John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) provides critical support to distressed communities. Assistance for the productive reuse of abandoned industrial facilities and the redevelopment of brownfields is encouraged by the EDA Reauthorization Act and I agree with this worthy goal. To the limited extent EDA is involved in funding assessment or cleanup of brownfields sites, the intent of the EDA bill is that grant funds shall only be provided consistent with the ``Polluter Pays'' principle. When federal funds are provided for assessment or cleanup, it is important to ensure that the costs not be shifted from the polluter to the taxpayer. This principle applies broadly whether the projects are addressed under CERCLA, in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, or under other environmental laws. For example, in a statement to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on April 28, 2004, David Sampson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, told the Committee that ``EDA is not seeking to in any way relieve a responsible party from liability under CERCLA nor to provide funds to a party to undertake clean-ups required under CERCLA, since to do so would undercut the `Polluter Pays' principle on which CERCLA was founded.'' I intend to follow up on the progress of the EDA brownfields program, and to see that taxpayer funds do not bail out responsible parties. On October 5, 2004, I sent a letter to EDA with the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, Representative Solis, requesting detailed information on the brownfields cleanup program. A successful brownfields program assists in the redevelopment of abandoned sites with limited contamination. This goal must be achieved without sacrificing environmental protection and without shifting the burden of the cleanup to taxpayers when the polluters can be held accountable.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Chairman Barton that the digital television transition has taken too long and that we need to quickly get our police officers, firefighters, and other first responders an additional 24 megahertz of spectrum to help them safely do their jobs. This spectrum, currently occupied by television channels 63, 64, 68, and 69, is set to be turned over to first responders once the stations broadcasting on those channels transition to digital. Can the federal government speed this up? Some have proposed getting first responders this spectrum more quickly by requiring certain broadcasters to return their spectrum by the end of 2006. This suggestion, though well intentioned, is a simplistic approach to a complex problem. It does not ensure that the public safety sector will be ready to use this new spectrum. Also, this suggestion, by supplanting certain broadcasters directly, and shutting down others to prevent interference, will prevent many consumers from receiving important programming such as local news and weather. Finally, it will also disproportionately harm the Hispanic community by shutting down a number of Spanish-language stations. Likewise, the amendment before us today does not reflect the complexity of this issue. Although I agree with Chairman Barton that we need to speed up the digital transition, the amendment declares that we should establish a hard deadline of December 31, 2006, when all analog television broadcasts on all channels would cease. Such an absolute declaration is premature. It would not allow enough time for affordable equipment to come to market or to properly educate consumers about the transition. Moreover, it could result in many consumers losing their television service. That must not happen. Congress needs to address the digital transition issue soon in a comprehensive way, addressing, among others, three major issues. First, we need to expedite public safety's access to new spectrum and provide them with certainty so they know when they will be receiving new spectrum. Certainty will allow first responders time to plan how to use the spectrum. It will also allow them time to line up the funding necessary to make use of the spectrum once it becomes available. Second, we need to implement a far-reaching plan to educate consumers on what will happen once the digital transition is complete. It is important that consumers know when the transition will take place, how it will take place, and what it means for them with regard to their television viewing. Third, consumers should not bear unfair cost burdens, and we need to have a program in place to provide subsidies so that no one is left behind as the United States transitions to digital television. I am pleased that Chairman Barton recognizes the need to tackle these issues in a thoughtful and comprehensive way. Unfortunately, I cannot support the amendment before us today because it is premature and could lead to consumers losing their television service. I am confident, however, that regardless of which party controls the House next Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will work on a bipartisan basis to properly address these issues in a way that will speed up the digital transition, provide certainty to public safety regarding new spectrum, and protect consumers from losing their television service.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 10. This is a bad bill. This is a partisan bill. This is an arrogant bill. Unlike the other body, the majority excluded Democrats from the process. They met behind closed doors and came up with their bill. They did this with the Medicare Bill. They did this with the Energy Bill. Now they are doing this with important Intelligence Reform bill. The Commission made 41 recommendations. These were unanimous. There were 5 Republican and 5 Democratic Commissioners. There was no dissent. This bill implements only 11 recommendations. It ignores 15 recommendations of those recommendations. Worst of all, this bill includes over 50 extraneous provisions that were not in the final 9/11 Commission report. This bill does not meet the important requirements of the 9/11 Commission report. Mr. Speaker, the Congress handed the bipartisan 9/11 Commission the task to thoroughly investigate Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and how it financed, trained, and aided the terrorist hijackers. We asked them to create a report of there findings. They did. We asked the commission to come back with recommendations. They did. We must not pick and choose recommendations based upon the election season. As the 9/11 Commissioners repeatedly emphasized before our congressional committees, it is important to enact the recommendations as a complete package. This bill fails to create the government wide civil liberties board recommended by the commission and contained in the Senate bill. This bill fails to give the National Intelligence Director sufficient authority over the budget and personnel of the intelligence agencies. This bill fails to secure U.S. borders by integrating disparate screening systems. Worst of all, it includes over 50 provisions that were not part of the report. Of those additional provisions, three are particularly appalling. It gives the President ``fast track'' authority to reorganize the intelligence agencies, undermining the reforms recommended by the 9/11 Commission. It gives the President authority to bypass Senate confirmation of the Director of the CIA and other key intelligence and defense officials, weakening congressional oversight. Finally, it gives Federal law enforcement officials new authority to deport foreign nationals, revoke visas, and deny asylum without judicial review. If we brought up the bipartisan bill offered by Congresswoman Maloney and Congressman Shays we could avoid the wrangling of a conference committee. We could avoid the delays and avoid weeks of uncertainty. Most of all, we could provide the American people some peace of mind. Mr. Chairman, we must not play politics with the national security of our country. We must work on a bipartisan basis to reform the system to make us more secure. This bill does not meet the important requirements of the 9/11 Commission report. This bill will not make us safe. I urge my colleagues to vote against this arrogant, partisan bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4518, the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004. I congratulate Chairmen Barton and Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Conyers and the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members of their hard work on this legislation. The task of combining separate Energy and Commerce and Judiciary Committee bills into a single product is never easy, but I am pleased with this bipartisan bill before us today. Let us hope that the other body will act with due haste to ensure that this legislation becomes law this year. I note that the bill before us incorporates the language of both H.R. 4501 and H.R. 4518 was solely referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 4518 was referred solely to the Committee on the Judiciary. The members of both committees worked long and hard on their respective bills. Accordingly, the legislative history on H.R. 4518 includes the legislative history of H.R. 4501. The bill before us achieves three very critical goals. First, it will increase regulatory parity between cable and satellite providers, thereby strengthen satellite companies' ability to compete in the multichannel video marketplace. Currently, cable providers can offer their subscribers out-of-market television signals that are ``significantly viewed'' in the subscribers' local communities. Satellite companies, however, are prevented by law from offering to their subscribers the same signals. This bill would change the law to provide satellite companies an equal right to provide their subscribers those ``significantly viewed'' signals. This increased parity should help spur greater competition between cable and satellite providers and ultimately benefit consumers in the form of lower prices and better service. Second, the act will protect consumers and foster localism by ensuring that satellite customers receive all of their local broadcast signals when these signals become available via satellite. Local broadcasters provide their communities with important local programming. Whether it is local news, weather, or community events, these broadcasters are there, on the ground serving their friends and neighbors. This idea of localism was recognized and fostered by Congress during the last reauthorization of this statute in 1999, through a provision called ``carry one, carry all.'' This policy mandates that a satellite provider, in a nondiscriminatory fashion, offer all local broadcast signals in a market if it offers one. Finally, I am also pleased that this bill will help protect consumer privacy. This bill will force satellite carriers to comply with the same privacy obligations that already apply to cable television providers. Personally identifiable information will now be better protected. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4518 will encourage competition between cable and satellite. It also furthers the goal of localism and protects consumers. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5163, the ``Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Reorganization Act.'' I thank my good friend Secretary Mineta for his leadership on this issue, and I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar for working cooperatively with Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Barton and me to ensure an acceptable outcome for all. The legislation we consider today accomplishes many worthy objectives. My remarks, however, will focus on one particular provision with respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The NHTSA administers many programs, including research and development, that improve the safety and fuel economy of motor vehicles in the United States. The authors of this legislation worked with Chairman Barton and me to ensure that these programs were not affected by the legislation before us today. Specifically, section 4(b) of the bill clearly states that the newly formed Research and Innovative Technology Administration will have no authority over the programs, activities, standards, and regulations of NHTSA over which the Committee on Energy and Commerce has jurisdiction, including motor vehicle safety and fuel economy. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4555, the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2004. I am proud to have introduced this bill, and proud to have helped author the original Mammography Quality Standards Act which has made a major contribution to improving the quality of mammograms. Just a few months ago, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a detailed reported entitled: ``Saving Women's Lives, Strategies for Improving Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis.'' According to the IOM, ``[m]ammography is a safety net that saves lives each year, . . . and although mammography saves lives, it is not perfect.'' The IOM report noted that many women who would benefit from mammography do not undergo regular screening and others who do undergo regular screening develop breast cancers that were not detected by their mammography exam. While the report notes that progress has been made in reducing mortality from breast cancer, it is still the second leading cause of death for women. While research will hopefully lead us to improved techniques for detecting and treating breast cancer, another IOM study entitled: ``Mammography and Beyond: Developing Technologies for Early Detection of Breast Cancer,'' concluded that mammography, while not perfect, is still the best choice for screening the general population to detect breast cancer at early and treatable stages. To be sure, there are important issues regarding quality and access with respect to screening and treatment services, and work on those will continue. This legislation is almost identical to S. 1879, a bill introduced by Senator Mikulski that has already been passed by the Senate. The only substantive difference is the authorization period. Our bill extends the authorization period through FY 2007, two years longer than the Senate bill. But I support a timely completion of various mammography issue studies requested by Senator Mikulski, and I look forward to working with her, Chairman Barton, my other colleagues, and stakeholders, including the Susan G. Komen Foundation, to bring an MQSA reauthorization bill to the President's desk as quickly as possible.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, ``Barbarians At the Digital Gate'' recently warned the front page of the Sunday New York Times Business Section. What elicited this alarming headline? Pernicious computer software commonly called ``spyware'' and ``adware''. These programs sneak onto your computer, and allow a third party to harvest your personal information. It is the equivalent of putting a wiretap on your phone and listening to your conversations. Adware tracks your Web surfing or online shopping so that marketers can send you unwanted ads. Spyware can hijack your computer to pornographic or gambling sites, or steal your passwords and credit card information. The rapid proliferation of spyware and adware has brought Internet use to a crossroads. It threatens legitimate Internet commerce. Consumer complaints are deluging computer call centers and regulators. The most common complaints are: hijacked home pages, redirected Web searches, a flood of pop-up ads, and sluggish and crashed computers. The bill, as amended, prohibits a number of deceptive acts or practices related to spyware, and provides for FTC enforcement and enhanced civil fines. It also recognizes that there are legitimate applications of spyware and, thus, exempts law enforcement, national security, network security, diagnostics and repair, and fraud detection from the SPY Act. It is a carefully balanced bill. Most importantly, this legislation contains opt-in protection for consumers. It requires companies that distribute spyware and adware to obtain permission from consumers through an easily understood licensing agreement before installing spyware or adware on their computers. The programs, once downloaded, would have to provide a means to identify the spyware or adware and easily uninstall or disable it. I also note that without aggressive enforcement, the goals of this bill will not be met. We are asking the FTC to do a great deal in a very complex area and I trust that the appropriators will provide them with sufficient resources to fulfill these tasks. This legislation is supported by a coalition that includes: the Business Software Alliance, the Center For Democracy and Technology, the Council for Marketing and Opinion Research, Dell, eBay Inc., Humana Inc., Microsoft, 180 Solutions, Time Warner/AOL United States Telecom Association, WhenU, and Yahoo!--all of whom have submitted letters of support. The bill has improved at every stage of its consideration, and I want to commend the leadership and hard work of Rep. Barton, the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Reps. Stearns and Schakowsky, the Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, and Reps. Bono and Towns, the lead Republican and Democrat sponsors of the bill. I also commend the bipartisan staff team who worked very hard over the last five months to get this bill to the Floor this year; David Cavicke, Shannon Jacquot, Crhis Leahy, Brian McCullough, Will Carty, Jennifer Baird, Consuela Washington, Diane Beedle, and Andrew Delia. I urge my Colleagues to vote ``yes'' on passage of H.R. 2929. It is a good bill. It's good for consumers. And it is good for honest commerce on the Internet.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I think this debate is pointing out something very important: This is a rich man's war and it is a poor man's fight. We have some of the finest young people in the world over there in the Mideast that are dying, better than 1,000 of them, and better than 8,000 have been wounded; but about 20,000 have had to be MedEvac'd out of there because of injuries and things of that kind. We do not have enough troops in the field to prevail. We had enough to win a war, but we do not have enough to win the peace, and we do not have enough people to police and to control a situation which is getting worse and worse and worse. The question is, if you are not going to have a draft, and I am not going to sport legislation, but how do you propose over here to get our people the troops that they need, to get the levels of force that they need to win? It is easy to stand around here and talk about, oh, how we must support our troops, it sounds very patriotic. But let us get some people over there. Let us get the necessary levels of force. Let us get the equipment that we need over there for our people. I would note, there is not enough equipment like body armor. There is not enough armor for the Humvees. Our people are dying in good part because of this, and they are dying in good part because there are not enough of them to properly address the problem of a clever and well- managed insurgency which is killing thousands of young Americans. I say that we are going to have to have a national debate on this. I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for having forced this issue to the House floor. I say, rather than making political points on this, my Republican colleagues should start to address something more important: Address how you are going to win; address how you are going to get the number of troops; address how you are going to produce the levels of force that are going to enable us to win, to get our people home safely and to carry out our real duty to the American people.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great sadness this evening to announce the death of our former colleague, Congressman William D. Ford. Mr. Ford died August 14th while the House was adjourned. Congressman Ford spent three decades serving the Nation as part of the U.S. House of Representatives. He was a great champion for the causes that concerned so many Michiganders. He worked every day of his life to be the champion of the working poor and the middle class. Bill Ford was a Member of the House from 1965 to 1995 representing Michigan's 15th and 13th Congressional Districts. During his thirty- year tenure, he served as Chairman of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and as Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor. He was the oldest child of immigrant Scottish parents and the first member of his family to attend college. Following his service in the U.S. Navy, he attended the University of Denver on the GI Bill. He was the author of the Middle Income Student Assistance Act, the Plant Closing Act and orchestrated the passage of the Family Medical Leave Act, the first law signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. In 1994 The Federal Direct Student Loan program was named for him in recognition of his efforts to expand educational opportunities for students and lower the cost of education for them. A champion of federal compensatory education programs to serve educationally disadvantaged children; he was an original sponsor of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. He had a special interest in programs serving students from migrant farm worker families. His father's death in a factory accident led to a lifelong commitment to protect the health and safety of employees in the workplace. Prior to serving in Congress, he was a delegate to the Michigan Constitutional Convention and a member of the Michigan State Senate. He also served as city attorney of Melvindale, Michigan; as attorney and as justice of the peace of Taylor Township, Michigan. He is survived by three children, William D, Ford Jr., Margaret Ford VanVleet and John Ford; three grandchildren, a sister, Janet Ford, and a brother, Robert Ford. A memorial service will be held tomorrow here in Washington. Michigan is a better place because of the work and dedication of William D. Ford. His life left its mark on our state, his death is a tremendous loss. Our sympathies go out to his loved ones, many friends and his dedicated former staffers in Washington and Michigan.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 106, the so called federal marriage amendment. This bill would turn over 200 years of state jurisprudence on its head, attempting to federalize marriage. This resolution is another attempt to mandate one definition of marriage upon the states. I ask my colleagues if we take away this right from the states, what's next? Where does it stop? Take away local decisions for education or child custody issues. Between the consideration of this bill and the court stripping bills that have passed this House, it leads me to believe, Mr. Speaker, this is just another cynical political ploy by the majority during an election year. Like Vice President Cheney and former Representative Bob Barr, I believe the voters of each state should decide for themselves who can and cannot marry. It has always been a state function. It should remain so. To take away that right of the state to decide this issue, we endanger basic principles of the federal system in which we live. As our Constitution so eloquently states in the Tenth Amendment of our federal Constitution, ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Mr. Speaker, amendment of our Constitution has happened only 17 times since the Bill of Rights was passed. Some of those amendments do not look so good today. Many of those not adopted now look worse. We should not lightly tamper with the perfection, beauty and majesty of our great Constitution. This bill was filed only last Friday, rushed through the Rules Committee on Tuesday night, and voted on today. There have been no Committee hearings, no time to look at different amendment proposals, and no opportunity to have the important deliberations that should take place when amending the Constitution. We have heard nothing from our concerned citizens and from our Constitutional scholars. The issue before us today is not whether you are for or against gay marriage. It is whether or not we should federalize marriage and take away the right of the states to define marriage. Now Mr. Speaker, I supported the Defense of Marriage Act and continue to do so. At this point, the Defense of Marriage Act remains the law of the land. It works. Nothing yet threatens this law. Those proposing this amendment rely on hypothetical dangers to try and push through a dramatic, but mischievous change to our Constitution. I am opposed to taking away the right of each state to have its citizenry decide how to define marriage. It seems to me too many people are meddling in this matter for political reasons. Let the states continue to decide sound public policy on this subject. We must never rush to amend our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill and ask for my colleagues to vote against this iniquitous, politically inspired, and destructive legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3193, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. This is a good bill. It is a sensible bill. This bill allows the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to protect their home and their families. For almost three decades now, the District of Columbia has had some of the most extensive gun control laws in the nation. Despite this, the District is not only known as our nation's capital, but also the murder capital of the world. This is shameful. Mr. Speaker, I stand before the full House to reiterate my strong support for the Second Amendment of the Constitution. I believe that all Americans have the right to own firearms. The citizens of Washington, D.C. should have the same rights as most other Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this sensible legislation and allow District of Columbia residents the means to protect themselves.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Catholic Charities of Monroe County in honor of its 50th anniversary. The Catholic Charities of Monroe County, which is located in my district, began in 1952 under the leadership of Joseph O'Connor, and was incorporated into the Archdiocese of Detroit in September, 1954. Since its inception, the organization has touched many individuals with their education, health and human services programs. In their 50 years of service, the Catholic Charities of Monroe County assisted over 142,000 individual requests. The adoption program they created in 1959 placed approximately 800 children with adoptive families. Catholic Charities started numerous counseling programs for separated families, senior citizens, and substance abuse treatment and prevention. Additionally, they helped offenders in the criminal justice system, as well as established services for runaways. Other services included the Local Migrant Program, Head Start, Early Childhood Education, and at-risk youth and adult programs. Through these various programs, one theme is steadily apparent: the Catholic Charities of Monroe County has consistently come to the aid of those most in need. The Catholic Charities of Monroe County continues to make much needed contributions to their community, and with recent successful fundraisers will do so for many years to come. Indeed, through the dedication of this humanitarian agency, Monroe County is a better place to live and work. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in commending the Catholic Charities of Monroe County on providing 50 years of exemplary service to the Michigan community and in wishing them many more years of success.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2028. Here we are again considering needless court-stripping legislation that would destroy our constitutional system of checks and balances. This time we wrap it in the flag and call it the Pledge Protection Act. This is another extraordinary piece of arrogance on the part of the House of Representatives to pass legislation which would strip American citizens of their right to access the federal courthouse. Can you imagine anything more shameful than telling an American citizen you cannot go into court to have your concerns addressed regarding Constitutional rights, or to have those rights heard by the courts of your Nation? I do not believe that we should strip the federal courts of jurisdiction when it comes to issues related to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. It drastically interferes with the separation of powers between the three branches of our government. While I will always defend the autonomy and the power of the legislative branch, the principle of judicial review that Chief Justice John Marshall set out in the 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison is law. This landmark case established that the Supreme Court has the right to pass on the constitutionality of an act of Congress. To whittle away one of the bedrock powers of the judicial branch is wrong for the Union and wrong for our citizenry. Tinkering with the foundation of our judicial branch could come back to haunt us. You can be almost certain with the passage of this legislation that there are interests out there deciding what other rights can be stripped of American citizens because we disagree with them. Maybe a future Congress will want to strip court challenges to gun control legislation by gun owners or sportsmen. Mr. Speaker, we live in one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. If we pass this bill, we begin to hollow out the true meaning of the pledge, the Constitution and what it means to live in this great nation. I strongly oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the contributions of the late Henry Ford as the ``Father of Industrial Education'' and to express my deep gratitude for his enormous contributions to education, particularly technical training. Henry Ford was a strong advocate of providing educational opportunities. At Highland Park, where the Model T was produced, he organized English classes for newly hired immigrants, which assisted them in receiving their first citizenship papers. In 1930, Henry Ford announced that he would spend $100 million and devote the remainder of his life promoting and supporting educational concepts. Of the some 60 schools supported by Henry Ford, the one that brought him the greatest satisfaction and pride was the Henry Ford Trade School. The Henry Ford Trade School, established in Highland Park in 1916 with one instructor and a class of six disadvantaged students, quickly emerged as a pioneer of the modern concept of combining vocational training with related formal classroom instruction. Upon its move to the Rouge Complex in Dearborn in 1931, the school continued to offer educational opportunities to young men through the year 1952. At its peak, there were more than 2,800 students, aged 13-17, and 135 instructors. A hot lunch was furnished without charge and for their effort, students were awarded a weekly cash scholarship and a monthly stipend to deposit in a bank savings account until they left school. The training offered at Henry Ford Trade School took on new meaning with the advent of World War II and the technical skills of the graduates were employed and challenged in various capacities to support the war effort. Many students also served in the military. In order to properly acknowledge the inspiration and guidance of Henry Ford, the members of the Henry Ford Trade School Alumni Association, some 400 strong, will perpetuate his memory with the unveiling of a life-size bronze statue to be displayed at the welcome center for guests touring the factory at the newly reopened Rouge Complex. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and all of my colleagues rise and join me in honoring the members of the Henry Ford Trade School Alumni Association on the occasion of their celebration, and to pay tribute and recognize the commitment and dedication of the late Henry Ford.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a man who has given himself wholly to his country and his community. Senior Airman Kurt Marunick, from Dundee, Michigan, has been selected as one of the twelve Outstanding Airmen of the Year. He represents the standard of excellence in service for today's men and women in the armed forces of this country. As part of this award, Senior Airman Marunick will be honored at the Air Force Association National Convention in Washington, D.C. In addition, he will serve as a member of the Air Force Association's enlisted advisory council for the next year. Senior Airman Marunick is assigned to the 347th Maintenance Squadron of Moody Air Force Base of Valdosta, Georgia. He was recently deployed to Iraq from February to April of 2004, where he received the Air Force Achievement Medal for ``outstanding achievement'' for his service. His service is known to have saved many lives and contributed greatly to the success of numerous missions. In 2003, he was named Airman of the Year for Air Force Special Operations Command. The two awards show a true dedication to his work and fellow Airmen. His efforts are truly commendable; he is a role model who serves in an exemplary manner. Senior Airman Marunick is a life-long resident of Michigan, graduating from Dundee High School and Eastern Michigan University. Not only does he serve as an example for all who wear a United States uniform, but he also serves as a role model for his friends and neighbors outside of the Air Force. He volunteers for many different charitable organizations, tutors at local high schools, and founded the Moody chapter of Airmen Against Drunk Driving. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise and join me in recognizing Senior Airman Kurt Marunick for all of his accomplishments. Our country is certainly a better place because of his efforts.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great sadness this evening to announce the death of our dear friend and former colleague, Congressman William D. Ford. He died on August 14. Congressman Ford spent 3 decades serving the Nation in this institution. He was a great champion for the causes that concerned so many Americans, from ensuring that each child had a quality education to become successful citizens, to making sure that our workplaces were safer. His father's death in a factory accident lead to a lifelong commitment to protect the health and safety of employees in the workplace. Congressman Ford worked every day in his life to be the champion of the working poor and the middle class. Bill Ford was a member of the House from 1965 to 1995, representing Michigan's 15th and 13th congressional districts. During his 30-year- and-more tenure, he served as chairman of the House Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service, as well as the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor. He was the oldest son of immigrant Spanish parents and the first member of his family to attend college. He served his Nation in the United States Navy. He attended the University of Denver on the GI Bill. He was the author of many important pieces of legislation to benefit ordinary, working Americans. Prior to serving in the Congress, he was a delegate to the Michigan Constitutional Convention and a member of the Michigan State Senate. He served as city attorney in a number of communities in Michigan. He is survived by his three children, William D. Ford, Jr.; Margaret Van Fleet Ford; and John Ford; three grandchildren; a sister, Janet Ford; and a brother, Robert Ford. Our Nation is a better place because of his work and dedication. His life left a mark on this Nation. His death is a tremendous loss, and those of my colleagues who knew him understand the sorrow that I feel tonight, as I am sure they feel their own. A memorial service will be held tomorrow in Washington.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the Stark Amendment takes direct aim at part of the Bush Administration's pattern of cover ups, clandestine policy making, and concealment of critical information from the Congress. I urge all my colleagues to support it. We had Dick Cheney's secret energy task force. We've seen military records concealed. We had no-bid contracts for Halliburton. We've seen government reports doctored--like the one on minority health disparities. And we've seen more games played with numbers during this Administration than you'd get from an Enron accountant. Tax cuts-- they're free! (Yet we've got the largest deficits on record.) Employment--it's up! (Yet, we still have 1.2 million fewer jobs now than when the recession started and more workers than ever looking for work.) The uninsured--we're covering them! (Yet, 5.2 million Americans have been added to the ranks of the uninsured under President Bush's watch.) The recent HHS Inspector General and the GAO reports on the unsavory activities of Mr. Tom Scully, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), during the Medicare debate give us one more example of the Administration's deception of Congress and the American people. The Administration, through former CMS Administrator Scully, covered up important cost information, particularly the fact that the bill would cost more than 500 billion dollars, that Congress should have seen prior to voting on the Medicare bill. Mr. Scully threatened the Chief Actuary with adverse consequences if he provided requested estimates to Congress, and had his underling threaten the Chief Actuary as well. All the while making sure that the White House had the real information. Just this week, GAO issued a legal opinion stating that Mr. Scully's actions violated federal law, and is recommending that the money from the Medicare Administrator's salary which he received during these improper activities--$84,500--be returned to the Treasury. This amendment does that. Accountability has been lacking throughout the four years of this Bush Presidency. We need to bring accountability back to the government. And we should start right here with this Amendment offered by my colleague Representative Stark.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2634, the ``Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act.'' This bill contains a variety of programs aimed at youth suicide early intervention and prevention, including campus mental and behavioral health service centers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read the findings in this bill. They contain alarming statistics on the incidence of youth suicide in this country. For example, according to the CDC, suicide is the third overall cause of death among college age students. More than 4,000 children and young adults take their life each year, and the rate of youth suicides in increasing. The American College Health Association reports that 9 percent of college students have felt suicidal. While this bill contains many find provisions, it does contain language on parental consent that has drawn expressions of concern from a variety of mental health advocates. I hope that as this bill moves further along in the legislative process we can modify it further so that these concerns are reduced or eliminated. I also note that the bill before us contains an important rule of construction that makes clear that this legislation does not modify or affect current law on parental consent applicable to elementary and secondary education programs, including the law popularly known as No Child Left Behind. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleagues for the fine work they have done on this bill and I want to take particular note of the outstanding work of my good friend, Representative Bart Gordon and our Chairman, Representative Barton.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, along with Representatives Brown, Waxman, and Capps, I am introducing the ``Medicaid and CHIP Safety Net Preservation Act of 2004.'' This bill seeks to reaffirm the protections in the Medicaid statute for beneficiaries who receive health coverage through Medicaid in a waiver program. The Medicaid program currently covers more than 50 million Americans of all backgrounds, from pregnant women and children, to the working disabled and elderly in nursing homes. Recent actions by the Administration have raised concerns that the core principles of the Medicaid program are being undermined by the inappropriate use of waiver authority by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Administration's Medicaid waiver initiative is an attempt to do behind closed doors what it has been able to do openly in Congress, which is to reduce protections in healthcare for some of our most vulnerable citizens. In less than four years the Bush Administration has eroded the health care safety net for millions of Americans, at a time when the faltering economy has produced record high unemployment and increased the number of Americans who are uninsured for health care. The ``Medicaid and CHIP Safety Net Preservation Act'' will ensure transparency and public input in the process for exercising the waiver authority under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. It also adds protections to ensure that waivers do not erode the core objectives of the Medicaid program and Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) previously enacted by Congress. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to assure that some of our most vulnerable citizens will receive higher, not lower, quality health insurance coverage under Medicaid.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. I do not know whether you are for or against gay marriage, and I do not think it makes a great deal of difference. I happen to oppose the idea. But this is an extraordinary piece of arrogance on the part of the House of Representatives to consider a piece of legislation which would strip American citizens of their right to access to court. Can you imagine anything more shameful than telling an American citizen you cannot go into court to have your concerns addressed, to have cases and controversies, many of which will arise under the Constitution, heard by the courts of your Nation? The right to access to courts to decide questions of policy is as old as the Magna Carta, and it is as important to us as anything else in the Constitution. Here we calmly say, you cannot have access to the courts, the Federal courts, the lower inferior courts, and the Supreme Court. Shame. Shame, shame, shame. It is a precedent which is going to live to curse us, and we are going to live to regret this day's labor because other precedents will be following this, wherein we will strip the rights from citizens to go to schools, to have questions relative to their equal rights, to have questions decided about whether they can properly be detained by courts or others and whether or not the citizen can be detained under the authority of the Attorney General; rights of citizens under the second amendment, the first amendment, all of the important questions of the Constitution. Rights under the 14th and the 15th and the 13th amendments, those will also be precedents which could follow this. The Congress has considered these kinds of questions before. It is to be anticipated if this works, we can look to see this kind of abusive legislation considered in this body again. And you can be almost certain that somebody is sitting there now out there deciding, what new rights can we strip of American citizens because we disagree with them. I do not think the question is whether or not there should be gay marriage. The question before this body today is, are we going to protect all of the rights of American citizens, regardless of who they might be or how they might be affected?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be introducing this legislation with Chairman Barton that will protect more than $1 billion in State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) funding. This funding is scheduled to revert to the Treasury on September 30 if Congress does not act. The SCHIP program was established in 1997 to reduce the number of uninsured children. Since its inception, the program has been a great success. Last year, 5.8 million children were enrolled. As a result of this success, however, a number of States are projected to have insufficient federal funding to sustain their existing programs over the next several years. Unless Congress acts, more than 200,000 children could lose their health insurance coverage as a result. The solution Chairman Barton and I are proposing has the support of the National Governors Association, along with a number of advocacy groups representing the concerns of children. I look forward to working together to enact this legislation when we return in September.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 741, the ``Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2004.'' The bill known as ``MUMS'' will make an important contribution to animal health. This legislation is very similar to H.R. 2079 sponsored by Reps. John and Pickering, and although we are taking up the Senate bill, they, along with my colleague Sherrod Brown, deserve credit for leadership on this issue. The bill is supported by the MUMS Coalition and the Keep Antibiotics Working Coalition. The MUMS Coalition includes the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Animal Health Institute, the National Fisheries Institute, and many other organizations. The Keep Antibiotics Working Coalition includes the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. In sum, the proverbial ``delicate balance'' has been found. I also note that the MUMS bill contains a specific provision on food allergens. I want to acknowledge the hard work in the House on the issue by the gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Lowey. Eight food allergens cause over ninety percent of serious allergic reactions from food. This legislation will require that food labels bear the name of any of these allergens if they are in the food and are not already noted on the ingredient label. S. 741 is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant located in Monroe County, Michigan. The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration is awarding the Michigan Star to this DTE Energy Company plant for its accomplishments in health and safety. The Michigan Star is the highest recognition awarded by the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration and its Michigan Voluntary Protection Programs. The honor acknowledges exemplary programs in both the areas of health and safety for all employed in the power plant. This recognition is the most rigorous of the MVPP's awards, which is a true testament to the work done in this nuclear facility. The Michigan Voluntary Protection Programs provides both employers and employees with very specific and distinct tools used to measure and evaluate the plant's programs. This award demonstrates that all of those working at the Fermi 2 Plant have worked together in achieving excellence beyond basic compliance with health and safety programs. This power plant employs some 900 workers and provides electricity to an estimated one million residents of Southeastern Michigan. In a work environment that is so sensitive, the employers and employees of the Fermi 2 Plant have committed themselves to health and safety practices that will ensure a more productive plant for them and the community they serve. Such accomplishments in our nuclear power plants are vital and commendable, setting an example for similar facilities. I ask my colleagues to rise and join me in recognizing DTE Energy, the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant, and all of its employees on the occasion of receiving the Michigan Star.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and celebrate The Monroe Evening News and its approximately 150 employees, who also own the newspaper, on the successful completion of a year-long renovation of their building. Serving the people of the Monroe County region for 179 years, this newspaper has advanced its values of integrity, community, and growth while remaining one of the few employee-owned newspapers in the country. The Evening News has been recognized for more than its longevity, winning several prestigious awards including the Annual Award for Communications Excellence in 1996. The Monroe Evening News has been published from its current location since 1910. Demonstrating an ongoing need to best serve their readers, this renovation, costing $3,000,000, will be the third renovation to this building. The renovation has reconfigured the entire interior of the building; creating an enhanced main entrance and expanding the customer-service area. While the interior has an updated, contemporary look, the exterior and additions will maintain the historic appearance of the long-standing building. As The Monroe Evening News opens its newly overhauled offices, I would ask that my colleagues rise and join with me in congratulating a thriving, employee-owned daily newspaper on a successful, fruitful renovation. As The Evening News approaches one hundred years in the same building, let us wish them the best of luck for the next hundred years and beyond. I ask for unanimous consent to include in the Record these remarks from celebrated political columnist Jack Germond, who started his legendary career at The Monroe Evening News: I am privileged to join John Dingell in congratulating The Evening News, a newspaper that taught me many of the most valuable lessons of journalism when I worked there as a young reporter from 1951 through 1953. The newspaper had standards that were a model, and the publisher, JS Gray, was impervious to pressure. When you wrote a story that was accurate and fair it went into the paper no matter who complained how loudly. There were no sacred cows, not always the case everywhere. Looking back on more than 50 years in the business, I cherish the memories of my time in Monroe.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, our efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East have a major part of their foundation in the accords of Camp David. Part of those accords were that we would provide a certain level of military assistance to our friends in Egypt. They and the Israelis are the friends that we have in that area. This amendment puts the finger of the Congress of the United States in the eye of our friends in Egypt. We have commitments made to them. Those commitments will be broken by this amendment. Now, to go further, what do these accords do? They give the Egyptians, in addition to all things else, the required strength to come in to assist us, the U.N., and the Israelis in providing the necessary security at Gaza when Gaza is relinquished by Premier Sharon. The result of that will be that if we do not see that Egypt has sufficient funding, they may either choose not to or may be incapable of moving in to control the terrorists and other organizations which are sinister threats not only to Israel, to the United States, but to the peace in the area. This amendment is therefore extremely counterproductive to the purposes of this Nation and to the commitments which we have made. Beyond that, it poses a real threat to the security of Israel and the security of the area. Fancy, if my colleagues please, another Afghanistan directly on the borders of Israel full of terrorists, full of extremists, full of people who bring danger not just to world peace, but to Israel. I ask my colleagues to conceive of whether that is a wise policy for us to enunciate today by the adoption of this amendment. Now, I say this with all respect to the author of the amendment. I am sure he is sincere in what he does. But the result of this action is counterproductive in the extreme. It breaches a sensible commitment made by the United States. It poses risks to Israel and significant danger to world peace.