John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5651, to reauthorize the prescription drug and medical device user-fee programs, to establish new user-fee programs for generic drugs and biosimilars, and also to give substantial new authorities to the Food and Drug Administration, with the support of the industry, to provide broad additional protections to American consumers. H.R. 5651 is an excellent example of the great good that can be done when both parties come together in the spirit of bipartisanship, cooperation, and compromise, and when they work with consumers and the industry to achieve a bill supported by all. This legislation will ensure the timely access to safe and effective drugs and medical devices, encourage the development of the innovative drug treatments for our children, and improve the Food and Drug Administration's current authority to deal with drug shortages. More importantly, this legislation will provide FDA with much-needed new authorities to secure the safety of our drug supply and to help prevent another incident like that unfortunate one involving heparin, in which over 80 people died from a blood thinner which was contaminated from where it came, in China, and which also sickened over 100 people of whom we know. H.R. 5651's drug supply chain provisions will improve information FDA has about domestic and foreign drug manufacturers. It will, for the first time in history, provide FDA with information about importers and will enable FDA to control imported pharmaceuticals and devices. It will also allow FDA to detain or to destroy counterfeit or adulterated drugs, prohibit the entry of imported drugs that have been delayed or been denied inspection by FDA, and will encourage parity in the inspections of the domestic and foreign drug establishments. It will permit, for the first time, the real inspection of foreign producers, and it will treat all manufacturers alike. These provisions mirror those in drug legislation which I authored earlier. The new authorities provided to FDA for our drug supply will enable the leveling of the playing field for our domestic drug manufacturers and will give American families the peace of mind that FDA can and will--and will have the authority to--respond to unsafe, misbranded, counterfeit, or contaminated drugs. I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for the fine way this legislation was worked on, particularly Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, Subcommittee on Health Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, and their staffs--Clay Alspach, Ryan Long, Rachel Sher, Eric Flamm, Arun Patel, and Tiffany Guarascio, as well as Kimberlee Trzeciak of my staff--for their hard work and their commitment through this process to producing a bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a coauthor of this important legislation. We have built upon the good work that FDA is already doing as well as the strong agreements negotiated by industry and FDA, and I urge the House to pass this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to swiftly pass legislation this summer that can be signed into law by the President.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 568, a resolution emphasizing the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I have long held that the United States should make every effort to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and this resolution is consistent with that belief. Allowing them to do so would needlessly create instability in the region, potentially spark a nuclear arms race, and would threaten our ally Israel. As someone who has consistently defended the security of Israel, such an outcome would be unacceptable. I applaud President Obama for taking a strong and decisive stand on this important issue. H. Res 568 recognizes the President's March 31, 2010 statement that the ``consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran are unacceptable,'' and I wholeheartedly agree. That being said, we should give diplomacy and tough economic sanctions every chance to succeed in dealing with Iran. As I have said in the past, the consequences of rushing to war are grave and should be made with all due consideration. I have high hopes for the talks that the international community is holding with Iran at the end of the month, and look forward to seeing the result. The whole world is indeed watching.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, it is with great disappointment that I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4970, the Violence Alainst Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 2012. I was proud to support the original Violence Against Women Act when Congress passed it with bipartisan support in 1994 because it created landmark programs to help victims of domestic violence, provided grants for law enforcement agencies, and established new categories of crimes such as stalking. VAWA is one of the true bipartisan success stories in Congress and it has achieved a real, significant and lasting impact on our nation. Since VAWA first passed, the annual incidence of domestic violence has decreased by 53 percent. However, there is still much work to be done, as approximately one in five women have been raped in their lifetime, and 45 percent of the women killed in the United States die after being attacked by an intimate partner. Given the fact that violence against women continues to be a serious problem in this country, it is disappointing to see the Republican majority pursue such a partisan and reckless path forward with this legislation. Instead of following the Senate's lead, which passed an effective and bipartisan bill to reauthorize VAWA, the GOP has decided to play politics with this important issue and has significantly weakened protections for battered women and instituted discriminatory policies. Specifically, H.R. 4970 does not include key provisions of the Senate bill which ensure that LGBT victims are not discriminated against in VAWA programs. We can all agree that no victim of domestic abuse should be denied care because of their sexual orientation. As a lifetime supporter of civil rights I cannot in good conscience support legislation which would permit this to happen. Further, three out of five Native American women are victims of domestic violence in their lifetime, which is a pressing national problem. The Senate bill addresses this concern by including provisions which would give Native American tribal governments jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute incidents of violence, in addition to providing grants to assist tribes in prosecuting such crimes. Yet H.R. 4970 does not adequately address these concerns by not including any of these provisions in the legislation. Such crass indifference makes this legislation impossible to support. The path forward to reauthorize VAWA is clear. The Senate sent a clear message by passing a strong, bipartisan bill, and the House should do the same. Let us stop fighting these needless partisan battles and instead come together to reauthorize a program which has worked so well over the years. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 4970 and support the Senate bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I am an unwavering supporter of Israel, therefore I speak today more in sorrow than in anger. I first want to express my esteem for my friend, the gentleman from Maryland Mr. Hoyer. I would like to support his legislation, H.R. 4133, the United States- Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012, but it is impossible for me to do so. As one who has consistently supported the freedom, independence and security of the State of Israel since I was first sworn into this great body, I am deeply saddened at the way this matter is being handled. There is much in this legislation which is good but there is much which is unwise and could lead us down a dark and difficult road. I fear this legislation is drawn so that it could be considered as a blueprint for going to war with Iran. What are the limits on U.S. commitments under this legislation? I can find none in H.R. 4133, and this troubles me greatly. How would this impact our diplomatic efforts, and our negotiations to halt Iran's nuclear program? Would this result in increased strife and instability in the Middle East? The answers to these questions remain unclear because there have been no legislative hearings on this matter, no factual record, and no committee report to consider. Everyone in this chamber agrees that allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon is unacceptable and that we should take every action to prevent such an outcome. However, this does not mean that we should rush to vote on this legislation, which has never been considered in committee and could have grave consequences for our national security, especially as our diplomats are engaged in the most delicate of negotiations. Experience comes from learning from one's mistakes. I made a blunder when I voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was hurried and rushed through the House, and I vowed never to make the same error again. Many members of this body also made a similar mistake when this Congress voted to go to war with Iraq based on faulty intelligence. The international community is scheduled to have direct discussions and negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue at the end of the month. At the very least we should wait to see the progress of those talks before issuing the edicts contained in this legislation today. Matters of war and national security should be considered in all due diligence, and not be rushed to the floor without the proper consideration. I urge everyone to take a step back and consider what we are voting on, hold the proper hearings, and have a truly deliberative process before we rush off to another war which our Nation can ill afford.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to recover economically, we must ensure that students can afford a higher education. In 2007, as we were dealing with the worst of the recession, I voted in favor of legislation to reduce interest rates on Stafford loans from 6.8 to 3.4 percent. On July 31, interest rates will go back to 6.8 percent if Congress does not act. There are nearly 48,000 students attending a university or college in my district who have a Stafford subsidized student loan. Those loans total over $212 million. Doubling the interest rate will add an unnecessary burden on those students as they graduate and enter the workforce. For each year that Congress does not act to keep rates at 3.4 percent, students add an additional $1000 in debt over the life of their loans. It may prevent them from starting a family, buying a home, or getting a new car. We must do everything we can to help as they get started. The cost of the student loan bill is $6 billion. Unfortunately, Republicans have chosen to pay for it by repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund included in the Affordable Care Act that invests in innovative programs, practices and treatments to prevent cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and programs particularly important to women's health. We should not have to choose how we are going to invest in our country's future; how do you decide to cut investments in the education for the workforce of tomorrow versus the health of that very same workforce? I support the Democratic alternative negotiated between the White House and Congressional Democrats that pays for the student loan interest rate by closing a corporate tax loophole. I hope that the House leadership will allow a vote on this commonsense alternative so students and their families aren't left paying for higher interest rates to go to school. Republicans know that their proposal cannot be supported by Democrats. They don't seem to know that by not finding a compromise, they are playing politics with students, families, and the future of our country.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Flora Walker on receiving the Eleanor Roosevelt Award at the Michigan Democratic Party (MDP) Jefferson-Jackson Annual Women's Caucus Luncheon. She is a truly deserving recipient and I am pleased to see her contributions recognized with this prestigious award. Not only has Ms. Walker blessed us with over forty years of service in Michigan, as well as continuing service with the UDW/AFSCME in Nevada, but she was also the first female president of the AFL CIO in Michigan. Thanks to her efforts, the bar was set very high for those following in her footsteps. Her work has greatly enriched the common good and improved the lives of many families. I commend her and am grateful for her tireless work ethic and the important work she has accomplished. The Eleanor Roosevelt Award hosted by the MDP honors members of the community who have furthered the ideals of the Democratic Party with their commitment to the party's cause. Each year one man and one woman are selected to receive this prestigious award, which recognizes their work as continuing the work of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt. It fills me with great pride to see my friend, Flora Walker, be the recipient in 2012. Mr. Speaker, I would request that the House of Representatives join me in offering congratulations to Ms. Walker for her outstanding achievements. I commend the organizations and honorees for their important work in advancing the values of the Democratic Party and wish her the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I will begin by praising my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee. It is just that he has brought us a bad piece of legislation. It should be rejected instantly by the House of Representatives because it does nothing to help anything. I refer to the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act, which it is not. Time and time again, we Democrats accuse our Republican colleagues of passing bills that are in search of problems. I would like to say that this is the same. But worse than that, I can say that we have before us a bill that is a prime example of trying to cure the disease and kill the patient at the same time. In point of fact, H.R. 3309 would take the FCC entirely out of the Administrative Procedure Act and make it subject to a unique set of procedural requirements totally understood by no one. And there will have to be a bunch of lawyers hired, as the gentleman from Nebraska has pointed out, because they're sure going to need them to understand what has been done. Everybody in this Chamber should have real fears about turning over 60 years of solid administrative jurisprudence and standing it on its head and how that will bring about disastrous results not only to the Commission but to all of the entities regulated by that body, because nobody is going to understand what this has done. Mr. Chairman, Charles James Fox wrote something called the ``India Resolution'' in 1783. It goes as follows: ``Resolved, that we have seen your work, and it will not do.'' H.R. 3309 evokes the same sorry sentiment. My friends on the other side of the aisle like reminding me that no Democrat has been a bigger critic of the FCC than I have. They're right. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with what they've proposed to do in H.R. 3309. Instead of passing a bad bill which they don't understand, on which no adequate hearings have been held, and on which the industry is scared to death, we should get down to the business of having decent proceedings in which we would go into this matter thoroughly as a matter of oversight, to compel the Commission to come forward to address the question of their accountability, of their transparency, and of their regulatory consistency. This Commerce Committee has skinned many cats in my days with that authority, and by the great horn spoon, we could do it again. But we shouldn't come on the floor waving a silly bill like this around which is going to do nothing to benefit society and which the committee doesn't understand and cannot explain. Now, if I have got any time left, I will yield to my friend from Oregon.

Mr. DINGELL. Of course, but they didn't relate to the matters that you have brought before the House at this time. You can't explain what's in this bill, and nobody here knows what it does.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the matter of this Special Order, referring very specifically to our dear friend, the Parliamentarian, Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. DINGELL. I want to thank the Chair for the kindness that you have shown me, and I want to express my particular thanks and good wishes to my dear friend, Mr. LaTourette, before this matter, and now, through the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, I yield to the distinguished minority leader, my friend, Mr. Hoyer, the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to my dear friend from California (Mr. Schiff), through my distinguished friend from Ohio.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to, through my good friend from Ohio, to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Mel Watt.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield, through my good friend from Ohio, to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. DINGELL. With thanks to my good friend for his kind comments, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland through the distinguished gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, again, through the kindness of my good friend from Ohio, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield through my good friend from Ohio to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. DINGELL. We have no further requests for time, but I would like to say a couple of words.

Mr. DINGELL. This, I will tell the gentleman, is his time. He has led in the matter. I am prepared to accede to his leadership.

Mr. DINGELL. I begin then by thanking my good friend from Ohio for his leadership in this matter and express to him my great personal respect and high esteem. I am particularly pleased that we have been able to have these brief remarks from his friends, colleagues, and coworkers about our good friend, Mr. Sullivan, our coworker and Parliamentarian of the House. I have known all the Parliamentarians during their sitting back to Mr. Deschler, Mr. Brown, Mr. Charlie Johnson and now, of course, our good friend, Mr. Sullivan. And before them, I had the privilege of knowing the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, a Member of this body and also a prior Parliamentarian of this body. I'm sure that this has been an evening that has been somewhat painful to our friend, the Parliamentarian, because he has heard all kinds of nice things about him at a time when that is rather an unaccustomed practice. But I would like to tell him how proud we are that we have had such dedicated public servants to work for and on behalf of the House of Representatives and on behalf of all of us. As he retires at the end of this week as the Parliamentarian of the House, I hope he knows that his work would be approved, and enthusiastically so, by all the gentlemen that I have mentioned earlier. I would also hope that he understands that he has seen the greatest respect and affection from his colleagues here in the House for his fairness, impartiality, for his decency, for his integrity, and for the fair and nonpartisan--he would note I did not say ``bipartisan,'' I said ``nonpartisan''--way he has conducted his responsibilities as the Parliamentarian of the House. Each and every one of us could count on Mr. Sullivan to take our calls on even the smallest questions about motions and procedures. And all of us, without any question or any doubt, knew that the advice we were getting was completely honest. We also knew that he would help us work out our problems so that we could be functioning and effective Members of this body. And we also knew that he would take a firm stand for the protection of the traditions and the institutional values of this body and would ensure that the rules were always interpreted properly. He was a true institutionalist. He loved and revered the House of Representatives, and he knew something that was very important that many of us had not yet learned, and that is that this body, as an institution, is more important to all of us and to this Nation than is any single issue or aggregation or congregation of issues or any individual or any group of individuals, because without the trust, the affection, and the respect of the American people, this institution cannot function, cannot lead, cannot govern, and cannot carry out the trusts that we have been given back to the days of the Founders of the country. I want Mr. Sullivan to know that he will always be missed; but we know that he has left us in capable hands because he has built a fine office, and Tom Wickham, like Mr. Sullivan, has already proven to be dependable, discreet and well versed in the rules and procedures of the House; and we know that he will serve the House with the same dedication, decency, integrity and honesty that his predecessor, Mr. Sullivan, has characterized his work with. All of us are going to miss him. He has been a distinguished public servant in the highest sense of the term; and all of us will wish him well as he goes off to do his business, whatever it may be, and we will hope that he has tremendous success, long life, great happiness, and a chance to come back here from time to time to see his old friends and to join in talking about the memories that we share together, the great things that we've done, the small things that we've done, and all the wonderful stories that we have to tell and share about the privilege of serving in this, the greatest legislative body in the world. I am going to express to him the wish that he will have happiness in his retirement. I know that that wish is shared and honored by all of his colleagues and all of our colleagues, and I know that the very fine group of Parliamentarians who are here to show their appreciation to him for his wonderful leadership share in the thoughts that you have heard. This has been an extraordinary bipartisan expression of the affection and respect that we have for our Parliamentarian, which he has earned. We have not praised him; we have simply told the truth about him. And that is something that he can be proud of that we are able to do and willing to do. I would note that there are some who might live in mortal and desperate fear of having others telling the truth about them. So, in any event, we express to him our thanks and our admiration, and also that of the entire membership of the House of Representatives who have been honored by your service, your guidance, your friendship, your dignity, and your great appreciation of this body and the responsibilities we have. Now I thank my good friend from Ohio for being so generous and for his leadership in this matter.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, the people have sent us up here to legislate and pass laws that will benefit and protect the American public and move our country forward. It is more than disheartening, it is shameful that once again we find ourselves here today wasting time to vote on a piece of partisan, Republican legislation that has no hope of moving beyond this chamber. H.R. 5 does nothing to benefit the American people, nor does this Act do anything to protect access to healthcare as its name declares. Even worse, this misguided legislation is being considered during the same week we are celebrating the second anniversary of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). I am unbelievably proud of that fact that the bill I authored has guaranteed that 105 million Americans no longer face lifetime limits on their insurance, 2 million young adults are now insured under their parents' plans, and seniors no longer find themselves lost in the ``coverage gap'' and lacking access to prescription drugs. With all of these tangible, quantifiable benefits, why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spending their time attempting to dismantle a law that is already being implemented? Why do they spend their time trying to chip away at it piece by piece when they could be working on legislation that would benefit their constituents? Working to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and not even bothering to come up with any sort of replacement seems dubious and makes no sense to me. But then again, I am just a poor, Polish lawyer from Detroit. Not only are my Republican friends attempting to repeal IPAB, they have added it to their medical malpractice legislation, H.R. 5, which contains provisions that they have brought time and again to this floor, failing every time. Each time they resurrect the same language. In doing so, they do not demonstrate genuine interest in legislating on behalf of the American people. The Republicans know the Senate will not vote for such a bill. Nor will I. I will not approve a bill that caps non-economic medical malpractice damages at $250,000. Apparently, this is the price the Republicans put on a lifetime of physical impairment, pain, suffering and even wrongful death. I know our medical malpractice system needs improvement. If only my Republican friends would come to me with a third way, a new fair and workable way, to approach this problem. I would be more than happy to work with them on a bipartisan basis, which this Congress so desperately needs right now. But, until that time, I am forced to vote against this piece of legislation. I will not approve of a bill that rehashes the same old medical malpractice language. I will not vote for a bill that attempts to wear down bits of the Affordable Care Act. If they had their way, the Republicans would repeal the entire ACA, and take away insurance from over 30 million Americans. Instead, we are busy granting insurance coverage to 17 million children with pre-existing conditions.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3606, the JOBS Act. This unfortunate amalgam of bad ideas is being sold to us as an easy way to create jobs and help small businesses. I fully support both causes, but passing H.R. 3606 is not the way to see them to fruition. The JOBS Act takes as its premise the tired rhetoric that deregulation naturally will lead to business growth and job creation. The bill contains four others, H.R. 1070, H.R. 1965, H.R. 2930, and H.R. 2940, which the House passed in November of last year. I am the only Member of this body to have voted against all four, and my conviction in their potential to facilitate investor fraud and abuse remains strong. Simply put, increasing the amount of capital a company may raise and the number of shareholders it may have before registering with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), carving out registration requirements for crowdfunding in the Securities Act, and removing the long-standing prohibition on public solicitation in the sale of unregistered stock offerings will create more risk than reward. Mark my words: Investors will be swindled, and great sums of money will be lost, all because of the dubious assumption that deregulation stimulates economic growth. As if this were not bad enough, H.R. 3606 goes one step further to allow all but the very largest new companies up to five years to raise money from the public without having to assess the adequacy of their own internal controls. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires this for good reason: to protect investors, promote higher-quality financial reporting, and thereby create lower costs of capital for companies. We have just survived the greatest shock to the Nation's financial services sector since the Great Depression. Regulation subsequent to 1929 created decades of stability and prosperity. The gradual erosion of the laws and regulations put in place in the aftermath of the Great Depression ultimately caused the crash in 2008, which cost this country millions of jobs and wiped out trillions of dollars in our constituents' collective net worth. Now is not the time to deregulate. If my colleagues wish to create jobs, I suggest we consider investing in improving our country's crumbling infrastructure, supporting research and development with grants and low-interest loans, and assuring our citizens have the education they need to compete in the future. Exposing American investors to all manner of fraud and rascality will create misery instead of jobs. Vote down H.R. 3606.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 4105. I am an original co-sponsor of this wonderfully common-sense bill, which will permit the Department of Commerce to apply countervailing duty orders to non-market economies like China. While the term, ``countervailing duty order,'' is not one on the tip of every American's tongue, it is an extraordinarily important trade enforcement tool. In times like these, we need to be able to use our trade laws to the fullest extent, so we can protect jobs at home and ensure our trading partners play by the rules. H.R. 4105 is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that will be signed into law by President Obama. It is another step in the right direction for American trade, and it is one that is fully consistent with our World Trade Organization obligations. A flawed decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit weakened our country's ability to protect itself from unfair trade practices, and H.R. 4105 will fix it. Most importantly, the bill will help workers and businesses in my home State of Michigan compete fairly on a level playing field. I commend my good friends, Messrs. Camp, Levin, Brady, and McDermott for introducing H.R. 4105, and I congratulate House leadership for bringing it to a vote so expeditiously. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to act swiftly, so we can send this measure to President Obama for his signature. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4105.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2038, the STOCK Act. I have always stood for the strictest ethical standards for all government employees, and today is no different. Government employees cannot be allowed to profit privately in the performance of their official duties. Indeed, throughout my career, it has always been my understanding that the House Ethics Rules specifically prohibit this sort of behavior. I will vote in favor of S. 2038. I am very pleased that the bill contains a rule of construction to preserve the Securities Exchange Commission's, SEC, existing anti-fraud enforcement authorities. Nevertheless, I have lingering concerns about the bill's practicability and other unintended consequences. I believe these matters might have been clarified if the bill had undergone regular order. Absent that, Members of the House should have been given a briefing about the bill prior to taking it up. In fact, I requested such a briefing in a February 7, 2012, letter to Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor, but that request appears to have fallen on deaf ears. It is uncertain to me whether House Leadership will insist on convening a conference committee with our friends in the Senate to forge a compromise. If that is to occur, I strongly urge House conferees to consider and solve the rather ticklish problem of how the SEC and House Committee on Ethics will interact under the Act. Furthermore, I have deep, dark fears that influential members of the House, Senate, and associated political organizations might exert pressure on the Commission to open or never begin a congressional insider trading investigation for political gain. Such an incident would fly in the face of the STOCK Act's otherwise meritorious intent. In closing, I can only stress that this matter would have been best addressed in the various committees of jurisdiction and according to regular order. Observance of this institution's rules and procedures has produced well-written laws which have endured for years. I observed regular order as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and held numerous hearings on securities fraud in the 1980s. These hearings produced P.L. 98-376, the ``Insider Trading Sanctions Act of 1984,'' and P.L. 100-704, the ``Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act of 1988,'' which are the only major insider trading laws on the books. Madam Speaker, I am ashamed to say I was right in predicting that banks would become ``too big to fail'' when I opposed the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act on the floor in 1999. I hope I am wrong in predicting that the STOCK Act, if not subjected to serious scrutiny and amended, will produce an administrative morass and, worse, an enforcement tool subject to the perils of political manipulation. That in mind, I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 2038.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chjair, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 1173. This bill is yet another in a long list of efforts by the Republicans to dismantle and repeal the Affordable Care Act piece by piece. Despite the fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle sit in Committee hearing rooms and profess to support addressing our long term care crisis, one of their first pieces of legislation on the floor this session is a bill that will repeal one option to address this crisis. H.R. 1173 does nothing to protect the security of our country's retirees. Repealing the CLASS Act does not protect the 70 percent of today's 65 year olds who will need some sort of health or personal care in the future. Nor does repealing the CLASS Act do anything for the 40 percent of long term care users between the ages of 18-64. While I recognize that the CLASS Act is not fiscally feasible in its current form, I also recognize that a lack of a long term care initiative is not financially feasible for Americans. The average cost of a nursing home is currently a staggering $78,000 per year while in- home long term care averages $21,600 per year. We must continue to try and solve the problem of our nation's lack of adequate long term care options, and I call on my Republican friends to come to the table and work with us to do so. Instead of wasting valuable floor time, my Republican friends should take this opportunity to work with Democrats as well as the Department of Health and Human Services to find a solution to this critical issue. We all must continue to champion the effort to create a safe and secure future for our nation's citizens. It is my concern that if the CLASS Act is repealed, the impetus to implement a crucial long term care act will fall by the wayside. If my friends across the aisle wish to repeal this provision, it is vital they work expeditiously to implement a substitute for CLASS. In 2008, 21 million Americans utilized some form of long term care. That number is only going to continue to increase, and it is our duty to protect the quality of life of our fellow Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1173 until we have a viable long term care program to replace the CLASS Act.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Pastor Phillip L. Ferrell, for his 19\1/2\ years of pastoral service to Mt. Hermon Baptist Church and for his eight years of service to the Ministers' Alliance of Ypsilanti, Ann Arbor and Vicinity, where he has served as President. As friends and family and community members gather on Friday, January 27, 2012, I would like to offer my appreciation for Pastor Ferrell's passion, dedication and commitment to Mt. Hermon Baptist Church and the Washtenaw County community. Pastor Ferrell was born and raised in Ypsilanti, Michigan, and has spent a lifetime working to make our community a better place. His teachings and influence have not been reserved to the church; however, as he has accepted the call to action on several occasions, locally and across the State of Michigan. Pastor Ferrell served as a member of Governor Jennifer Granholm's Faith Based Advisory committee, as a member of the Ypsilanti Public Schools Emergency Crisis Team, as a Board Member of the local N.A.A.C.P., and as a member of the Washtenaw County Literacy Council. He has also shared his knowledge with our young people as an instructor in the Huron Valley District Congress of Christian Education, and is currently teaching in the Renaissance Christian Leadership School under the National Baptist U.S.A. Sunday School Publishing Board. Pastor Ferrell has been a trusted leader, a wise teacher, a loving husband, father and grandfather, and a dear friend to many. Deborah and I are not alone in celebrating the long, meaningful and positive impact that Pastor Ferrell and his lovely family have had in my district.