John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my dear friend, our new Member from Michigan's 11th District, Dave Curson, with my congratulations and good wishes.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the resolution of disapproval before us today. Yet again, the House is wasting valuable time considering a resolution that is not about good policy, or helping Americans get back to work, but about political games and rhetoric driven by half-truths. In July of this year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a memo outlining a program for the consideration of state proposals for alternative job placement performance measures for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients. This was in direct response to the requests from at least 29 states who wanted more flexibility on how they measured work participation among recipients. Many of these states requested a waiver so they could focus on more outcome-based measures, rather than job placement rates. The memo released by HHS outlines the conditions that must be met by a state to receive a waiver: a clear and detailed explanation of how the alternative proposal would increase employment by 20 percent, as well as show that there are clear, measurable goals for work placement. However, my Republican colleagues would have you believe that the administration is gutting the work requirements under TANF. Not so. It should be obvious to any honest man who is not blind that this proposal does not waive the work requirements. In fact, it is the administration's effort to test more effective strategies for moving families from welfare to work while giving the states the flexibility to test which strategies they think will work best for their residents. As President Clinton said, ``The requirement was for more work, not less.'' We hear on the floor of this body, day in and day out, about how onerous federal reporting requirements are to the states, and how federal reporting requirements do not account for the unique needs of each of our states. Yet here the administration is directly responding to this request for flexibility and my colleagues run to the floor waving around a dead-on-arrival resolution of disapproval. In my experience, when the administration has heard your complaints and takes the steps necessary to address these complaints you claim victory. As our economy has struggled so have American families. Many of these families have ended up on TANF through no fault of their own. These families are not looking for a hand-out from the federal government; they want a hand-up. The proposal put forth by HHS will help the states provide these families with a hand-up, while still retaining the integrity of welfare-to-work requirements under TANF. I urge my colleagues to reject this baseless and nakedly political resolution. Let's do the business of the American people in an honest, thoughtful, and proper way. I would remind my Republican colleagues that you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are that the administration's proposal would increase work requirements and increase the ability of Americans to get back to work. And here my Republican colleagues are irresponsibly attempting to block that action. Shame.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time. We have voted over 30 times to repeal the health care law. We have already voted on a number of provisions in the bill before us. Each time the Republican majority has forced through legislation with little to no bipartisan support and each time the Senate has refused to consider any one of those bills. Where are the jobs bills? Where are the new ideas from the Republican majority? How much time have we wasted this Congress on legislation that will never be considered by the Senate and would never be signed by the President? A partisan agenda is not what this country needs; what we need are investments in innovative technologies and sources of energy so America does not fall further behind countries such as China, Korea, Germany, and others who are subsidizing innovative energy technology. This bill and the bills we've already voted on this package are simply veto bait that does nothing to help working families, invest in innovative technology, or boost our manufacturing industry. The majority of the bill before us today deals with the Clean Air Act. In passing the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which a number of my Republican colleagues in this House cosponsored, the Energy and Commerce Committee held over 70 hearings during a 10 year period and 21 more during the 101st Congress. A total of seven House Committees participated in the Conference Committee. My point in saying all of this is that any changes to the Clean Air Act must include vigorous debate, not just with the people we agree with, but also those we disagree with. It must also include careful analysis of the Clean Air Act and what problems it creates and what this Committee and Congress should do about these problems. To my colleagues I would say if there is a problem, we should use the limited time we have to address the question of what are the problems and what are the alternatives or solutions. Just because members disagree with some of the actions taken by the EPA recently doesn't mean we need to defund and dismantle the EPA. As I have said a number of times, the Clean Air Act alone has reduced key pollutants by 60 percent since 1970 while at the same time the economy grew by over 200 percent. We can maintain a healthful environment while creating jobs and growing businesses without going back to the days of un-drinkable water and unbreathable air. We cannot simply be the House of ``no.'' We can and we must do better for the sake of our country. I must ask my Republican colleagues, is your priority this Congress to build partisan talking points or build a stronger American economy that can compete in the global economy of the 21st century? I hope it is the latter because I know I was elected to do the work of the people and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will start doing the same.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman. I rise, first, to salute the gentleman from Florida and to express to him my affection and respect and good wishes as he leaves the Congress, and also to my good friend, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Upton. I would observe, however, if anybody were to put a monument like this to me, I would bend this cane of mine over his head. This is perhaps one of the sorriest things I have seen done. It is like the mule: it has neither pride of parentage nor hope of posterity. It isn't going anywhere. It accomplishes precisely nothing. It has a series of findings which are totally unrelated to facts and don't mean anything and don't help us with the problems before us. It is a piece of legislation which was adopted by this Congress with the full support of all of my Republican friends over there who are now shying away from their parentage of the basic legislation. I say to my Luddite friends: This is not going to accomplish anything. I would point out to you it isn't going to pass the Senate. It isn't going to be signed by the President. It doesn't address any of the problems that are before us. It grandfathers everybody in and says there will be nothing new. But what does it really do? It hurts our efforts to see to it that we are able to remain competitive in high-tech, new energy undertakings, which are the hope and the future of this country. That's what it does. That's why, if I were on that side of the aisle, I would have a red face. And I would point out that this proposal was backed by my Republican friends, led by Mr. Barton, supported by my dear friend, Mr. Upton, and all of my good Republican friends. All of a sudden they find that Solyndra has lost money and has gone bankrupt. Why? Because the Chinese knocked the bottom out of the market for solar panels. Why? A governmental economy has killed another American industry. The future of this country is to compete in high-tech jobs in the new kind of undertakings where we can whip the world. But there is a major capital problem for those companies, and they will not prosper and this country will not prosper unless we provide mechanisms to see to it that they can do the things they did. The Oversight and Investigations Committee has had no end of hearings on it and has thrown subpoenas around like popcorn at a circus, but they haven't found anything. And the committee has brought forward this miserable, hopeless piece of legislation in the expectation that it's going to do something, and that something is, of course, to try to help my Republicans with their election campaign. Now, this is a laudable thing if you're a Republican. But if you're an American, this is not helping our country and this is not benefiting anybody. What the result of this legislation is is more wasted time on the floor of the House. What my Republican colleagues won't admit to you is this is the sorriest session of the Congress in history. I think it outranks the do-nothing 80th Congress, and that was a session where we accomplished precisely nothing in this great body. I would observe to my dear friends that if you want to do something, let's get down to dealing with jobs. Let's get down to dealing with the economy. Let's work to see to it that we address our foreign policy questions and the problems that the United States faces. Let's complete a budget. Not a thing of that is done. I heard that this particular session of this Congress has done 60 bills. When I walk over, I always ask my staff, ``Which post offices are we naming today?'' That's what we have done. If you're looking for a record of accomplishment, look in the Senate, which is the cave in the winds which usually does very little. But they are putting us to shame because they are, in fact, legislating while we are over here dithering around with a nonsensical piece of legislation that accomplishes nothing except to try to vindicate a failed investigation where subpoenas were thrown around like rice at a wedding. I say it is time for us to buckle down if we're going to go on here with some pride in our faces and with our heads held up. Let's go out on a piece of legislation that accomplishes something. This accomplishes nothing except to make a few people who couldn't do their job feel good. So my counsel to the House is: Let's vote this nonsense down. Let's decide that we're going to do something right around here for a change, even though it's late in the session. Mr. Chairman, why are we spending time on this deplorable piece of legislation when we should be doing the work of the people? We should be passing bipartisan legislation to continue our economic recovery and create jobs for the unemployed. This is no more than a sorry attempt to stick it in the eye of our president when really what we are doing is sticking it to the American worker. For this entire Congress, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee has piddled unsuccessfully, call it an investigation of the Solyndra loan. As members of this body know, I am a strong proponent of fighting government waste and corruption through vigorous oversight regardless of what Administration is in charge. However, time and time again, this investigation refused to focus on the issues at hand and instead engaged in a political witch hunt in an attempt to embarrass this Administration. A witch hunt is not what this country needs; what we need are investments in innovative technologies and sources of energy so America does not fall further behind countries such as China, Korea, Germany, and others who are subsidizing innovative energy technology. We must take charge in innovation and this investigation and the bill before us fails to do either. The end result of this investigation is a bill that does nothing more than to stifle innovation, prevent job creation, and subverts a program that was created through bipartisan legislation and signed into law by a Republican president. We have underinvested in energy for decades and commercial deployment, with U.S. investments, will actually make our companies more competitive in the global market. By freezing this loan program, Republicans will only stifle another opportunity to put our economy back on the right path and create new jobs. I, along with all of the chairmen of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Speaker, and the Majority Leader worked in a bipartisan way in 2005 to create this loan program that would invest in our economy and our workforce. The legislation and the loan program were then signed into law by a Republican president. The investigation uncovered no undue political influence from the White House. What has changed the mind of the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and Republican leadership to undo that bipartisan cooperation? We cannot simply be the House of ``no.'' We can and we must do better for the sake of our country. I must ask my Republican colleagues, is your priority this Congress to build partisan talking points or build a stronger American economy that can compete in the global economy of the 21st century? I hope it is the latter because I know I was elected to do the work of the people and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will start doing the same.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in great frustration. It is a sad state of affairs when one of the few bipartisan achievements of this Congress is to delay major federal spending decisions for another six months. I will reluctantly support H.J. Res. 117, the Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013, so funding for the government can continue, but I want to be clear that this is no way to run the country. We need to return to regular order and consider each of the 12 appropriations bills individually and in their entirety. A failure to do so is an abdication of the duty of Congress as enumerated by our most sacred document, the Constitution. I oppose the next bill, H.R. 6365, which has an interesting name. In reality, it is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to back out of the bipartisan deal struck last year in the Budget Control Act (BCA). We all agree that sequestration should be avoided, but it should be done within the framework of the BCA, instead of bypassing the deal to which we all agreed. I have long said everything should be on the table as we seek to reduce our deficit. I believe a balanced approach for doing so is the only legitimate way forward. H.R. 6365 abandons this approach by implementing deeper cuts in domestic programs so as to increase defense spending, and avoiding sequestration entirely. This is a cynical attempt at balancing our Nation's books. It does not ask the wealthiest among us to contribute a penny more to our country's needs. We must be fighting for the middle class and making smart, targeted investments to grow our economy and to create jobs, not needlessly slashing important domestic programs to protect millionaires and billionaires. Congress has little time remaining to prevent sequestration from going into effect. I call on all members to come together and help find a serious, balanced solution to deal with our deficit, instead of engaging in political theatrics by passing H.R. 6365.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5949, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act, FAA. Matters of national security are of the utmost importance and we should ensure that the government has the necessary tools to keep America safe. Yet, we must always balance this with protecting the civil liberties of American citizens. Unfortunately, this legislation before us today fails this important test. I voted against this legislation when it was first passed in 2008 and I continue to have many of the same reservations and objections to the policies set forth by the FAA. I continue to be concerned that the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens are not adequately protected by this legislation, which is of the utmost importance. Specifically, FAA makes an end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, by allowing the government to conduct surveillance without a FISC warrant. Such a broad exercise of power undermines our system of checks and balances and has grave implications for the protection of our constitutional rights. We should be enhancing the role of the FISC to ensure that the rights of American citizens are protected while the government collects intelligence to help defend our nation. Additionally, the five-year extension provided by this legislation will ensure that regardless of which candidate wins the presidency on November 6, their administration will have these powers for the length of their term. A shorter extension would allow Congress to conduct the proper oversight over the use of these authorities and to better examine whether such authorities are still necessary to ensure the protection of our citizens. Regardless of who is in the White House, it is the duty of this body to ensure that the power of the executive branch is not unfettered and that proper oversight is conducted. It is in this spirit that I cast my vote against this legislation today.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the Energy & Commerce Committee has been able to come up with another bipartisan piece of legislation that addresses a significant problem. I thank Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, as well as my good friends Mr. Green and Mr. Doyle. The work they and their staffs put into this bill is admirable. To quote Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, ``the law is an ass.'' Current law makes no sense by forcing a utility to comply with one federal agency and then be fined by another for complying. The bill before us eliminates this contradiction and will provide certainty to utilities that might need to operate under an order in the future. I believe the compromise negotiated will allow environmental protections to stay in place while ensuring the Department of Energy has the tools it needs in order to respond quickly to true emergencies. Of the few emergency orders that have been issued under the Federal Power Act, most have been short term propositions. If an emergency order violates an environmental law, the negotiated compromise will allow the Department of Energy to react to an emergency situation and quickly issue a 90 day order which is longer than most of the orders that have been implemented. Should the emergency last longer than 90, the Department is required to consult with the appropriate Federal agency of the violated environmental law. The appropriate agency will submit its recommendations on how to tailor the extended order to minimize violations adverse environmental impacts. The Department of Energy may exclude recommendations it believes will interfere with implementation of the emergency order. I believe this is a good piece of compromise legislation that solves an unnecessary contradiction in current law. I urge all my colleagues to support the Olson bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Citizens United v. FEC is one of the most destructive Supreme Court decisions in the history of this country. It unleashed the floodgates for unlimited expenditures on elections; ignored factual records; disregarded congressional intent; and opened up the floodgates of crime, misbehavior, and scandal. In addition to that, people are going to be spending money without knowing who is having it spent, why, or for how much or by whom. That is why, today, I, along with a number of my colleagues, will be introducing the Restoring Confidence in Our Democracy Act. This legislation makes findings of fact about the negative effects of unlimited spending which the Court cannot ignore. It reinstates the law that was in place on the day before Citizens United was adopted by the Court. It prohibits corporate spending in elections, and it subjects super PACs to $5,000 contribution limits. Don't wait for a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United. Support the Restoring Confidence in Our Democracy Act, and let us do it by an enactment of Congress preceded by the necessary findings pointing out the evils of this scandal. We will be back in less than 30 days, and we are going to find out after the primary elections and after the general election what an outrage this is.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we are finally addressing the problem before the House, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1627, the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act. This is long overdue. The most noteworthy thing we can observe about the behavior of the military leadership is they have been uncooperative and have been most diligent in obfuscating the problem and seeing to it that the matter has been unduly dawdled over while our military personnel were both put at risk and placed in a position where their families also shared that risk and hazard. I want to thank Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Miller, and my dear friend, Mr. Michaud, for the things that they have done to see to it that finally justice is being done. The victims of the Camp Lejeune contamination disaster have waited too long for justice for themselves and for their families. The passage of this legislation today is an important first step in moving forward and providing for the victims of what has been a long and ongoing tragedy. It is also evidence that there is still a great need for us to see to it that the military cooperates in these kinds of investigations and see to it that the military goes beyond that and that they conduct a cleanup of the military facilities where we send our military personnel and their families. In 2004, I conducted a series of investigations into this and other contamination problems as the ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. After meeting with the Marine Corps personnel and Master Sergeant Jerry Ensminger, whose daughter died of a rare form of leukemia at the age of 9, I must confess that I can come to no conclusion other than that that was caused by where her father had been serving and the fact that the military had not been diligent in cleaning up its messes. These investigations revealed a great coverup and much foot dragging and obfuscation on the part of the Department of the Navy to properly deal with the consequences of the contamination. They also showed other failures by the Department of Defense in other places, including installations in far distant points of service like Japan. With the passage of this bill, veterans of Camp Lejeune and their families who also served there are going to receive some measure of justice and help in addressing the problems they have because of where they were compelled to serve and because of lack of diligence on the part of the military to see that they were properly cared for. They will now be eligible, if they served between 1957 and 1987, to receive VA health benefits for illnesses connected with that contamination. While the passage of this legislation is a success, we all know there's much more to be done. The veterans deserve the presumptions of the service connection in the bill to ensure that they receive important benefits to which they are due. That is simply a proper concern for our veterans and for their safety. They and their families should not be put at unnecessary risk by places that they serve solely by reason of the fact that they serve at a particular place and because of slothful, improper behavior by the Department of Defense higher-ups and because of coverups in which they did not cooperate in seeing to the proper safeguards of our Federal employees there and our military personnel who were serving there involuntarily as a part of their superb contribution to the safety of this Nation. The fight continues, and I'm hopeful that we can continue to bring justice to the victims of Camp Lejeune, and to see to it that others of our military are not put at risk because of slothful, improper, and dilatory behavior by the Department of Defense. I ask my colleagues here to understand our duty in seeing to it that the families of our military and our military personnel are not put at risk by where they serve or by indifferent and careless behavior of their government. The government has a duty not just to see to it that our military personnel are made whole, but they do have the duty to see to it that our military bases and military service are not put at risk by actions which make the points of service of our military unnecessarily risky because of contamination in the places where our military and their families live and work. Here we have another high duty, and that is to see to it that the military personnel are kept safe with their families at their side as they serve in the military bases. The Military leadership must recognize their responsibility not to put our soldiers, sailors and airmen at risk by reason of the places they serve. They confront enough risk from their duty, without careless and indifferent behavior of their superiors, who first disregard safety of the facilities, and then expand the risk by reason of cover ups and obfuscation of the facts and the need to clean up messes unnecessarily caused and improperly denied.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5856, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013. We are still a nation at war. Our troops continue to remain in harm's way fighting for our country in Afghanistan. Our consideration of this legislation must begin with an acknowledgement of this critical fact. In that light, I am pleased that this legislation gives our troops the support they need while they are serving our Nation abroad. The bill provides $519.2 billion for the Department of Defense's base budget, and $88.5 billion in funding for the war. It also gives a 1.7 percent pay raise to our troops and provides $2.3 billion for family support and advocacy programs. I am also very pleased to see the Committee include $181 million in funding to keep the M-1 Abrams tank production line in operation, which will help ensure our military industrial base is strong and vibrant. The legislation also provides $1.6 billion for activities to counter Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), which continue to be a leading killer of our troops abroad. All of these programs are an accurate reflection of our priorities as a nation. That being said, I am dismayed that House Republicans chose to write all of this year's appropriations bills under a lower limit than was established under the Budget Control Act (BCA). The BCA represents a bipartisan compromise on Federal spending and it should be respected. The Senate Committee on Appropriations is moving forward with the limit established under the BCA with the blessing of the Republican leadership. Such a disconnect between the two bodies on an issue of critical significance only adds to the uncertainty surrounding our economy and is not in our national interest. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation so our troops can know they have the support of the Congress.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend for yielding. This is the gavel I used when I presided over the passage of Medicare and when I presided over the passage of legislation called ACA. This legislation takes care of the American people. I'm willing to loan it to my Republican colleagues if they'll use it in a good cause. It's even been on television with ``The Daily Show.'' But what is important here is you're going to win the vote, but you're going to lose the case and the debate because the American people know what you're trying to take away from them. This is the 31st time we've voted on this. And it is the law. We have 44 days left to finish the business of this Congress, according to your whip's office. And interestingly enough, we're not going to deal with important questions like jobs, employment, the economy. We have the worst economy, which the President inherited, since the days of Herbert Hoover. The American people are going to wonder why this Congress has not been doing it. Well, the reason is the Republicans have been wasting the public's time. And in those 44 days, they're not going to be able to do the Nation's business. The unemployed are going to continue to be unemployed. I'll loan you the gavel if you promise to use it for something good because it's a fine piece of wood and its tasks in terms of dealing with the public's concerns are not yet done. But having said these things, I say shame. You are wasting the time of the American people. You are wasting the time of the Congress.

Mr. DINGELL. You're wasting the time of the Congress. You've told us how you're going to repeal and replace. Where is the replacement? It is not to be seen. Where are the steps that you should be taking about jobs and opportunity for the American people? They are not to be seen. You have the gavel, use it. Use the leadership that the people have given you to lead the Congress of the United States. The Democrats will work with you. But you won't work with us, and you won't work for the American people. The time of dealing with the business of this Nation is short, and the needs of the American people are great. But nowhere are we seeing anything done by our Republican colleagues except to get up and denounce ObamaCare. I say have a more enlightened outlook and proceed to do the Nation's business well.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5972. While this is not a perfect bill, it will fund important transportation and housing projects creating well-paying jobs across this country. I am pleased that this bill provides a much-needed increase to Amtrak, which will greatly help Amtrak accommodate growing ridership and develop intercity passenger rail. It also continues to invest in the FAA's NextGen air traffic control modernization effort, which will help to keep our public airspace safe and reduce flight times. The Community Development Block Grants program is also fully funded helping local governments to address housing and social service issues unique to their communities. It also fully funds the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program, providing the nearly 70,000 homeless veterans with long-term housing when they need it. However, I want to express my deep disappointment that this bill does not provide any funding to high speed intercity passenger rail or the TIGER program. Both of these programs have proven to be successful and play an integral role in bringing our infrastructure in to the 21st Century. At a time when you have labor and business--the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO--calling for stronger investment in our infrastructure, it is shortsighted that we not provide this necessary funding. We cannot continue to compete with our neighbors abroad if we are not improving and growing our infrastructure. My colleagues in the House, on the left and the right, have called for a jobs package and this funding could have been that first step. I am disappointed at the lack of funding for critical housing programs. This bill drastically cuts funds to the Project-Based Section 8 voucher program that provides rental assistance to approximately 1.2 million low-income families. Furthermore, there is no funding for programs that would help rebuild blighted communities. Not only would eliminating blight and rebuilding neighborhoods create jobs, but they would also rejuvenate communities in areas like Southeast Michigan that were hit so hard by the collapse of the housing market and the economic recession. Taken as a whole Mr. Chair, H.R. 5972 will make needed investments in our transportation and housing infrastructure, but more must be done. As our bridges, roads, sewers, buildings, and neighborhoods crumble, we cannot afford to underfund critical programs that rehabilitate and rebuild. We cannot move in to the 21st century with 20th century investments. I call on my colleagues to pass a strong surface transportation reauthorization that will fix this oversight of needed funding and put Americans across the country back to work bettering our neighborhoods and communities.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4348. While this is not a perfect bill, it will fund important transportation projects while creating well-paying jobs across this country. H.R. 4348 will reauthorize through the end of fiscal year 2014 our highway and transit programs at current levels--$105 billion. While I am disappointed in this short-term reauthorization, I do believe this authorization will provide some stability to our state and local governments. We know that for every $1 billion of federal funds invested in our highway and transit infrastructure nearly 39,000 jobs are created or sustained. This investment will give our transportation industry the ability to continue to create thousands of jobs across our country. I am also extremely pleased that all states will be guaranteed a minimum rate of return of 95 percent on their payments into the Highway Trust Fund. During the last reauthorization I worked hard with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to increase Michigan's rate of return to 92 percent, and I am pleased to be able to support increasing it once again. This bill will continue the Safe Routes to School program, and the transportation enhancement activities such as bike paths, bike lanes, and trails. This program has been critical to helping communities in my district, like Ann Arbor, to make their communities more livable and attractive to families and businesses, while also greening our environment by providing alternatives for their commute. Furthermore, I am pleased that H.R. 4348 will continue to fund our mass-transit program, providing funding to critical projects that will bring our transit infrastructure into the 21st Century. I am disappointed that H.R. 4348 did not reauthorize the Coordinated Border Infrastructure program. Michigan was one of the leaders in creating CBIP given its critical relationship with Canada and it has been instrumental in addressing border congestion. It is my hope that we can reauthorize this program in the coming months. Unfortunately, this bill does not include any provisions directing the Department of Transportation to develop a long-term national rail plan. I passed one of the first pieces of legislation authorizing investment in high-speed rail, but there has never been a strong commitment to bringing our rail program into the 21st Century until this Administration. This Administration has wisely invested billions of dollars into bringing highspeed rail travel across the country and to corridors outside the Northeast. By ignoring this goal we are halting the progress of high- speed rail and falling further behind our neighbors abroad. I would have liked for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, or LWCF, reauthorization and funding to be included in the final bill. LWCF was included in the Senate language with overwhelming bipartisan support and I joined with 145 of my House colleagues requesting the conference committee to include the reauthorization and funding. LWCF develops local partnerships to conserve critical wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing access, state and local parks, productive forests, and important lands to be protected for future generations. I hope the House will give serious consideration to reauthorizing and funding LWCF in the coming weeks. This bill includes a one-year extension of the 3.4 percent interest rate for subsidized Stafford student loans. I am happy that this is finally being authorized because as we continue to recover economically, we must ensure that students can afford a higher education. There were nearly 48,000 students attending a university or college in my district last year who received one of these loans and doubling the interest rate would have a significant impact on students as they get ready to start the new school year. Our children, 25 percent of our population, are 100 percent of our future. They are counting on us and I am pleased we are now standing up for the future to make higher education and job training affordable. While we are taking a step forward today, we must start thinking towards next July when this one-year extension will expire. We cannot wait until the last minute to address this issue as we did this year. We must start thinking now about how to deal with this problem. This is not just a campaign talking point, this affects students and families and can be the difference between achieving your goals or being priced out of your dreams. The Flood Insurance extension is a much needed part of this compromise. As we continue to experience extreme weather across the country, we need to ensure that homeowners with flooded homes can get the help they need to put their lives back together. However, as FEMA works on implementing new floodplain maps, we must ensure that the maps make sense. Homeowners and small businesses in my district are being driven out of the homes and stores due to the high cost of flood insurance that they've never had to pay before. I urge FEMA to continue to work with local governments to address these concerns and keep families in their homes and small businesses open. I applaud this bill, and I hope my colleagues keep working together in this manner--actually passing bills that make a difference and take action instead of playing political football on issues that do not impact the majority of Americans.

Mr. DINGELL

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

Mr. DINGELL. I rise to offer this motion to refer so that this investigation can focus on the real issues at hand and to get the facts. I begin by expressing my respect and affection for the chairman of the committee, Mr. Issa. I want to see a proper investigation and the facts gotten about serious misbehavior and utter incompetence at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives, called the ATF. This is a tragedy. I have had the entirety of the motion read so that we can understand what a real investigation is. I didn't roll off the cabbage wagon yesterday, Mr. Speaker. I chaired committees for over 20 or 30 years, and I have conducted more investigations than any man in this particular body. It is clear that the events here were characterized by dishonest, evasive, and deceitful activities on the part of ATF personnel. I want to find out what has happened. This is not the first time I've crossed swords with ATF and this is not the first time I have found them engaged in shameful, illegal, and improper behavior. In one instance, I caught them raiding the home of an individual. They shot him in the brain and they pitched his wife, in her underpants, out into the hall. Operation Fast and Furious was a highly irresponsible operation that never should have occurred. People on both sides of this aisle agree to that. The American people want the answers and they deserve to have a proper, thorough, and bipartisan investigation that gets them the truth. My constituent Brian Terry wants the truth from the grave, and his families asks that we get the truth. With God as my judge, they deserve it, and they shall have it if I can get it for them. I have shared scores of investigations and hearings over 50 years on wrongdoing which have collected hundreds of millions of dollars wrongfully taken from our people and have caught more than a few serious wrongdoers, who have paid proper penalties for their wrongdoing. These investigations were always bipartisan, with both sides of the aisle actively participating and fully informed. The actions of the committee were unanimously conducted and supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. What we see before us does not follow that model, and it brings no respect to this body. As someone who holds the institution here in the highest regard, I find this to be most troubling. Instead of going after the real answers and getting the facts about what happened at ATF, the majority of the committee has engaged in what appears to be a partisan political witch hunt, with the Attorney General as its target. Over the 16-month investigation, Democrats were not permitted to call a single witness to testify. So much for bipartisanship. The American people deserve better than this, Mr. Speaker. They deserve a legitimate inquiry based on facts which all Members of this body can support. This is not a Second Amendment question. I have defended the Second Amendment more than any Member of this body, and I am a past member of the board of directors of NRA and a life member of that body. We deserve, and the American people deserve, a legitimate inquiry based on the facts. It seems to me there's a simple way to resolve this dispute. First, adopt the resolution. Then see to it that the Attorney General produces the documents that are currently at issue, and I will actively support the gentleman and see to it that those facts and documents are presented. Second, the House Republicans should give a good-faith commitment to work towards resolving the contempt fight. If the documents in fact are consistent with the Attorney General's testimony that he never authorized or approved or knew about gunwalking, then I think we should consider the matter of contempt resolved.

Mr. DINGELL. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. DINGELL. I yield myself the balance of my time. Well, I was aware of this. I have communicated with the family my sorrow at their loss, and my office is setting up a meeting with the Terry family as soon as I can get back to Michigan. My motion here would ensure that the witnesses the minority has requested, including the former Director of ATF during the time of this operation, are called for a full, open public hearing to ensure that the American people get the whole story. I'm not here solely representing the interests of the Terry family. I'm here representing the interests of the whole country and all of the 800,000 people that I serve in the 15th District of Michigan. As I've said on a number of occasions in the last year, Congress has two choices in their decisionmaking: we can work together and get something done, or we can play political football. I choose to get something done, which is why I have offered a resolution. And if you have listened to what I had read by the Clerk, you will observe that it says we want a full, thorough, bipartisan investigation. That's the way the matter should be done. And Members on this side will support the findings of that investigation if the chairman of that committee will permit this kind of undertaking to be begun. I would observe this very interesting fact. The contempt resolution is going to give the same instructions to the same fellow who is under contempt. He will simply put it in his pocket, and we will find that this body has been weakened in its dealings with the executive branch. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it. I rise in strong support of it, and I urge my colleagues to join. This legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support on both sides of the Capitol and from industry and patient groups. We should also be proud of the work we have done to get it here today. I would observe that it has been done because the Members worked together in the finest traditions of this body. And I'm also proud of the work that my colleagues on the committee and the staff have done on this matter. I was pleased to work with them to include strong upstream drug supply chain provisions, something that's been a long priority of mine. I'm also pleased that, for the first time, commercial importers will be required to register, so we'll know who's bringing what in and whether it's safe or not. There will also be parity between inspections of domestic and foreign drug facilities, something which is a major problem because foreign facilities and foreign manufacturers now import much into this country, much of which is unsafe and improperly inspected. FDA will be able to maintain a practice in which they will detain and destruct counterfeit drugs and those which are unsafe or intentionally or otherwise adulterated, and they will be able to impose increased penalties on those who adulterate these drugs and pharmaceuticals. These provisions, which mirror safety provisions in my drug safety bill, will equip FDA with the authorities it needs to better oversee our increasingly globalized drug supply chain and will give American families comfort that the pharmaceuticals that they are taking are safe, and help to deter and to respond to any future heparin-like incidents which killed some 80 Americans and hurt thousands more. While I am disappointed we were unable to come forward with a consensus on a national track-and-trace standard, it's my hope that we will continue to work on this in coming days. And I want to commend my colleagues, Mr. Matheson and Mr. Bilbray, for the fine work they have done on this matter. I've also been working on this issue for many years, and we've come closer than ever before to finding a consensus. Given additional time, I think we could have resolved this issue; but because of time pressures, we were not able to. I also want to thank my friends, Mr. Upton, Mr. Harkin, Ranking Members Waxman and Enzi, and their staff for the hard work they did to send this critical bill to the President before July 4. I also want to thank Kimberly Trzeciak of my staff for her diligence on the supply chain provisions and other matters. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It will be something of which we will be proud. It will confer much safety on the American people in areas of very substantial danger; and it will see to it that, to a modest degree at least, the industry-supported provisions, including those which involved the collection of fees, will begin to work for the benefit of the American people.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 436. We find ourselves, yet again, going through another Republican dog and pony show as my colleagues attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act bit by bit without replacing any of these pieces. I cannot even count how many of these circuses we have gone through this session. Instead of working for their constituents, my friends across the aisle are busy concocting schemes solely for political gain that will ultimately cost the American people, this time to the tune of more than $29 billion. That's right, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the medical device tax is repealed it will add to our deficit. I think we would all agree that the medical technology industry is a critical industry, employing more than 400,000 workers nationwide and more than 9,000 in my home state. The work that they do is critical to keeping the American people healthy and to keeping our country competitive. During the drafting of the Affordable Care Act, the medical device industry, along with pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and hospitals, committed to doing their part to make health reform a reality. Advocating to repeal the medical device tax appears to me to be going back on that commitment to the President and the American people. Supporters of H.R. 436 like to say the medical device tax hurts small manufacturers, but the reality is the ten largest manufacturers will pay 86 percent of the tax. These same supporters claim the tax will result in the loss of jobs, but they seem to forget about the millions of new customers that the ACA will provide device companies. It seems to me that if you have 33 million more people with the ability to access medical devices, companies may need some employees to help them meet this new demand. I agree that it is important that the medical device industry can continue to succeed, and I believe that the Affordable Care Act will do so. In addition to abolishing the medical device tax, H.R. 436 aims to repeal the definitions the Affordable Care Act put in place for tax- advantaged flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts. A small minority of workers benefit in minor ways from these accounts, whereas millions of Americans will be guaranteed access to comprehensive, affordable health care through the ACA. By enacting these provisions the ACA raises over $4 billion. The Republicans think they will pay for dismantling the ACA with changes they already used to finance two earlier pieces of legislation. Dipping repeatedly into a pot of money that will force hundreds of thousands of citizens to forgo health care coverage is not a viable solution. While my colleagues speak about wanting to balance our budget and reduce our deficit they are busy repealing a tax that would add to our precarious fiscal circumstances and taking away provisions enacted in the ACA that generate vitally needed dollars. And, my friends, we are all aware of the age old axiom that actions speak louder than words. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not a constructive use of this body's time. We cannot re-litigate the debates of the past. If we are to improve the health care that we are delivering to patients, and inspiring and encouraging innovation in our industry, I stand ready and willing to work with my colleagues on bipartisan legislation that will do so.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DINGELL. I want to begin by expressing great respect and affection for my friend from Montana who has just spoken. It was a fine speech, but it has nothing to do with the issues before us. What the committee, in this legislation, has done has been to simply assure that the Corps of Engineers may not put forth guidelines clarifying the law as it was enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case that we are discussing in connection with the Clean Water Act. It does something more. It fixes it so that farmers will lose certain protections which have been put in for their benefit by the law. And you're going to find, as my friend from Maryland has so wisely observed, that you are going to hurt a bunch of American farming public by denying them a protection which has been given them. Citizens, under the language of the committee bill, will have no way of knowing what the law is or how it is interpreted by the committee. It is not an issue before us today whether or not you agree with the Clean Water Act. The question is, simply: Is the Corps of Engineers going to be able to tell people what the law is and how it is to be interpreted by the Corps and how citizens will then have to behave? Under the law, the amendment simply says the Corps may inform people of what the law, as set forth in the Supreme Court's rulings, means. I think that is something which is important in terms of seeing to it that people may go forward with their planning, with economic development and everything of that sort. It is not wise to deny citizens this kind of information. It is extremely unwise to deny business the opportunity to know what it is they must do to comply with the law as enunciated by the Supreme Court. The amendment makes great sense. The bill, as written, simply re-fights an issue that is not before this body at this time. I hate to see the kind of confusion that is being inflicted upon this body by a simple misunderstanding of what the law is, what the bill does, and what the amendment does. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. If you want clarity, if you want people to know how to comply with the law as set forth by the Supreme Court, adopt the amendment. If you want confusion and if you want misfortune to be visited on farmers and the public and confusion to afflict economic development and business, then support the bill as it is and oppose the amendment. There is a tremendous lack of wisdom here in this fight. Let us understand the issue that plagues us, which is simply whether or not the Corps of Engineers is going to be able to tell people what the law is. At issue is not any change in the law. The amendment accepts the fact that the Supreme Court has made a decision. I happen to strongly disagree with that decision by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I am going to have to wait until some future time to come down and attack what is clear misbehavior by the Supreme Court. I was on the floor and had a colloquy with the management of the legislation at the time the bill was passed, and the Supreme Court has clearly disregarded and ignored the legislative history and, worse than that, the clear language of the bill. That issue is not before us today. What is before us today is simply: Are the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Government going to be able to tell the people what the law is as set forth by the Supreme Court? To say anything else about this legislation is either to be misled or to mislead. I would beg my colleagues to vote in favor of the intelligent approach of seeing to it that we are going to allow people to know what the law is and allow the Corps of Engineers to set out what the law is for the benefit of business, industry, and people. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Moran-Dingell amendment which will protect not only the Clean Water Act but also the power and integrity of the United States Congress. When the Clean Water Act was passed, I stood on the floor of this House as one of its authors and explained the intent of the Conference Report on the Clean Water Act in a colloquy with Representative Jim Wright of Texas, who was managing the bill. I said, `'the conference bill defines the term `navigable waters' broadly for water quality purposes. It means all `the waters of the United States' in a geographical sense. It does not mean the `navigable waters of the United States' in the technical sense as we sometimes see in some laws.'' In 2006, the Supreme Court significantly restricted the original Congressional intent of the Federal government's authority under the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court completely ignored Congress' intent to provide a broader definition of ``U.S. waters'' and instead upended 35 years of precedence simply because they refused to properly review the legislative history of laws made on this floor by those managing the bill. Because of the Supreme Court's misguided decision, the Army Corps of Engineers is working on new guidelines that will take into account the decision of the Court and define what their new jurisdiction will be under the Clean Water Act. This is not a massive expansion of power by the Corps as some would have the House believe. This is simply an honest attempt to comply with the Supreme Court's decision. By preventing the Corps from spending any funds to implement these new guidelines, this House would be casting a dark pall of uncertainty over the country. If someone wants to build a home or new business near a wetland or other body of water, do they need to consult with the Army Corps of Engineers before doing so? The language in this bill would not answer that question and would lead to more costs and confusion to that homeowner or businessperson in legal and court fees. The language in this bill would lead to more court battles and create a wonderful mess that would lead to lawyers making plenty of money. I ask my colleagues to not let the Supreme Court to blatantly ignore established Congressional intent and to instead allow the Army Corps of Engineers to do the work we told them to do and to implement new guidelines conforming to the court's decision. Please vote for the Moran-Dingell Amendment.