John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a tangled web of legal intricacies which I found to be a muddled attempt to impose specific laws of individual States. After a careful reading of the bill, I am forced to rise in opposition to the legislation. H.R. 748 is a two-part bill. The first part makes it a crime for anybody other than a parent to accompany a minor across State lines for an abortion if the minor's State of residence has parental notification laws. We have seen this language, known as the Child Custody Protection Act, in past Congresses, and I have hesitantly voted in favor of it. I say hesitantly because I have always been concerned that: (1) The bill violates the Constitutional principles of federalism; (2) There are no exceptions for another responsible adult family member to accompany the minor; and (3) The language is so broad that it would allow a cab or bus driver to be prosecuted. You are probably wondering, Mr. Speaker, why I voted for the bill even with these concerns. Well, as a parent, I feel strongly that parents should be involved in major decisions concerning the health and well-being of their children. The most knowledgeable resource regarding the minor's medical history is often their parent. Moreover, as is the case with any medical procedure, it is important that someone in the household be aware of the situation should there be side effects. Thus, I voted to move the process forward with the hope that my concerns would be addressed before the final legislation was sent to the President for signature. This did not happen because the Senate has never acted on the legislation. The second part of the bill is new and would hold a doctor criminally liable for performing an abortion on a minor from another State. This, Mr. Speaker, is where the web gets really tangled. You see, in some cases, the minor would have to comply with the laws of two States, and in all cases, the doctor would have to get consent from the parent in person and a mandatory 24-hour waiting period would be instituted. Probably the most striking scenario would be a minor who traveled between States with no parental consent law. In this case, the doctor would have to obtain consent in person from the parent, the mandatory 24-hour waiting period would be instituted, and in this specific case there would be no judicial bypass option. This creates quite a burden on doctors, who would be required to have a near-encyclopedic knowledge of the parental involvement laws in each of the 50 States, their specific requirements and their judicial procedures. Some States have strict parental consent laws, some have parental consent laws with reasonable bypass mechanisms, and some States have no consent laws at all. If this bill passes, we are saying to some States, ``Your law is good.'' To others we are saying, ``Your law is okay, but it is not quite good enough.'' And to still other States we are saying, ``Your law, or lack thereof, is wholly inadequate.'' This is no way to legislate in our federalist system. While reading over the bill, Mr. Speaker, I tried to think of what precedent there is for this kind of law. It took a while, but the only law I could come up with was the Fugitive Slave Act. Going back to laws like this, Mr. Speaker, is not something this Congress should even consider. Mr. Speaker, I often wonder why we don't focus more of our effort on preventing unwanted pregnancies. Reducing the number of abortions performed in this country is certainly a goal we can all agree on and strive for. As such, I would ask that all of my colleagues come to the table to discuss the ways we can further this mutual goal. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Scott and Jackson-Lee amendments and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5533, the ``Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2006''. In an effort to respond to the new era of heightened threats to our national security and the increased risk of harm to Americans, Congress passed the ``Project Bioshield Act'' in July of 2004. The basic purpose of Project Bioshield was to support research that would lead to the development and availability of ``countermeasures'' to combat public health emergencies that threaten our national security. The main provisions of this law included: (1) flexible procedures for bioterrorism-related procurement, hiring of personnel, and awarding of research grants; (2) guaranteeing a Federal Government market for new biomedical countermeasures; and (3) permitting emergency use of unapproved countermeasures. Building on the Project Bioshield Act, H.R. 5533 takes further steps to identify potential medical countermeasures to protect the public health and national security from biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear threats. Additionally, this legislation ensures the rapid development of medical countermeasures against such threats, including potential pandemic infectious diseases and it seeks to expand the collaboration and coordination between government and the private sector so that we can effectively respond in the event of a public health emergency. Since the implementation of Project Bioshield, it has become apparent that certain barriers still exist to the development of countermeasures. Many promising countermeasures are not making it through the advanced research and development stages necessary to bring products to the point of eligibility for procurement. H.R. 5533 seeks to rectify this impediment to advanced-stage countermeasure development. This legislation seeks to streamline the countermeasure research and development process and create a single point of Federal authority by creating a new office called the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency (BARDA) within the Department of Health and Human Services. BARDA would establish a ``one stop shop'' agency for advanced research and development of medical countermeasures, including drugs and vaccines to respond to bioterrorism and natural disease outbreaks. This agency would be responsible for directing and coordinating collaboration among HHS entities, other Federal agencies, relevant industries, academia, and other individuals with respect to countermeasure research and development. I commend my colleagues, Representatives Eshoo and Rogers, for their diligent and impassioned work on this issue. This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6164, the ``National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 2006''. Despite certain shortcomings, this is an important piece of legislation that contains many significant and commendable goals. I want to congratulate Chairman Barton on crafting and moving the first National Institutes of Health (NIH) reauthorization bill in 13 years and I thank him for reaching out to stakeholders and colleagues on both sides of the aisle. In view of the numerous stakeholder endorsements of this bill, it appears that a careful balance has been struck in many of the bill's provisions. The bill is based on several recommendations of the Institute of Medicine report, ``Enhancing the Vitality of the National Institutes of Health.'' I hope that the provisions on greater accountability and transparency will help NIH use its resources in the most effective, efficient, and equitable manner possible. The greatest problem this Congress has created for NIH, however, is tight funding. After years of significant funding increases for NIH in its fight against disease, this Congress has effectively chosen to provide flat funding for NIH. After adjusting for inflation, this actually is a funding cut. Further compromising NIH's funding stream is the House budget resolution, passed on a partisan basis, that has resulted in a budget allocation for the House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee that virtually guarantees the flat funding of programs in its jurisdiction, including NIH. Tax cuts for the wealthy have a higher priority than domestic programs such as education or preventing and curing diseases. A vast increase in the number of grant applications coupled with a frozen level of funding has forced NIH into a fiscal crisis. This year, the NIH budget decreased for the first time in over 30 years. President Bush has asked that we keep NIH's funding at the same level as FY 2007, but doing so would demonstrate a lack of commitment to the goals and ideals of NIH. We are voting today on a bill that purports to authorize a 5 percent increase in the NIH budget over each of the next 3 years. This is too small. And when the Congressional Budget Office scores this bill, it will score it as costing nothing. That is because it merely authorizes appropriations, and there is no reason to believe that there will be any increase this year, no matter what we do today. But despite the shortcoming in authorization levels, the bill contains many useful reforms, and has the overwhelming support of those organizations in the front lines of the fight against disease. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I intend to show my appreciation to the distinguished gentlewoman by revising and extending my remarks and also my respect and affection for the gentleman from New Mexico. I rise to support the legislation. I urge the House to pass this legislation. It was the bloodiest battle. It commemorates the bloodiest battle in the history of Michigan, the bloodiest battle in the War of 1812, and the loss of 700 citizens and more, mostly from Kentucky, who came to Michigan to save it from the British and the Indians. The end result was that ``Remember the River Raisin'' became the battle cry in the War of 1812. Our work today, I want you to know, makes a very important contribution to us remembering the history of Michigan, the history of the War of 1812 and matters important, not just to my people in Monroe, but to all of us. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico and the distinguished gentlewoman from Guam and my friend, chairman of the committee, Mr. Pombo Mr. Speaker, in six years our nation will mark the bicentennial of the War of 1812. The War of 1812 is one of the least studied, but most important episodes in our nation's history. Following the Revolutionary War, America was a weak nation and was preyed upon by Britain, France and Spain. Britain aimed to re-conquer the newly independent former colonies. The legislation we are considering here today will preserve one of the most important stories of that war, the Battle of the River Raisin. This legislation, quite simply, would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability of including the site of the River Raisin massacre into the National Park system. The legislation already has support from the people of Monroe, Michigan, our governor, historians, archeologists and the National Park Service. When the war broke out, it was expected that Britain would quickly defeat the poorly equipped and poorly trained Americans. Washington was burned, and British troops torched the Capitol. Along the Western frontier, in what is today Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky, the war raged. When Detroit fell to the British a contingent of Kentuckians, under the direction of Gen. William Henry Harrison marched to retake the city. On January 18, 1813 American forces crossed the River Raisin and attacked the British encampment on the other side. They forced the British to retreat. Four days later, British forces and their Native American allies counter-attacked. The Americans were routed. When the British withdrew, they took with them any American who could travel as a prisoner. The injured were left. The next day, the Native allies returned and massacred the Americans and burned the surrounding town to the ground. Of the 900 strong American force only 33 escaped death or capture. Throughout the American Army the cry ``Remember the Raisin'' rallied our troops. Soon thereafter, spurred by the memory of the Raisin, the Americans liberated Detroit and won the decisive Battle of the Thames in Ontario--guaranteeing America's victory in the war. The River Raisin Battle is still the bloodiest battle ever in Michigan, and was the most violent battle on continental U.S. soil outside of the Civil War. It is an important episode in American history that needs to be recognized. Since 1813, the site of the battle and massacre has been encroached upon increasingly by the town of Monroe. What was once a small farming settlement is now a bustling city. Homes have been built where the American soldiers crossed the river. A factory, at one time, operated on the site; buildings were built and later torn down. Now, most of the land where the battle took place is in the possession of the City of Monroe and they want to make sure that it is protected for all Americans to visit. The State of Michigan has provided $1 million for Brownfield redevelopment and rehabilitation of the site. The City of Monroe and the Monroe County Historical Society have each pledged $35,000 for the creation of a master plan for the entire battlefield site, and they will soon be applying for a Battlefield Protection Grant through the National Park Service. A citizens' group has also formed to guide the development of the battlefield, raise funds for historic preservation and develop educational programs. I am confident that the energy and commitment of the community would make this a wise inclusion into our National Park system. I can think of no better way to honor the hundreds who gave their lives at the River Raisin than to make the site a permanent memorial to their bravery and sacrifice. We need to do this in order to protect an important piece of our Nation's heritage.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the three bills being considered today in House. The rush to bring these bills to the floor for a vote makes it clear that the majority has one thing on its mind, election year political concerns. As far as I can tell, these bills were not given hearings or marked up in committee. In fact, two of these bills were just introduced this week. Members have had very little time to look at these bills, and to consider the ramifications should these bills be enacted into law. This is no way to craft good, solid legislation. These bills represent a half-hearted attempt at beefing up immigration enforcement and border security. Instead of taking a rifle shot approach to the immigration issue, the House and Senate should have went to conference on the immigration bills that passed each chamber. Unfortunately, rather than coming together and hashing out differences, the two Chambers began holding field hearings about why their Chamber's bill was better than the other Chamber's bill. It is time to stop these antics and appoint conferees so we can create a good bill. Mr. Speaker, given the fact that we have had very little time to consider this legislation, and that we cannot even offer amendments on the floor to try and do what the committees could not, I will vote ``no'' and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, too many people, either personally or through a loved one, have felt the pain of cancer. It strikes 1 out of every 2 men and 1 out of every 3 women and will tragically claim more than 570,000 American lives this year alone. Cancer is a complex disease that takes many forms. It can attack a single organ or the whole body. It can be caused by genetic factors, environmental circumstances, or both. Without early detection or treatment, it can lead to debilitating illness and often death. On behalf of the Federal Government, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has led the fight against cancer since its inception in 1937. NCI conducts and supports research, training, health information dissemination, and other program with respect to the cause, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer, rehabilitation from cancer, and the continuing care of cancer patients and their families. The National Cancer Institute set for itself the goal of ending cancer suffering and death by 2015. Over the last several years, NCI has taken on this challenge by working with expert staff and identified critical paths needed to make the vision a reality. This includes developing a strategic plan and framework for use of funding, infrastructure, tools, and other resources. Eliminating cancer suffering and death is a true possibility. Americans have already received the benefits of investment in research and other cancer programs--between 1991 and 2001, cancer deaths declined by more than 9 percent. Moreover, doctors are able to help patients defeat a number of cancers if detected early, including cervix, breast, colon, and prostrate cancer. And today 3 out of 4 children with cancer are cured. The resolution that we are discussing today expresses Congress's, support of ending suffering and death due to cancer. But we can best push for the continued decline of cancer death and suffering by making it a national priority and making the right budget and policy choices to meet this goal by 2015.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the legislation before us today. This legislation is not real reform; it is merely an empty shell riddled with loopholes that will allow the culture of corruption that has infected this House to continue virtually unchecked. This bill--for which the text has only been available for less than 12 hours--is simply a poorly masked effort by Republicans to distract voters from the fact that they have failed to live up to their promises to pass real ethics and lobbying reform. The only reform they can claim victory for is banning former Members who are now lobbyists from the Members' gym. While this is of course an admirable step, it is a baby step at most. Mr. Speaker, I believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant--and I can truly say that this House has never been more in need of a good dose of sunshine. Over the past few years, we have seen some truly appalling abuses of power. Legislation has been passed without Members even knowing what they are voting for; votes have been held open for record amounts of time; and lobbyists have had more access to conference negotiations than Members of the conference. This shameful behavior should not be acceptable to Members of either party, and this bill is just another example of how Congress has done nothing to stop it. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to make valid, meaningful reform a genuine priority for the 109th Congress.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5539, the North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2006. I would also like to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for all their hard work and for ensuring swift consideration of this important legislation. As a wildlife enthusiast, conservationist, and member of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, I am a strong supporter of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). For that reason, I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 5539. As this body knows, NAWCA is a unique public-private, partnership- based program that leverage non-federal funds to protect, restore and manage wetland habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. Since it was signed into law in 1989, NAWCA grants have spurred more than 2,000 partners to work on more than 1,100 projects, restoring nearly 23 million acres of wetlands in the United States, Canada and Mexico. In addition, NAWCA provides an excellent return on a relatively modest federal investment. Over the years, the act has provided approximately $720 million in grant funds which have been matched by approximately $2.1 billion in partner funds. Again, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Resources Committee for introducing this important legislation and look forward to continuing to work with him, Ranking Member Rahall, members of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus on this extremely successful program.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is a more tragic day in the history of our Nation than September 11, 2001. Three thousand lives were snuffed out in the largest mass murder we have ever witnessed. We are still grieving what was lost that day. The heroics of the fire fighters ascended the Twin Towers and the first responders who came to the Pentagon will never be forgotten. The passengers of United 93, who gave their lives to save ours, are heroes without parallel. But I am saddened that the Republican leadership, rather than honoring the heroes and the victims of that day decided to offer a resolution that seems to be written by an RNC focus group rather than out of respect for the solemnity of the day. When I woke up on September 12, 2001 this nation was as united as I had seen it since December 7, 1941. The intense partisan divide vanished overnight and was replaced by a national consensus. Political opportunism was replaced by notions of shared sacrifice for a common good. Internationally, America had the world's sympathy. From London, to Tel Aviv, to Tehran spontaneous support rallies took place. American tourists spoke of hugs and flowers from complete strangers; in these days we had a chance to bring the world together. Now we are more divided, more polarized, and more conflicted, at home and abroad, then ever before. The unanimity of purpose that we had on September 12 has been replaced by partisanship, and that partisanship has interfered with the very important work we must engage in to make this nation safe from terrorism. Making America safe is work that cannot be reduced to simple slogans. Five years after however, Republican leadership has offered rhetoric but little more. We have yet to fully consider all of the bi-partisan recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Our ports still do not inspect even ten percent of the cargo that comes into them; air cargo is unscreened; and nuclear material across the world remains unguarded. In Afghanistan, the war with Al Qaeda and the Taliban is at risk of unraveling. Radicals are once again barring girls from schools; the reconstruction has stopped; and terrorists are targeting the elected government. There have been victories, but much more needs to be done. Symbolic resolutions are a poor substitute for concrete policy. Our struggle to make America safe and to discredit the terrorist ideology will be a long one. It takes more than rhetoric. It takes actions like fully funding our security needs; making sure our armed forces have the resources they need; supporting our intelligence agencies; and having a foreign policy that changes societies through good will and diplomacy rather than at gun point. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families who lost loved ones that day and those Americans who continue to risk their lives for our safety here at home.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Eppinger Manufacturing Company on the occasion of its 100th anniversary. Lou Eppinger created his simple metal spoon lure in 1906. It quickly became known for its fish attracting wobble. He patented it as the ``Osprey'' in 1912. Following World War I, he renamed the lure to ``Dardevle'' in honor of the 4th Marine Brigade the Allies nicknamed the Dare Devils. It has since earned such accolades as one of ``The 10 Best Lures in the World'' and ``50 Best Lures of All Time.'' In the beginning Lou Eppinger sold 500 Dardevles a year. Today Eppinger Manufacturing sells over 2 million a year and produces 17,000 different varieties of lures. This can be attributed to his strong belief in advertising. Before he turned over the company to his nephew Ed Eppinger, Lou advised, ``Advertise even if you have only a nickel left to your name.'' At a time when many corporations are moving their business overseas, Eppinger has kept its manufacturing plant in Dearborn for decades. Many of its employees have been working at Eppinger for over 30 years. Today Eppinger is run by Karen Eppinger, the grand-niece of the founder, and her two children, Jennifer and Wesley. I must also mention my own personal affection for Eppinger's quality products. Whenever I had a chance to fish, I knew that with one of Lou's masterpieces on my line, the brook trout didn't stand a chance. I owe many big catches and many fine meals to Lou's masterful work and durable product. I would like to ask my colleagues to rise and join me in commending Eppinger Manufacturing Company for 100 years of service to the community and area sportsmen. I extend my best wishes to Eppinger for continued success in the fishing lure business.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I love the people who are pushing this bill, but it is a bad bill. It is triumph of emotion over common sense. We have before us a solution, a poor one, to a nonexistent problem. We have many things that need to be addressed in this Congress, but here we are putting on the floor a piece of legislation poorly thought out, without having had proper hearings or proceedings, over the opposition of a committee, when we have many other things that need doing; health care for Americans, minimum wage, a budget deficit of terrifying proportions, and the appropriations bills and the budget have not yet been completed. While the Nation is at war, working families struggle to make ends meet, and government runs record deficits the leadership has put this curious piece of legislation on the floor. The bill would eliminate humane slaughter of horses. If there is a complaint about how the horses are being slaughtered or transported, there is a way for this body to address that, and I am sure in good will this body would in the exercise of its oversight powers do exactly that. The bill does not count for the high cost of caring for these unwanted animals, nor does it consider the impact that this legislation is going to have on the environment. You know, we have a curious situation where we are going to have to wind up cremating every horse that dies in the country, or we are going to have to incinerate them. I have no idea how we are going to dispose of a huge number of 1,500 to 2,000 pounds of horse each time one of these events happens. Now, basic care costs $1,800. There is no requirement here that a person sell or slaughter his horse. The owner of the horse can do what he wants with it. That makes eminent good sense to me. But I don't think anyone has thought out the consequences of this legislation, what is going to happen with regard to the massive number of horses that are going to have to be incinerated or cremated and the consequences of that with regard to the environment. This is a bad piece of legislation. It should be rejected.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my dear friend for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, like many others in this chamber, I had the opportunity of knowing Bob Tisch, wonderful gentleman, great patriot, public servant, a man concerned about the well-being of his community and a man who greatly loved his family and the Nation of which he was a part. He was also a man who was extraordinary in his charity to America, to its people and to those of almost all parts of the country. He was a great human being, a wonderful friend. He will be missed. I am delighted that we are honoring him. I thank the committee for what they are doing. I extend with them my condolences to the wonderful family of our dear friend Preston Robert Tisch, but I also rejoice that we are honoring a great American well deserving of that today, and I thank my colleagues.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2491, the International Solid Waste and Management Act of 2005. I want to express my particular gratitude and commendations to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and for his leadership and the fine way in which he has handled this legislation. We in Michigan are grateful to the gentleman from Ohio and want him to know that he has our appreciation. This is long overdue. It has been sponsored with great energy by the Members of this delegation in a bipartisan fashion, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Upton, Mr. Levin, Mr. Schwarz of Michigan, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Kildee, Mrs. Miller, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Ehlers and Mr. Camp have all worked very hard to bring this legislation to the floor in the shape in which it is. The legislation came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee a year ago. It requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the notice and consent provisions of the bilateral U.S.-Canadian Agreement, an Agreement that the United States signed in 1986, to govern the transboundary movement of hazardous waste, and amended in 1992 to include municipal solid waste. Unfortunately, the Administration has made no effort to implement the bilateral agreement. Legislation was promised ``soon'' by this Administration more than 3 years ago. It has yet to arrive. The bill provides criteria to ensure that the views of State and local governments are properly taken into account in implementing the bilateral agreement and adds the necessary statutory enforcement authority. The situation in Michigan with regard to Canadian waste continues to get worse. Since 1996, when Michigan started collecting data, the amount of Canadian waste being disposed of in Michigan has risen by 335 percent. Essentially, our State is being used as a dumping ground by the Canadians. Now, I note that the Administration should be complying with the notice and consent provisions of the bilateral agreement which requires that both countries use ``best efforts'' absent regulations. The bilateral agreement is especially important because Canada is a party to the Basel Convention and the United States is not. The Basel Convention specifically prohibits Basel parties from exporting waste to a nonparty. Thus, the United States-Canadian bilateral agreement is the only way waste can travel between the two countries at all. Unfortunately, despite several letters that I, along with our two capable and hardworking Michigan Senators, Senators Levin and Stabenow, have sent to the Administration, the White House has decided to turn a blind eye to the needs of Michigan. More than 400 trucks carry waste into Michigan every day from Canada. These are more than just a nuisance. The trucks and the cargo pose an environmental risk, a security risk, a potential hazard to health, as well as being detrimental to our roads. And they have even been used to smuggle narcotics into Michigan. The citizens of Michigan need action by this Congress, and I am pleased that we are moving forward in the House. This legislation must be made a priority in the Senate. It will do much to help a situation that is intolerable. While I am pleased with the bill coming to the House floor, and while Canadian waste makes up the majority of waste imports into Michigan, we have a significant amount of waste coming in from other States; and as such, I look forward to working with my colleagues on a comprehensive bill giving the States the right to regulate unwanted trash imports into their borders. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 2491. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to Mr. Levin from Michigan. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this has been, I think, a very useful and very respectful debate. It has been one which does credit for all concerned, and I repeat my commendations to my colleagues who have done such a fine job of bringing this legislation to the floor, and I particularly commend my friend from Ohio, Mr. Gillmor, for his labors. We have before us in Michigan a situation which we clearly find intolerable. It is one which has to have something done. Happily, over here, we have been able to get this legislation to the floor. I hope that this bill will be taken up by the Senate in proper fashion and time so that it can go to the President and can be signed and become law. That would be wonderful. I also hope that the deal which has been cut by our two Senators will be able to bear fruit because it will result in termination of a massive amount of waste coming in from Canada if it is implemented according to its terms. I want to commend also our Senators, and I think our people back home are very appreciative of what the Senators did because what they have accomplished is to give us something which will have immediate effect if the agreement is honored by the Canadians. I have received assurances from our senior Senator that our Senators will do everything possible to get this legislation which we are now considering, H.R. 2491, enacted into law in the Senate. We have two arrows rather than one for our bow. We are able to move forward towards the implementation of the agreement achieved in the Senate; and we are able, with the help of everybody concerned, including the leadership in the Senate, to move forward on a piece of legislation which will offer significant relief to our State. Much more will remain to be done after we have concluded, but at least we are beginning to make strides forward, and we are doing so in two ways, in two places, with prospects of success for each. I urge us not to fall into any partisan arguments here. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will yield, to that I say a very pious amen.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this legislation responds to the fact that physicians are currently scheduled to receive a significant reduction in their Medicare payments over the next 5 to 10 years. The Medicare Trustees have projected that Medicare payments to physicians will be cut by 4.6 percent in January. And, if Congress does not act, physicians will see a cumulative cut of approximately 37 percent through 2015. Providers in Michigan alone stand to lose $8 billion over this time period if the cuts that are forecast are allowed to take effect. My legislation would provide a temporary halt to these Medicare physician payment cuts. It would provide a positive physician update, expected to be between 2 and 3 percent, in both 2007 and 2008. The update would reflect physician practice cost inflation. This follows the advice of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission's recommended formula of increases in physician practice costs minus productivity adjustment. This legislation would also protect beneficiaries from any additional premium increases that would otherwise be caused by this change in physician payments for these 2 years. For seniors living on fixed incomes, unexpected increases in their living expenses can impose hardship. The Part B premium already consumes 9 percent of the average Social Security check. Thus, the bill ensures that beneficiaries would not see an increase in beneficiary premiums due to Congressional action to increase physician payments. It is critical that Congress protect the right of beneficiaries to see their doctor in Medicare. The vast majority of seniors and people with disabilities are and will remain in Medicare where they have the freedom to choose their own doctor and get the care that is right for them. While ideally we will develop a new payment system that integrates payment and quality, we do not have enough information and data to implement such a system at this time. My legislation would provide a temporary increase for doctors while Congress continues to work toward a permanent solution.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend, Mr. James J. Padilla, as he retires from a rewarding career with Ford Motor Company, where he served as President and Chief Operating Officer. Born in Detroit, Mr. Padilla earned his bachelor's and master's degrees in chemical engineering, as well as a master's degree in economics all from the University of Detroit. Mr. Padilla started his career with Ford Motor Company in 1966 as a quality control engineer. Ten years later, he accepted the first of what would be many managerial positions he would hold during the balance of his tenure with Ford. On his way to becoming the President and Chief Operating Officer of Ford Motor Company, Mr. Padilla served as Manufacturing Operations Manager for several of Ford's most successful lines of cars. He is also largely to thank for the dramatic turnaround of the Jaguar line, for which he served as Director of Engineering and Manufacturing. As Ford's Executive Vice President of the America's, Mr. Padilla spearheaded Ford Motor Company's North American recovery, vastly improving the quality and innovation of this division's products. In 2004, Mr. Padilla became the President and Chief Operating Officer of Ford Motor Company and took his seat on the Company's Board of Directors. In his final post with Ford, Mr. Padilla was responsible for the global automotive business, overseeing marketing, manufacturing, engineering and other operations in more than 200 markets with over 327,000 employees. Over the course of Mr. Padilla's illustrious career, he has received numerous honors including Mexico's Ohtli Award, the Society of Plastics Engineers 2004 Executive Leadership Award, and the Society of Automotive Engineers' Manufacturing Leadership Award. Mr. Padilla is also a member of the Hispanic Engineer National Achievement Awards Conference Hall of Fame. In 2003, Mr. Padilla was honored by the Gabriel Richards Historical Society for his outstanding vision and leadership toward the revitalization of Detroit and the surrounding communities. As James J. Padilla enters his retirement years, I wish him and his wife, Alice, the best and I sincerely hope that he can enjoy a relaxing and rewarding future. I thank him for everything he has done for Ford Motor Company and the State of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to join me and all of my colleagues in honoring James J. Padilla for his leadership, dedication, and drive over the course of his 40 years of loyal service with Ford Motor Company.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. There once was a time when we considered legislation under open rules. Any Member could offer an amendment. That was the way I, as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, brought bills to the House floor. Eventually amendments were limited, perhaps under the guise of efficiency. But certainly the minority should be allowed to offer an alternative. Democrats brought an alternative to the Committee on Rules. It was supported by every Democrat on our committee. It was not a radical alternative. It was identical to the bill that passed the Senate unanimously, with the addition of language to protect patient privacy. Yet this rule blocks the offering of our proposal. If my Republican colleagues disagree with this substitute, fine--vote against it, but don't hide behind a rule that prevents us from offering it. If we had an open rule, we could fairly debate this important issue. All of us want to improve health information technology. One hundred Senators voted for a bill to do so, but under this closed rule, if a Member of the House wanted to offer that Senate bill, which was sponsored by Republican Majority Leader Frist, along with Senator Enzi, Kennedy, and Clinton, he or she could not do so. That's right--my rubber stamp Republican colleagues are about to pass a rule that makes sure that a bill that passed unanimously in the Senate cannot even get a vote in the House. It is a closed rule and that means only amendments that the Republican leaders can accept will get a vote. I have read that many of my Republican colleagues are trying to distance themselves from the policies of the House Republican leadership. Well, here is your chance. Reject a rule that prohibits Members from offering a substitute that consists of a bill passed unanimously by 100 Senators. Reject a rule that prohibits an amendment dealing with the privacy of personal medical records. But we know the fix is in. Why else did not a single Republican Member go to the Rules Committee to ask for a rule to allow them to offer a bill supported by 100 Senators? Why else did not a single Republican Member care to offer an amendment to protect the privacy of medical records? A vote for this closed rule is, quite simply, a vote against bipartisanship. It is a vote against privacy protections for Americans. And it is a vote against getting a bill signed into law this Congress.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Well, Mr. Chairman, here we are again. Bad legislation, bad procedure, unfair behavior by the majority, and the inability to have a proper discussion of the matter before us or to have an honest chance to amend a bad bill. My Republican colleagues are wasting a fine opportunity to make real progress in an area in which most Members of Congress are highly supportive, health information technology. We have a chance not only to save money and time, but we also have a chance to save lives. But we won't even allow a proper discussion or fair and decent amendments. We have a chance to help providers to transform their practices so that they could better serve the needs of their patients and so that there could be electronic communications with providers, health plans and with the government. The Democrats sought a substitute to the committee bill under the rules. The Rules Committee, as usual, rejected it. So we are functioning under a gag rule. This alternative was identical to the bill the Senate passed unanimously last November with strong privacy protections, and with bipartisan sponsorship and support. The Senate bill, S. 1418, was jointly introduced after being negotiated between Senators Frist, Clinton, Enzi and Kennedy. But we won't be permitted to vote on it today. We must hear from our Republicans as to why it is they are afraid to allow proper debate, or why it is that they won't allow a proper vote on matters which could strongly, broadly and importantly affect their constituents and mine. The bill before us falls short. First, it makes no progress towards protecting the privacy and security of health information. Expanded use of electronic health care systems clearly has a great potential benefit, but it also poses serious threats to patients' privacy by creating greater amounts of personal information susceptible to thieves, rascals, rogues and unauthorized users. President Bush said something to my Republican colleagues, and I hope every once in a while they listen to their leader. He said this: ``I presume I am like most Americans. I think my medical records should be private. I don't want people prying into them. I don't want people looking at them. I don't want people opening them up unless I say it's fine for you to do so.'' Well, why is it that you won't protect, then, the records of people and share the concerns of the President? Second, H.R. 4157 fails to include sufficient Federal funding to foster the adoption and implementation of health information technology such as electronic medical records. Start-up costs are a very significant failure and a barrier that physicians face. Third, H.R. 4157 goes too far in undermining fraud and abuse laws as its response to needed investment. The exceptions provided in this bill to the Stark self-referral and anti-kickback statutes potentially encourage biased decision making about a patient's treatment, and it sets up a situation where a doctor may be compelled to be confined in a system run by a particular hospital or health care provider. Fourth, the bill falls short in establishing comprehensive standards. It does little or nothing to promote the adoption of standards by providers. The fastest way to accomplish this would be to have the Federal Government to abide by the standards that it adopts for electronic communications so that others in the private sector will follow. H.R. 4157 does none of this. The bill fails seriously on issues of patient privacy, funding for health information technology, providing and promoting electronic communications between providers, and protecting against fraud. This is a bad bill. A chance to write good law has been rejected. The bill should be rejected, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I oppose these Internet predators. My good friend, for whom I have great respect, the chairman of this subcommittee from Michigan, opposes them. Everybody else in the Chamber opposes them. Every right-thinking and decent American opposes this practice. What we need, however, is good legislation which will address the problem. What we need is legislation which will be effective. The Committee on Energy and Commerce had a number of hearings on these matters. It is interesting to note that, in the process of that, you can't find anything about there being a problem at schools and libraries. Now, this legislation has attracted both the strong opposition of the schools and the libraries and the Chamber of Commerce, which points out to us that this bill needs more work. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not ready for prime time. The unfortunate thing about this legislation is that, rather than dealing with the real problem, which is kids and young people who are making these communications with sexual predators from their own home or their own den or from their own basement or from their own room, it deals with schools and libraries. Now, that is very fine if we had some record which would show that this is a real problem or that there is not a better cure somewhere else, which in fact there is. The regrettable thing about this legislation is its rush to the floor. I can't tell whether it is a bunch of Republicans who are panicky about the next election or whether it is a situation in which everybody is trying to rush to get out of town to go on an August vacation. But the simple fact of the matter is this legislation is not going to do anything to stop the abuses about which there is a very legitimate complaint. So here we are passing legislation, I suspect, to help some of my panicky Republican colleagues save themselves in a difficult election, or which will let people go home and say, oh, look what we did. But this process has not only been flawed, it has guaranteed that the matters that we discuss now do not really address the situation which confronts us. And worse than that, we are going to be right back here at some future time, after the folks at home tell us what a sorry job we did in dealing with this matter. Because the problem of sexual predators continuing to work the young people is going to continue under this legislation, unabated; and we are going to come back here with red faces and say how we have made a mistake and we have to do more. The simple fact of the matter is this legislation was sprung on us. I am told that it was written last night. We barely saw it before the process on the floor started. And the committee process, which enables us to look at legislation in a sound and responsible way, and the committee process, which enables us to work together to put good legislation on the floor, legislation which is carefully thought out and which the wisdom of all of the Members is brought to bear on the question, is not something which we find in the process in which we are now engaged. So now we are on the floor with a piece of legislation poorly thought out, with an abundance of surprises, which carries with it that curious smell of partisanship and panic, but which is not going to address the problems. We have a piece of legislation on which we have less than an hour to talk, and we have no opportunity whatsoever to amend the proposal. We can vote ``yes'' or we can vote ``no.'' Well, most Members, I suspect, will do the politically wise thing, and I will join them in it, and that is, I am going to hold my nose and vote for this legislation in the full awareness that it is not going to address the problem at all and that it is a political placebo for a very, very, serious problem. This is, essentially, a shin plaster on a cancer. This is a piece of legislation which is going to be notorious for its ineffectiveness and, of course, for its political benefits to some of the Members hereabout. It is, in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, going to be as useful as side pockets on a cow in addressing the problem about which we are all deeply concerned, where we have a duty to our constituents to legislate strongly and well and where we have a duty to have an open process to hear the comments of our people, those that we serve, about what the legislation does to find out how we do the best job of serving the American people. Those events are absolutely not to be found in the history of this legislation. I really regret that my colleagues on the other side have chosen to behave this way, but it seems to be a characteristic of this House under the leadership with which we are afflicted. Good legislation is withheld, poor legislation is written, and the opportunity for the people to be heard or for the legislation to be protected is totally unavailable. The process stinks. The legislation is weak. The legislation will be ineffective, it will accomplish nothing, and we will all share red faces about this bumbling endeavor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on the two sides?