John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it is not unknown that I have had some reservations about the bill and about the procedure that has brought us to the floor. I note to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is, however, a good bill and one which I support. Indeed, this is legislation which the Nation has to have, and, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote for it. I begin with proper commendations to our Speaker, to Mr. Hoyer, to Mr. Rangel, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Rahall, and Mr. George Miller of California, the Chairs of our colleagues' committees, for their good work and leadership on this matter, and I do salute you, Madam Speaker, for your leadership here. I would note that the perfection of this matter or how it was handled is not a question before us, but, rather, it is what we should do about a major problem which this Nation confronts. In my extension of remarks, I will talk about the costs of failure to act at this time. This is not a bill that the Committee on Energy and Commerce and my colleagues and I would have written if it had followed the regular order, nor, indeed, is it achieved under the order which we would have followed. Indeed, it is a process which is brought about in good part because of the lack of interest by the White House and, very frankly, the incompetence and the indifference and the arrogance of the other body. I will be voting for this legislation because it contains a number of significant landmark achievements. It will raise fuel economy standards by 40 percent, to 35 miles per gallon, and it will do it in a way which achieves and protects American jobs and it gives manufacturers proper flexibility in achieving our goals. It also closes what has been misleadingly, and I think dishonestly, called the SUV loophole. It expands incentives for the production of cars and trucks that run on renewable fuels, and it will help American factories to retool to build the cars and trucks of tomorrow. I want to, at this time, pay particular compliment and congratulations to two of our very able colleagues and those who have joined them in their efforts to protect this legislation; Mr. Hill of Indiana, an extremely valuable Member of this body, and Mr. Terry, another very valuable Member of this body. These two Members from Indiana and Nebraska have provided extraordinary leadership in this matter in the Hill-Terry bill, and they deserve the thanks and the congratulations of this Congress. This legislation includes efficiency standards for buildings and appliances that will remove more than 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, an amount equal to five times the annual emissions of all cars on the road today in the United States. For those who are concerned about portions of the bill dealing with renewable fuels and renewable electricity generation, I would simply say that this is far from the final work, and the committee will carry forward its oversight on these matters vigorously. I reserve the balance of my time and at this time, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, and I ask that he be permitted to control the time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the city of Dearborn for the dedication of the Michael A. Guido Theater at the Ford Community & Performing Arts Center. On November 16, 2007, the City of Dearborn will hold a gala celebration honoring the life of the late Mayor Michael A. Guido. It is at this gala event that the magnificent theater at the Ford Community & Performing Arts Center will be dedicated in Mayor Guido's name. This is a fitting tribute as the state-of-the-art Ford Community & Performing Arts Center was the crowning achievement in the impressive career of Mayor Guido. The center is the largest municipally owned recreation center in North America. Along with the dedication ceremony, the evening will also include a fundraiser for the Michael A. Guido Pancreatic Cancer Research Fund at the Karmanos Cancer Institute. That the funds will go to pancreatic research is especially meaningful to our late ``friendly mayor'' and his family. For 21 years Mayor Guido served the city of Dearborn with enthusiasm, devotion, and a sense of humor. Throughout his career he accomplished much. Known for his commitment to the people of Dearborn, fiscal responsibility, and leadership skills, among his many achievements, Guido served as president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and held various leadership positions with the National League of Cities. During his battle with pancreatic cancer, Guido continued to work tirelessly in City Hall on behalf of the people of Dearborn. He also sprouted growth throughout Dearborn. A short list of his accomplishments includes the devolvement of downtown Dearborn, the creation of recreational facilities like the Dearborn Ice Skating Center, the construction of a new police headquarters, the redesign of Ford Wood Park, and the expansion of Esper Branch Library. I ask that all of my colleagues join me in congratulating the city of Dearborn for the dedication of the Michael A. Guido Theater, as well as joining me in remembering the devoted public servant who served the people of Dearborn for 21 years.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation before us today because I believe it represents a safe and responsible way to bring our troops home from Iraq. The President has had more than four years to demonstrate leadership in Iraq, but at every turn his decisions have dragged us deeper into an ethnic and sectarian crisis that the President seems incapable of solving. Eleven months ago, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group released its report, which offered a comprehensive plan to build up the Iraqi government and create the political and security stability needed to bring our troops home. Unfortunately, the President rejected this bipartisan approach and instead implemented his troop surge. As a result, 2007 was the deadliest year for our troops since the beginning of the war, and we are no closer to a political solution to the problems in Iraq than we were when the troop surge began. Because the President refuses to take responsibility for his failed strategy, I believe it is time for Congress to act. The legislation before us today provides our troops with the funding and equipment they need to safely do their job. This includes funding for our continued efforts to provide security and support for the government of Afghanistan. However, it is a far cry from the blank check that the President requested. It requires the President to begin redeploying troops out of Iraq within 30 days of enactment, and sets a goal for total redeployment by December 15, 2008. The bill also requires the President to undertake diplomatic efforts designed to engage other regional and international actors in providing for a secure Iraq. It includes important provisions that ensure the first troops sent home are the ones who have served in Iraq the longest, and that no more troops can be sent to Iraq unless they have all of the equipment and training that they need. I had hoped that this bill would also include funding to address the growing refugee crisis in Iraq. While I am disappointed this issue is not being addressed today, I have been assured that Congress will act soon to assist the millions of Iraqis who have been displaced because of sectarian fighting. This legislation is not perfect, but I believe that it is worth supporting because it will require the President to do something he has so far refused to do: explain to the public how he plans to get our troops out of Iraq. In fact, this bill would make it clear to the President that he will not get one more dime from Congress until his redeployment plan has been submitted. I applaud Chairman Obey for staying true to his pledge to send the President an Iraq spending bill with accountability and timelines built in. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation because it represents an important first step towards holding the President accountable and safely bringing our troops home from Iraq.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the original Patriot Act, I voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2005, I voted against the President's Protect America Act that was signed into law last August, and I was prepared to vote against the RESTORE Act if it did not adequately protect our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. I had strong reservations about this legislation when it was first reported out of Committee, particularly with respect to the degree it appeared to give the Administration the ability to monitor the conversations of U.S. citizens without an individualized warrant. However, after reviewing the changes made to this legislation in the managers' amendment, I am satisfied that the RESTORE Act now contains adequate Fourth Amendment protections. I applaud Congressman Holt for working with Chairmen Conyers and Reyes to address this issue. While this legislation is not perfect, I believe that it represents a substantial improvement over existing law. I realize it is likely we will find ourselves revisiting this issue again in the coming months when the Senate is finished with its own legislation on this matter. As this debate continues, I will continue to insist that any legislation I support contains adequate protections for civil rights.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Temporary Tax Relief Act, a much-needed piece of legislation that will provide relief to millions of working families across the country. The tax bill before us is a far cry from the irresponsible tax cuts my Republican colleagues have supported in the past. While their tax plan permitted hundreds of wealthy Americans to construct new wings for their summer homes and add new sports cars to their garages, our tax plan provides financial relief to millions of working-class Americans. The alternative minimum tax was never meant to harm the hard-working middle-class families of America, but unfortunately, years of wage inflation and economic change have placed an enormous burden on the shoulders of these families. While my Republican colleagues have spent the past decade providing the wealthiest Americans with new yachts, these middle-class families have been crying out for help, a cry that this Congress will finally address here today. Without this legislation, 23 million working-class families will be subjugated to the Alternative Minimum Tax. My colleagues have made a proposal that will not only provide relief to these Americans, but will do it in a responsible manner. Unlike the reckless tax cuts that were brazenly supported by the President, this tax proposal will not burden our children and grandchildren with debt. This tax bill is completely revenue-neutral. I urge my colleagues to stand before the American people and demonstrate where this Congress' priorities lie. Are we fighting for a handful of wealthy millionaires while the middle-class families languish with an incredible tax burden? Or are we with 23 million hard- working American families across the country, including more than 61,000 in Michigan's 15th Congressional District? I urge my colleagues to support the middle-class families and support this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3403, the ``911 Modernization and Public Safety Act of 2007''. This legislation ensures that consumers using Voice over Internet Protocol or VoIP technology can access the 911 system. It also requires the development of a national plan to ensure that the 911 system continues to evolve. Consumers expect that when they place a call to 911 using a wireline phone, wireless phone, or any other type of technology, the emergency operator who answers will send the right type of first responder to the correct location in the shortest time possible. The ability to dial 911 and reach an emergency operator is so integral to our daily lives that we teach our children from the earliest moment how to dial 911. As our communications system has evolved, so too has the 911 system. We have seen this before with the introduction of wireless phone service. As more consumers began using cell phones, Congress passed legislation to ensure that the 911 system could accommodate emergency calls made over the wireless network. Over the last few years, VoIP technology has provided a new way for consumers to make calls using the Internet. H.R. 3404 ensures that consumers using VoIP service are able to access 911 as easily as consumers using wireline or wireless services. H.R. 3403 will give VoIP providers access to the components they need to provide 911 service and will extend the liability protections afforded to wireline and wireless carriers today to VoIP providers, public safety officials, and end users in relation to VoIP 911 calls. The constantly evolving nature of technology can present a challenge to legislators. H.R. 3403 meets that challenge by ensuring that our 911 system continues to adapt. It requires the development of a national plan to migrate to an Internet Protocol-enabled 911 system. It also amends an existing grant program to allow funding for public safety answering points that are moving to an IP-enabled system. As technology evolves, it is important that public safety communications also evolve. Too often public safety is left behind, burdened by yesterday's technology and yesterday's network. H.R. 3403 therefore requires that public safety representatives participate in the formation of the national plan. This will help ensure that public safety has access to the communications platform of the future. Moving to an IP-enabled 911 system will also benefit consumers with disabilities. H.R. 3403 requires that the national plan address solutions for providing 911 and enhanced 911 services to members of the disabilities community who may not be able to speak to or hear an emergency operator. By including those representing the disabilities community in the formation of the national plan, we will ensure that all consumers are able to access emergency services. Because consumers rely on 911, Congress must ensure that the 911 system is reliable. H.R. 3403 fulfills this duty by addressing the addition of VoIP service to the marketplace and by establishing a pathway to the future of the 911 system. This important measure has strong bipartisan support, including the support of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Ranking Member, Representative Barton, and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Internet, Representative Upton. I commend Representative Gordon for his excellent work on this legislation. I also thank the other members of the 911 Caucus, and Representatives Eshoo, Shimkus, and Pickering for their important and ongoing work in the area of Emergency communications. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3403.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3919, the ``Broadband Census of America Act of 2007''. This bipartisan legislation marks an important step in bringing us closer to affordable, robust broadband service for all Americans. Currently the Government does not adequately collect information on the extent of broadband deployment and usage in the United States. H.R. 3919 addresses this knowledge gap by improving the quality and quantity of data that the Government is authorized to collect concerning broadband availability and subscribership. Armed with this information, Government decision-makers. will have the in-depth information necessary to craft informed, coherent broadband policy. H.R. 3919 calls for the creation of a national broadband inventory map. This map will depict, at granular levels, where broadband service is available. We are informed by the efforts of States such a Kentucky that have successfully developed similar maps. State-level experience tells us that this map will likely spur the deployment of additional broadband facilities and will be a valuable resource for consumers. H.R. 3919 will also jump start efforts by local communities to improve broadband deployment and usage through the creation of grant programs to facilitate the collection of data for the broadband inventory map and local technology planning. These programs will help bring broadband facilities to communities that currently have little or no service. This is a good bill produced through positive, bipartisan efforts. I commend Ranking Member Barton, Subcommittee Chairman Markey, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Upton for their leadership and contributions to this legislation. I am proud to support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, today the House will vote on a conference report which includes the 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill and the 2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill. I rise in support of this legislation because I believe that this legislation will fund programs families in the 15th District need and rely on--quality education, strong health care, jobs that are safe for its workers and secure retirement plans. I am disappointed that the President has threatened to veto this legislation. I find it extremely irresponsible that he finds it acceptable to fund another $200 billion for the war in Iraq, but has issue with an increase of $9.8 billion for education, health and workforce programs and an increase of $4 billion for veterans' health care. Specifically this legislation will: Provide $37.2 billion to VA hospitals and clinics, and traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder research, over $2.6 billion more than the President requested. Invest $124.2 million into VA claims processors to address the backlog of 400,000 benefit claims. Increase education funding to $60.7 billion, funding that will be dedicated to Title I grants to help low-income children, teacher quality and after school programs, IDEA grants and Pell grants. Dedicate $12 billion to dislocated worker training, Job Corps, and worker protection efforts at the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health. Through this legislation we will fund all these programs, while only spending enough money equal to the cost of 2 months in Iraq. Let me be clear that it is not the goal of this Congress to withhold funding for our troops; however, it is important that Congress give this administration the message that our domestic programs should not be forgotten at the expense of a poorly handled and mismanaged war in Iraq. Madam Speaker, the annual appropriations process is never easy, but this Congress we have an opportunity to pass a good piece of legislation that is also fiscally responsible. As Members of Congress, it is our duty to our constituents to fund programs that will improve their quality of life, which is why I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 774, I call up the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DINGELL. The answer to the question is yes.

Mr. DINGELL. That would be a matter to be determined by the State in which the transaction and the events occurred.

Mr. DINGELL. Well, it's a ``yes'' if the State so decides. It's a ``no'' if they decide not.

Mr. DINGELL. Again, the response is that that is up to the State, and there is nothing in the legislation to preclude that.

Mr. DINGELL. Again, the answer is if that is so determined by the States, the answer is yes.

Mr. DINGELL. Well, I would certainly hope so, but I can't guarantee.

Mr. DINGELL. I would be happy to oblige my good friend.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3963, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. Madam Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. I would observe that it meets the concerns expressed both in the President's veto message and also in the comments raised by our Republican colleagues as we debated the bill at earlier times. I will note that the bill protects health insurance coverage for some 6 million children who now depend on CHIP. I will observe that it provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. Together, this is a total of better than 10 million young Americans who, without this legislation, would not have health insurance, and it is to be noted that those same young people will be losing their health insurance shortly if we do not act expeditiously on this matter. As mentioned, the bill makes changes to accommodate the President's stated concerns. First, it terminates the coverage of childless adults in 1 year. Second, it targets bonus payments only to States that increase enrollments of the poorest uninsured children, and it prohibits States from covering children in families with incomes above $51,000. Third, it contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only U.S. citizens are covered. Fourth, it encourages States to help low-income families to secure health insurance provided through their private employer. The bill is focused on the private marketplace. The evidence of that is the bill has strong support from the private health insurance industry. It is supported by the medical community, AMA, children's advocates, educators, advocates for people with disabilities, health professionals, hospitals, the AARP and others. It is solid, bipartisan legislation worked out in careful meetings with Members from both parties, including Senator Hatch and others on the Senate side who have done such important work on this matter in times past, and that includes also our dear friend, Senator Grassley. It is solid, bipartisan legislation that addresses the concerns expressed by the President and by our colleagues in the House on the Republican side. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 3963. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is a privilege for me to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) who has been a great leader in these matters.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record the disregards for children's coverage that have been submitted to us by the Congressional Research Service. The point here is that the money needs to continue to flow to working families so that we can keep them working rather than staying on welfare. Within the Medicaid and SCHIP programs, states are permitted to disregard or not count certain types of amounts of family income as decided by the State in determining eligibility for the program. This bill maintains this long-standing flexibility to allow States to disregard certain legitimate costs like child care and child support costs, recognizing that this income is not available for a family to spend on health coverage. Allowing States to disregard these costs ensures that working families have the money they need to pay for work- related expenses to ensure that low-income families can keep their jobs. This is important to keep families from having to go on welfare to get health coverage for their children. The following are the monthly disregards applied by States in 2006. The state of Alabama disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received for a family in its SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. The state of Alaska disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received and the full amount of child support paid for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It does not disregard income when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. The state of Arizona disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses, and $50 of child support received for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It does not disregard income when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. The state of Arkansas disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $50 of child support received for a family in its ARKids B Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It does not disregard income when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. The state of California disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received and the full amount of child support paid for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received and the full amount of child support paid for a family in its SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. The state of Colorado disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards all childcare and medical expenses, including health insurance premiums paid in the last 90 days for a family in its SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. Note: Child support received is not counted as income in SCHIP. The state of Connecticut disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $100 of child support received for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received for a family in its SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. The state of Delaware disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received for a family in its SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. The District of Columbia disregards Under poverty-level, the full amount of child care expenses may be disregarded for families under the federal poverty level, and disregards $100 in earnings and the full amount of child care expenses for those under the SCHIP-funded expansion when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It does not disregard income when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. The state of Florida disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards either Medicaid disregards or gross income (whichever is more beneficial to the family) when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. The state of Georgia disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received for a family in its SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. The state of Hawaii disregards $90 of earnings for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It does not disregard income when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. The state of Idaho does not disregard income for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It does not disregard income when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. The state of Illinois disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received and the full amount of child support paid for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received and the full amount of child support paid for a family in its SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. The state of Indiana disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received for a family in its SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP. The state of Iowa disregards 20 percent of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received and the full amount of child support paid for a family in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards 20 percent of earnings and $50 of child support received for a family in its SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an individual in

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield to a Member for whom I have great personal affection and respect, Mr. Andrews of New Jersey, for 1 minute. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, it's a privilege for me to yield at this time 1 minute to a very valuable Member of this body, our friend and colleague, Mr. Altmire of Pennsylvania.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve.