would repay these most patriotic of Americans by slashing $15 billion from the Veteran's Administration budget over the next 10 years. Of course, since 96 percent of the VA's discretionary budget goes to pay for the healthcare of those who served this Nation, this means that we are reducing enrollment, reducing hospital days of care and reducing nursing staff. This is how the Republican leadership gives their thanks to our veterans.

At recent hearings, I expressed skepticism about the President's ``budget-neutral'' proposal to convert Medicaid to a block grant. Not only would this proposal leave States at risk if Medicaid costs rose, but I warned that it was a prelude to Congressional cuts in the program. The ink was not even dry on the President's proposal before the House Republicans are now requiring $100 billion cut in the program. As State budgets are being squeezed, the notion of reducing Federal spending on Medicaid is an astonishingly bad idea.

Although our Republican colleagues appear to have backed off their threat to slash Medicare to the bone, no one should be mistaken that this is the last we will hear of it. For years, Republicans have sought to do away with Medicare and Social Security--most recently under the guise of privatization. Medicare and Social Security remain primary targets for Republican ideologues and tax-cutters, and we must remain ever vigilant to protect these vital programs.

Mr. Chairman, this budget also fails to protect the environment. In fact, it cuts FY 04 funding by more than 10 percent. And over the next 10 years, it slashes environmental spending by more than 11 percent. What does this mean? Well, it could mean cuts for clean water, which is a logical choice since the Bush Administration seems hell bent on dismantling the Clean Water Act and selling off our rivers to hydroelectric companies. It likely means cuts for brownfields redevelopment. Of course, my Republican colleagues try to soften this blow by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, which they say will increase federal receipts by $2.1 billion over the next 10 years. I am not certain how my friends on the other side of the aisle intend to do this, since some cooler heads in the Senate stripped the ANWR provision out of their budget yesterday.

Just two years ago, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which was lauded by Democrats and Republicans alike. At the time that the bill was signed, the President and Congressional Republicans made a commitment to American families and their children that the programs in that bill would be funded at proper levels so that our public schools would not be placed in financial straight jackets. For two years that promise has gone unfulfilled, and this budget not only continues that dangerous trend, but actually cuts education funding. Mr. Speaker, Congressional Republicans have gone even further in their cuts than the President did in his budget, slashing spending by 8 percent. Let me give you a specific, Mr. Speaker. If this budget passes, more than 22,000 kids in my home state of Michigan will quite literally be left out in the cold. These kids will be left without any after-school services. Let me ask, is this what compassionate conservatism is all about?

Mr. Chairman, the cuts don't stop there. This sham of a budget drastically cuts our agriculture programs. Our farmers are the lifeblood of this great Nation. How do we show them our support? Well, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle thank our farmers by slashing agriculture programs by $763 million in FY 04. What this means in real terms is that conservation, nutrition, rural development and producer payment programs would be cut by more than 25 percent over their authorized amounts. These draconian cuts are neither justified nor sustainable. Again, that is not the end of the agriculture cuts. The Republican budget requires that the Agriculture Committee cut nearly $20 billion in direct spending over the next 10 years. This means more cuts to our family farmers by slashing funding to farm loan programs, conservation programs, rural development, forestry and research.

All of this leads to a very logical question, Mr. Speaker: why are my Republican colleagues doing this? Why are they gutting programs that help America's working families? Well, Mr. Speaker, they are doing this to accommodate more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Yes, the goal of this budget is to allow the President to push through more of his irresponsible tax cuts. Make no mistake: these tax cuts will not stimulate the economy and will not help middle class Americans. In fact, in my home state of Michigan, about 50 percent of taxpayers would get less than $100 under the President's plan, and 30 percent would get no tax cut at all. Of course, this all leaves open the possibility that local communities will have to raise taxes because my Republican colleagues expect them to bear the burden of homeland security costs. This rascality is just another ploy for my Republican colleagues to help out their fat-cat corporate friends and leave the American people out in the cold.

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I neglected to mention the cost of this current war with Iraq. We don't know how much the war will cost, and we have no idea how much it will cost to rebuild Iraq after the war. The Republican budget does not include one penny to pay for our troops currently overseas or the costs of reconstructing Iraq. Mr. Speaker, is this really the time to be centering the entire budget around tax cuts? I think not. This is a sham and an outrage.

Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget provides members with a reasonable and responsible alternative and I would strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. Our budget is centered around a stimulus plan that provides both long term and short term economic growth--creating 1 million new jobs this year alone. The Democratic budget is responsible, balancing the budget by 2010 without unrealistic spending cuts. The Democratic budget gives schools the funding they need to implement No Child Left Behind, and more importantly, the funding they need to properly prepare our kids for the future. The Democratic budget provides $32 billion over the next 10 years for Veterans healthcare. Mr. Speaker, making sure those who were willing to give their lives for this country are taken care of needs to be a priority. It is, quite simply, the right thing to do. At this time of war, the Democratic budget adequately invests in Homeland Security by providing $32 billion

more than Republicans over the next 10 years--ensuring $3.5 billion in desperately needed new money for first responders. The Democratic budget also provides an adequate prescription drug benefit so our senior citizens don't have to choose between groceries and filling a prescription.

I would ask my colleagues, all of my colleagues, to reject the Republican budget and support the Democratic substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, vote down this iniquitous rule. It is unfair. It is demeaning. It strikes at the heart of the parliamentary practices that are the proud tradition of this body. It also tears at the throat of honorable and open and fair debate. It denies every Member, not just Democrats, the right to offer amendments to the bill. Mr. Speaker, 31 amendments were requested of the Committee on Rules last night; not a one was given. A substitute was given.

The chairman of the committee talks of the need to have a fair and open process. Well, we do not have a fair and open process. Therefore, vote down the rule, vote down the previous question. It is an outrage, and it is inconsistent with the tradition and practices of the House.

I would point out that in the rules, rule XVI, clause 6 begins, ``When an amendable proposition is under consideration, a motion to amend and a motion to amend that amendment shall be in order.'' It is in the rules. The Committee on Rules should read it.

We are not discussing the substance of the legislation. We hope to have a fair chance to do so. We hope to have a

fair chance to amend the basic proposition before this body. The Committee on Rules has not given it to us.

I went before the Committee last night and I asked, am I wasting my time and am I wasting your time by being here? The answer is, I was. I was not told that I was, but the simple fact of the matter was the decision had already been made. The process had already been carefully cooked so that no opportunity to amend the bill is before this body at this time.

We can talk about what it is that is wrong with this legislation and how the amendments would improve it. That is really not important. What is important is that the basic rights of the Members of this body, the basic prerogatives of the institution to perfect legislation before it has been denied by the majority, functioning through the organism of the Committee on Rules.

In 14 years as the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, never once did I go before the Committee on Rules to ask for anything other than an open rule so that all Members might have a fair chance to participate in the debate on the legislation and to offer amendments as the need would require, no matter how complex or controversial the legislation was. That is the way this institution should work.

This rule demeans this body. It demeans every Member here, and it demeans the Committee on Rules and those who have inflicted this outrage upon this body.

I say again, vote this rule down. It is wrong. It is arrogant. It is without justification. I note that it comes up on a day when this is the last item of business of the week and when this is the last item of business that will be done. Let us vote it down, and let us then go about the business of conducting the business of the House in a fashion which is consistent with the traditions of this great democratic institution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing a sorry spectacle today. Not only are we denied opportunity to properly debate but also to properly amend. And the doctors are being herded along in front of the HMOs and the insurance companies, because those insurance companies and HMOs are the beneficiaries of this legislation, not the doctors.

The Republican bill does nothing to limit frivolous lawsuits. It does, however, limit responsible lawsuits. The

Republicans would restrict the rights of doctors by protecting HMOs, not by assuring that HMOs are subject to the discipline of the court.

Republicans limit awards for meritorious claims. Republicans impose hurdles on aggrieved patients.

This is an outrageous piece of legislation. It is brought to the floor under outrageous proceedings. Thirty-one Members have asked for opportunities to offer amendments. They were denied. We are not even given a chance to offer a substitute to this legislation.

I can understand how my Republican colleagues are all looking sheepish and why they are thoroughly embarrassed. I would be embarrassed if I were engaged in this kind of practice myself, because, quite honestly, it is shameful, and it is totally inconsistent with the practices, rules and traditions of the House of Representatives. It is, indeed, a blow to the heart of the legislative process and responsible legislating. It is also a bite on the throat of the right to free debate and the right to amend and perfect legislation.

One of the important responsibilities of this body is to be able to amend legislation, for the House to work its will, for us to represent our people, for them to hear not only responsible debate, but to know that their will is heard and that their concerns are met, not only by debate, but by proper use of the amendment process. That is denied to us today, and I say to my Republican colleagues, shame on you. You have brought shame upon the House of Representatives. You have embarrassed me. I hope you have embarrassed yourself.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a bad bill. The motion to recommit is forced upon us by the recalcitrance of the Republican leadership which has not permitted us to offer a substitute. This is the package that we could go home and talk with pride of to our people and to our doctors. It weeds out frivolous lawsuits. It does not restrict the rights of legitimate claimants. It establishes an equitable, 3-year statute of limitation that protects children, the aged, the poor.

It requires affidavits of merit from qualified medical specialists and attorneys' certificates of merit with mandatory sanctions. It requires mandatory mediation. It also allows health care providers to challenge malpractice premium increases. It provides direct assistance to physicians in crisis areas through Federal grants, and it provides direct assistance to medical centers in danger of closing. It repeals the antitrust exemption for malpractice insurance, and it establishes Federal malpractice insurance and a reinsurance program. This is a program that will work.

Under a House in which we had a decent opportunity to debate and amend, Members of this body would understand that this is the package for which they want to vote. They would understand that this is a package which their people wish them to vote for, and I include in that the health care providers. It is a bill, or rather an amendment, which would assure that health care providers would receive the help that they need while, at the same time, not providing unnecessary shelters for HMOs and other undeserving persons who have contrived to leap aboard a vehicle which they think is going out and a situation which permits the doctors to be used as front-men for a bunch of iniquitous rascals who do not deserve relief.

Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues. Representative Chris John and Representative Tauzin for introducing H.R. 342, the ``Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act,'' and for working so diligently on behalf of the people and states who have been ravaged by the West Nile virus.

This legislation hits very close to home for me. My home state of Michigan has been hit hard by this deadly epidemic. To date, we have had 554 confirmed cases of West Nile and 50 deaths. Currently, a staggering 4,071 people in the United States have been found to be infected with the West Nile virus. Unfortunately, we have also had 274 deaths as a result of West Nile infection.

H.R. 342 seeks to complement the work that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is already doing to fight mosquito-borne diseases. This legislation will provide an additional incentive for States and localities to plan and better coordinate mosquito control programs. Unfortunately, many localities have not had the resources or capabilities to conduct assessments and prepare plans to comprehensively develop effective mosquito control programs. The additional federal dollars authorized in H.R. 342 will work to assist states and localities with their immediate needs to combat the West Nile virus.

In addition to working with the CDC, the ``Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act'' requires the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to conduct and support research into methods to control the population of insects and vermin that transmit dangerous diseases to humans.

The West Nile virus has emerged in recent years as a serious threat to public, equine, and animal health. H.R. 342 seeks to combat this unexpected epidemic by providing additional dollars for research, prevention, and educational programs. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this valuable piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 663, the ``Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act.'' This bipartisan bill is the product of collaboration with my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, particularly Chairmen Tauzin and Bilirakis, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Brown. I also note that this legislation builds on the work of my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, including Representatives Johnson, Stark, Thomas, and Rangel. I thank all who have made important contributions to this bill.

The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act addresses a problem that many of us are familiar with. According to a December 2003 survey by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Kaiser Family Foundation, 42 percent of the public says that they or a family member have experienced a medical error.

This bill contains one piece of the puzzle that must be completed in order to reduce medical errors. It would create a voluntary reporting system for the purpose of learning from medical mistakes.

Under this voluntary reporting system, health care providers could report information on medical errors to Patient Safety Organizations. These organizations would help providers analyze what went wrong and identify what strategies could prevent future mistakes. It is our intent that providers would take this knowledge and make changes in the health care delivery system to improve care for patients.

I also hope that the Secretary of Health and Human Services would use this knowledge to set some basic guidelines that all providers would be required to follow. Patients should be able to expect that providers are adhering to certain safety standards before they seek treatment from a doctor, hospital, or other facility.

The best patient safety bill, however, cannot prevent all medical errors. Unfortunately, there will be cases where a medical mistake is made and a patient suffers injury or death as a result. If medical malpractice was involved in these cases, patients and their families should be entitled to seek compensation under a fair and accessible legal system. It would be disingenuous to suggest that the limited legislation before us today could supplant the vital role of legal remedies for medical malpractice.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their cooperation in writing this patient safety bill, and I look forward to seeing the improvements that will result when it is implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Michigan AFSCME Council 25 on their 25th Anniversary.

Michigan AFSCME Council 25 is one of the most dynamic unions in the Michigan AFL-CIO. The more than 60,000 members of Council 25 are comprised of state and local government workers committed to achieving dignity and improving their working conditions through collective bargaining. Michigan AFSCME Council 25 was formed by a special convention held March of 1978. Five smaller Michigan AFSCME Councils combined forces to form Council 25, which became larger and stronger than the previous councils. The new Council 25 streamlined and enhanced services and realized economies of scale to benefit AFSCME members across Michigan.

Today, Mr. Speaker, Michigan AFSCME Council 25 has blossomed into more than 300 local unions, representing more than 600 bargaining units. The local unions have their own constitutions, elect their own officers and administer a wide variety of local affairs. For 25 years, Michigan AFSCME Council 25 has been committed to Michigan's communities, has provided effective political activism and years of advocacy for Michigan's working families.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the numerous employees of state, county and municipal govennnents, school districts, public hospitals and nonprofit agencies to name a few, for their tireless efforts on behalf of workers throughout Michigan. I also want to commend AFSCME Council 25 President, Albert Garrett, who is a good friend and a passionate advocate for the members of Council 25 and all of Michigan's working families. Additionally, Lawrence Roehrig, the Secretary-Treasurer of Council 25 deserves our appreciation for his commitment to community service and the values held dear to working people across this great Nation.

On the occasion of their 25th Anniversary, Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in saluting the Michigan AFSCME Council 25.