John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge, honor, and celebrate the City of Taylor on the occasion of its 40th Anniversary. Incorporated as a city on May 13, 1968, and named after our country's 12th president, Taylor's roots as a community date to the mid-19th Century. What began as a largely agricultural town grew into a prosperous and diverse city which features ample retail and industry for employment and safe neighborhoods for her citizens. Taylor first began as a Township when residents succeeded in petitioning for their own government in 1847. Like many Michigan communities, Taylor began to thrive when Ford Motor Company opened the nearby Rouge Plant. The Rouge, as it was often simply called, provided over 100,000 jobs at one time during the 1930s. This mighty economic engine created a boom in the burgeoning town that would carry it through the Great Depression and World War II, during which it played an invaluable part of the American war effort. As the auto industry continued to expand, Taylor grew as well. At the time of incorporation as a city in 1968, Taylor had a population of over 70,000 and was one of the largest cities in southeast Michigan. Residents like to say that ``all roads lead to Taylor,'' a statement justified by the many major transportation arteries that flow through the city. Taylor has taken wonderful advantage of this fact by becoming not only a community that it is necessary to drive through, but also a community that is necessary to stop in and enjoy. Taylor continues to thrive today as a result of active involvement and partnership from its corporate and individual citizens alike. Taylor is home to numerous industries and businesses, a large and impressive new SportsPlex, and many beautiful new municipal buildings and community centers. Of particular pride to the city and the region, Taylor is the annual host of the Junior Little League World Series--a week-long tournament that features teams from across the globe. Madam Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in honoring the City of Taylor on its 40th Anniversary. The City of Taylor is home to vibrant and stable neighborhoods, significant industrial production, world-class youth sports, and numerous commercial business opportunities. In celebrating Taylor's 40th Anniversary, we are honoring a city that truly represents the best of American history and progress.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act. It has been a long road to this point, and while I must say that I am not entirely pleased with the final bill, I do believe that it makes important steps forward to reforming the priorities of our farm policy. Michigan has had a tough go of things lately--and farming is no exception. Just last spring and summer Michigan experienced severe weather and droughts that caused enormous damage to local farms, leading the USDA to designate 83 Michigan counties as disaster areas. I have long said that farming is an inherently risky enterprise and with the recent downturn in the economy and fickle Michigan weather, it is clear to see why. I will be frank and say that this bill is far from perfect. Personally, I would have liked to see greater reforms in the areas of conservation and fruit and vegetable programs, however, I do think Michigan will benefit from the bill. Like the farm bill the House passed last summer, I am pleased to note that most of our farmers in the 15th District of Michigan will not see any significant negative changes if the farm bill is enacted. All of the safety net programs from the 2002 farm bill are maintained with minor changes--including direct payments and the counter cyclical and the marketing loan programs. However, the conference report does take measures to curb wasteful spending and distribute our resources to those in need. This bill places a cap on payments to those with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $500,000 or more, and puts in place the first-ever cap for farm income at $750,000 for fixed direct payments. In addition, the bill would eliminate the ``3-entity'' rule that allows producers to collect payments for multiple ownership interests. As a diverse agricultural state, Michigan has the second-widest variety of farm products after California, this legislation will provide great support for specialty crops. In 2006 Michigan produced 825,470 tons of fresh market and processing vegetables and the state ranks 5th in exports of fruits and 8th in exports of vegetables nationally. This bill creates a brand new section dedicated to fruit and vegetable producers and allocates a total of $1.3 billion for new specialty crop programs including $466 million over ten years for the specialty crop block grant program, which provides grants to states to support projects in research, marketing, education, pest and disease management, production and food safety. The conference agreement will also create a pilot Farm Flex project that will allow farmers to switch base acres to specified fruits or vegetables for processing for 2009 through 2012 crop years. This pilot project is limited to seven Midwestern States, including Michigan which is allocated 9,000 acres. This planting flexibility pilot program provides an important opportunity for specialty crop producers and I am pleased Michigan is included. More importantly, this will help the 1.26 million Michiganders that are currently using food stamps. Given Michigan's economic situation, I have advocated that a second economic stimulus package include an increase in food stamp benefits, and I am pleased that the Farm Bill has increased funding commitments for the Food Stamp Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). The conference agreement includes $7.8 billion for the Food Stamp program and would raise and index inflation for the program's standard deduction and minimum benefit. This is the first time since the program was created 40 years ago that the Food Stamp Program would fully account for annual inflation. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this will help 11 million low income people. TEFAP, a program that has provided assistance to approximately one million people in Michigan, will see $1.26 billion in funding that will benefit food banks and food pantries across the country. More importantly, this bill will increase annual funding for commodity purchases from $140 million to $250 million allowing organizations to meet the increasing demand for food services and the rising food prices. The CBO estimates that Michigan alone will receive $45 million in additional TEFAP funding from fiscal year 2008 to 2017. This is critical to organizations in Southeastern Michigan such as Gleaners Community Food Bank, who just over the last holiday season provided over 34,000 meals using the TEFAP program. Now while this conference agreement contains many benefits for my home state, as a lifetime conservationist I am extremely disappointed in the conservation title. I was displeased to see that the cap for the Conservation Reserve Program was lowered to 32 million acres. Both the Senate and the House had reauthorized the current enrollment level of 39.2 million acres. Lowering the cap would result in a cut of almost 7 million acres. Each year this program helps produce 13.5 million pheasants and 2.2 million ducks. As the largest land retirement program, lowering the cap will be devastating. And while the Wetlands Reserve Program is continued through 2012, it is done so at a lower level than in the 2002 Farm Bill. This is extremely disappointing because 50 percent of Michigan's threatened or endangered species require healthy and functional wetlands. Michigan currently has enrolled 125 easements of over 16,000 acres and has a backlog of close to 25,000 acres. This reduction will be extremely detrimental as it is the only conservation program solely dedicated to restoring wetland habitat. In addition, I have real concerns about the wisdom and merit of the agricultural chemicals tax credit provided in Section 15343 that allows a tax credit up to $2,000,000 per year until 2012 for eligible agricultural businesses to pay for and offset the costs of security measures taken to protect pesticides and fertilizers used in agricultural operations. Fortune 500 companies that manufacture or retail agricultural pesticides and fertilizers should not need the taxpayer to help offset the costs of employee security training, installation of security lighting, computer security measures, locks and fences to protect their facilities, and other such security measures. Finally, Section 7524 amends current law to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a permit to the Department of Homeland Security to transfer live foot-and-mouth disease virus from Plum Island, New York, to the mainland United States. The majority of the research at Plum Island is concentrated on foot-and-mouth disease, which is very highly contagious, and which Federal law has for more than 50 years restricted to Plum Island. An accidental release of this infectious virus could have grave implications for the livestock industry and for the national economy. This issue is highly controversial, yet it has not been the subject of hearings nor open debate. I believe that it is a mistake to proceed with this until Congress has fully examined whether USDA and DHS have adequately assessed the health and economic risks, environmental impacts, and cost-benefit of this proposal. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a perfect one, however, it has bipartisan support. I know from my years in this institution that compromise is necessary in order to be successful, and I know the conferees worked night and day to come to this agreement. I feel confident Michigan farmers and producers will benefit from this final bill, as will the folks in Michigan who have fallen on hard times, which is why I stand today to lend my support.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the Iraq War has now entered its sixth year. During this time more than 4,000 soldiers have died, almost 30,000 have been injured, and tens of thousands more will suffer mental scars for years to come. The stress of multiple deployments has strained our military, and our military families. Many of our brightest young officers are leaving the military for careers that allow them to have a family, something that is difficult if not impossible when they are being asked to return to Iraq every 12 months. In addition, the economic cost of this war has been nothing short of staggering. The United States has already spent more than five hundred billion dollars in Iraq, or about $5000 for every household in America. Our children and our grandchildren will be paying off this debt for years to come. After all the lives lost and money spent, this President has still failed to articulate what our mission in Iraq is, and what strategic goals he still hopes to accomplish. That is why I have introduced legislation that would require the President to have our troops out of Iraq before he leaves office, and also why I do not support giving the Pentagon another $162 billion it can use to wage this war for another year after the next President is sworn in. While I do not support further funding for this war beyond the President's term in office, I do support the provisions that have been attached conditioning this funding to a timeline for withdrawal, prohibiting the use of torture, holding contractors operating in Iraq responsible for fraud and other criminal activity, stopping the construction of permanent military bases in Iraq, and requiring the President to submit any long term security agreement he reaches with the Government of Iraq to Congress for approval. For too long this President has been given a blank check with which to pursue his Iraq policies, and I am glad that the House of Representatives will once again attempt to hold him accountable for his mismanagement of this war. It must be pointed out that this vote is not a vote against the troops. Those who are serving our country in Iraq are performing admirably under difficult circumstances. Congress has already provided funds for the Department of Defense and war operations for Fiscal Year 2008. This vote won't endanger the troops' safety in any way, but it does send a signal to the President that he should begin the process of bringing them home. I also support the decision to include in this legislation funding for other important Democratic priorities that will help boost our economy. Overall, these measures make up only a small fraction of the total cost of the bill, but they are targeted to make a big impact here at home. Not only will they give much needed assistance to the unemployed, veterans, and other vulnerable people, but these provisions will play an important role in stimulating the lagging economy. For example, the supplemental package includes a bill I introduced that will place a temporary moratorium on seven regulations recently issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). These regulations, if allowed to stay in place, would reduce or eliminate payments for services provided to vulnerable Americans and the institutions that serve them: children with disabilities, people with mental illness, those with multiple care needs, people attempting to transition from an institution to a community living environment, and people with disabilities who need these critical services, such as rehabilitation services and case management, in order to remain in their community. In Michigan, the rehabilitation rule would cut rehabilitation services for 15,000 children with special needs, eliminate habilitation services for another 29,000 developmentally disabled adults and children living in the community, and eliminate access to critical community services and resources for 23,600 adults and 5,100 children who are in supported independent living arrangements or group homes. The supplemental will also contain legislation I cosponsored to extend Unemployment Compensation, a provision that will greatly help the residents of Michigan's 15th Congressional District which I have the honor of serving. The National Employment Law Project projects that from May 2008 through March 2009, more than 162,000 workers will exhaust their benefits in Michigan, and that currently over 64,000 have already exhausted this benefit. By including this legislation in today's supplemental package Congress will be helping 226,590 workers in Michigan who desperately need the extra boost, while also giving a much needed boost to the economy. This bill will also provide expanded G.I. Benefits for Veterans Education, restoring the promise of a 4 year college education to those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. As a veteran of World War II, I know how instrumental the original G.I. Bill was in expanding economic opportunity, growing the middle class, and creating a strong and vibrant post-war economy. The President and some of his Republican colleagues, including Senator McCain, are opposed to providing increased educational opportunities to today's generation of veterans because they fear it will discourage men and women currently serving from reenlisting. I find it highly disturbing that the President and his colleagues would withhold these much needed benefits to those who have served our country so admirably, and I would advise them that the quickest way to fix our military's retention problem would be to put an end to the misguided Iraq war that has so seriously damaged morale. Another provision that I strongly support provides $675 million to assist refugees, with the bulk of that money going to address the growing humanitarian crisis in Iraq. I asked the President to include $1.5 billion in his budget for increased U.S. spending in the region, increased U.S. contributions to United Nations appeals for Iraqi refugees, and increased bilateral assistance for our allies, such as Jordan, that are struggling to deal with huge numbers of Iraqi refugees within their borders. Unfortunately this request was denied, and I am very pleased that I was able to work with my Democratic colleagues to see to it that some of these funds were made available in the Supplemental. No matter what we do here today, the President has made it clear that he intends to keep 160,000 troops in Iraq as long as he is in office. While I am disappointed that it appears the President has no interest in ending the war on his watch, I am pleased the Democratic Congress has gone on record as being opposed to that plan, and has put in place the kind of timelines and restrictions required for us to begin to bring our troops home. I also think it is wholly appropriate to include funding for domestic priorities in an emergency supplemental spending bill. Just as the President's mishandling of the Iraq war has caused a crisis in the Middle East, his mismanagement of the economy has created a crisis here at home for millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for a particular provision in the Supplemental Appropriations legislation, H.R. 2642. Included in this bill is legislation that I introduced with Representative Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania. The ``Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008'' is a simple, straightforward bill that would place a temporary moratorium on seven regulations recently issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The Committee on Energy and Commerce recently reported the bill with unanimous support. The House then passed it with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 349 to 62. These Medicaid regulations in question, if allowed to stay in place, would reduce or eliminate payments for services provided to vulnerable Americans and the institutions that serve them. They would affect children with disabilities, people with mental illness, those with multiple care needs, people attempting to transition from an institution to a community living environment, and people with disabilities who need services, such as rehabilitation services and case management in order to remain in their community. The regulations would also eliminate funding for school-based outreach and enrollment, and funding that helps safety net providers care for indigent and under-insured patients in our communities. In my home State of Michigan, the rehabilitation rule would cut services for 15,000 children with special needs, eliminate services for another 29,000 developmentally disabled adults and children and eliminate access to critical community services and resources for 23,600 adults and 5,100 children who are in supported independent living arrangements or group homes. The Administration's arguments for supporting these regulations simply do not hold water. These regulations go beyond any justifiable point to curb abuses in the system. Rather, they represent a misguided effort to shift costs to States and prohibit Federal support for legitimate expenditures on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries. More than 2,000 organizations representing beneficiaries, providers, schools, and States have written to lend their support to this initiative, from ``A'', such as the American Hospital Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, to ``Z,'' the Zion Lutheran Elementary School in Nebraska. The chorus of support has been overwhelming. I would also like to take a moment to commend Chairman Pallone and Ranking Members Barton and Deal who worked to prepare the bill for rapid action in Committee and the House floor. I also wish to thank Chairman Obey for including the Medicaid legislation in the supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, this legislation represents a fair, common sense solution that will allow homeowners to stay in their homes, and help stabilize the housing market. I would like to extend my gratitude to Chairman Frank for his hard work on this legislation, which will be of critical importance in Michigan, where are there are thousands of homeowners in danger of foreclosure. I am especially pleased that this bill includes legislation which I cosponsored that would provide up to $300 billion in new loan guarantees to help refinance at-risk borrowers into viable mortgages. In addition, this legislation includes important provisions that expand homeownership opportunities for veterans, seniors, and first-time homebuyers. This legislation will help both homeowners and lenders, but this is no bailout. Lenders who participate will have to take a loss, but their losses under this program will be far less than if these properties go into foreclosure. Borrowers who realize a profit when they sell their home must return some of that profit to the government. The United States provided similar leadership during the New Deal using a program run by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC). Much like the HOLC, this program stands to save millions of homes from foreclosure at a minimum cost to the taxpayers. I would especially like to thank Chairman Frank for his assistance in securing passage of a provision important to the residents of Parkview Apartments in Ypsilanti, Michigan. I have been working for 4 years now to try to facilitate the transfer of this property to Ypsilanti Housing Authority. Chairman Frank and the staff of the Financial Services Committee have been instrumental in these efforts, which are designed to clarify Congressional intent regarding certain properties that entered the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) property disposition process prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) but where the initial proposed disposition was delayed. While I believe that Parkview is already subject to the grandfathering provision of the DRA, this provision clarifies that such properties should be considered ``pre-DRA'' properties, and that HUD should proceed with its prior disposition contracts as to those properties. This provision is one of many that was included in legislation that passed the House last year, and is now being included in this bill as part of a comprehensive housing package. This legislation is of the utmost importance to the Congress, and it is my hope and expectation that it will soon be enacted into law.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4040) to establish consumer product safety standards and other safety requirements for children's products and to reauthorize and modernize the Consumer Product Safety Commission, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the thoroughly bipartisan legislation underlying this motion. I begin with a commendation to my good friend from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including Mr. Barton, the ranking minority member, and the other members of the subcommittee and full committee who have worked so hard on this legislation on both sides of the aisle. I would observe that this is a thoroughly bipartisan piece of legislation. It passed out of the committee 51-0, and it passed the House 407-0. It is one of the most important consumer protection bills to come before this House in this Congress. It is crucially important for us to have such legislation signed into law this year. And I want to point out that without it, people will remain at risk from dangerous products and from an important Federal regulator who will remain both underfunded and incapable of acting properly to take care of consumers' legitimate concerns with regard to the safety of all manner of products from toys from the very beginning of life right through the time that we enter the graveyard. On December 19, 2007, the House passed this legislation then without a dissenting vote. It represents extraordinary work by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and it shows how bipartisanship can function, and it shows how an excellent staff on both sides of the aisle working together can bring before us legislation that is in the broad overall public interest. The Senate substituted its version of the bill on March 6, 2008. Some elements of the Senate bill are problematic, but others are indeed worthy of serious consideration by the conference committee. The differences between the two bills are outweighed by their similarities. There is no reason why the House conferees should not return here in short order with a workable, balanced, and strong conference report deserving the full support of the House and upon which I intend to work closely with my good friends on the minority side, as we have so far. I want to remind my colleagues what the House bill does. It bans lead beyond the most minute amount in products intended for children under 12 years of age. It mandates premarket testing by certified laboratories for lead and other hazards in children's products, and it sees that those laboratories are properly qualified and able to carry out their important responsibilities. It places requirements on manufacturers to enhance recalls. It empowers the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, to share information about dangerous products immediately. It requires CPSC to provide public access to a database of serious injuries and deaths caused by consumer products, but it does so requiring also that the information be truthful, correct, and properly verified. It prohibits the sale and export of recalled products. It ensures that CPSC effectively shares information with the States. And it bans industry-sponsored travel by CPSC Commissioners and their staff. I want to observe that the motion is a good one. I support it. I commend my good friend from Kentucky for his offering of it and for his leadership in the handling of this legislation. I again want to pay my respects and compliments to my colleagues on the Republican side and to my colleagues on this side for the outstanding way in which they have put together this legislation. I urge that the House support the motion to instruct offered by my good friend from Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6022) to suspend the acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and for other purposes.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent at this time that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) be permitted to control the remainder of the time on this side.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have long supported filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and strongly support the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provision that directed the Secretary of Energy to fill the reserve ``as expeditiously as practicable'' to the full 1 billion barrel capacity authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, however, also requires that the Secretary time SPR acquisitions in a manner that does not incur excessive costs or do not appreciably affect the consumer price of petroleum products. On May 8, I wrote the President urging him to direct the Secretary of Energy not to enter into any new contracts to fill the SPR during calendar year 2008. This, regrettably, is what the Department of Energy has proposed to do under an April 4 solicitation for royalty-in-kind oil to be delivered between August and December of this year. In light of the record cost of oil and resulting hardship for average Americans, businesses, farmers, and the general economy, I believe it would be imprudent for DOE to take these barrels off the market. While there is no guarantee that putting this oil onto the market rather than into the SPR will lower prices, even such a modest step could potentially prick the speculative bubble now characterizing oil markets. In 2006, DOE suspended filling SPR during the summer driving season, and that is what is appropriate for it to do now. While it is in the discretion of DOE whether or not to enter into new contracts at this time, the administration seems determined to forge ahead. Common sense would say to us not to take the oil off the market at a time of record high prices. Given the administration's apparent determination to pursue this course, the Congress must act and I support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents a fair, commonsense solution that will give assistance to communities struggling to deal with the problem of vacant homes, help stabilize the housing market, and help low income families obtain a home they can afford and be proud of. The Neighborhood Stabilization Act will make available to communities throughout the Nation $15 billion in new zero interest loans and grants for the purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties. State and local governments have been hit hard by the foreclosure crisis not only because they have been stuck with the bill for maintaining and securing vacant homes, but also because they face decreased property tax revenues. Not only are these properties off the tax rolls, but empty houses drive down the value of other homes in the neighborhood which further decreases tax revenues. Just as important, this bill will get these homes occupied by families who truly need them. A priority will be given to low income families, families who have lost a home through foreclosure, as well as first responders, veterans, public school teachers, and homeless persons. This measure will bring almost $600 million in assistance to the State of Michigan at a time when it is badly needed. Michigan has been particularly hard hit by the President's misguided economic policies, most especially his failure to address the foreclosure crisis. I sincerely hope that the President, who approved a $30 billion bailout for the investment bank Bear Steams, will see to it to sign and implement this bill which will provide much needed assistance to State and local governments.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a fair, common sense solution that will allow homeowners to stay in their homes and help stabilize the housing market. I would like to extend my gratitude to Chairman Frank for his hard work on this legislation, which will be of critical importance in Michigan, where there are thousands of homeowners in danger of foreclosure. I am especially pleased that this bill includes legislation which I cosponsored that would provide up to $300 billion in new loan guarantees to help refinance at-risk borrowers into viable mortgages. In addition, this legislation includes important provisions that expand homeownership opportunities for veterans, seniors, and first-time homebuyers. This legislation will help both homeowners and lenders, but this is no bailout. Lenders who participate will have to take a loss, but their losses under this program will be far less than if these properties go into foreclosure. Borrowers who realize a profit when they sell their home must return some of that profit to the government. The United States provided similar leadership during the New Deal using a program run by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, HOLC. Much like the HOLC, this program stands to save millions of homes from foreclosure at a minimum cost to the taxpayers. I would especially like to thank Chairman Frank for his assistance in securing passage of a provision important to the residents of Parkview Apartments in Ypsilanti, Michigan. I have been working for four years now to try to facilitate the transfer of this property to Ypsilanti Housing Authority. Chairman Frank and the staff of the Financial Services Committee have been instrumental in these efforts, which are designed to clarify Congressional intent regarding certain properties that entered the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, property disposition process prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act, DRA, but where the initial proposed disposition was delayed. While I believe that Parkview is already subject to the grandfathering provision of the DRA, this provision clarifies that such properties should be considered ``pre-DRA'' properties, and that HUD should proceed with its prior disposition contracts as to those properties. This provision is one of many that was included in legislation that passed the House last year, and is now being included in this bill as part of a comprehensive housing package. This legislation is of the utmost importance to the Congress, and it is my hope and expectation that it will soon be enacted into law.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, today we consider H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. I first wish to congratulate Representative Slaughter for her leadership on this bill on which she has worked for better than 13 years. It has been a privilege to join her in that work, and I am delighted that it has brought us to today's vote. Recent advances in research have made it possible to identify the genetic basis for human diseases. These breakthroughs, magnificent as they are, have opened the door to early detection and treatment of diseases and prevention strategies geared to a person's genetic makeup. At the same time, this information can also be used to unfairly discriminate against or stigmatize individuals when it comes to insurance and employment. To protect individuals from insurance discrimination, H.R. 493 would prohibit health insurers, both in group and individual markets, from canceling, denying, refusing to renew or changing the terms or premiums of coverage based solely on genetic predispositions towards specific diseases. Additionally, in order to protect individuals from employment discrimination, this bill would make it unlawful for employers or other hiring entities to use an individual's genetic information regarding hiring, firing, promotion or other terms and conditions of employment. The legislation requires that genetic information be treated as a part of the individual's confidential medical record and that employers maintain separate forms or files for any genetic information that they may obtain. The House of Representatives passed this legislation a year ago with a strong bipartisan vote of 420-3. Unfortunately, the measure has been held up in the Senate, as usual. With these concerns now resolved, we are close to providing Americans the ability to undergo genetic testing that may indicate early treatment and prevention of diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes and Alzheimer's, without fear of losing their health insurance or affecting adversely the conditions of their employment.

Mr. DINGELL. I yield myself 1 additional minute. The bill currently before us includes clarifying language intended to ease the concerns of some of my colleagues and is identical to the version passed by the Senate last week. These changes include a firewall between title I and II of the bill. The modifications clarify that employers are not liable for health insurance violations under civil rights laws unless the employer has separately violated a provision of title II governing employers. The changes also make it clear that while individuals are protected from discrimination based on genetic predisposition, the authority of insurance companies to base coverage and pricing on the actual presence of a disease is not affected. These changes broaden the base of support for the bill and allow us to bring it to the House floor with the expectation that it will be signed into law by the President. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this bill and for coming together to make this legislation a reality. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield back the remainder of my time to my distinguished friend from California, the Honorable George Miller, chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, and that he be permitted to yield that time in accordance with his whims.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007. This bill has many provisions which will improve homeland security, ensure safe navigation and enhance shipping reliability, among other measures. However, I would particularly like to draw my colleagues' attention to the ballast water protections in this bill. As a member who hails from the Great Lakes State, I am perhaps more familiar than most with the havoc invasive species can reap on our waterways. I would note that in its 2005 report, the Great Lakes Collaboration stated that the world's greatest freshwater lakes are ``succumbing to an irreversible `invasional meltdown' that may be more severe than chemical pollution.'' There are currently 185 invasive species in the Great Lakes and another is discovered, on average, every 28 weeks! Invasive species cost the Federal Government about $1.3 billion per year and it is estimated that 42 percent of plants and animals on the Threatened and Endangered Species List are at risk because of alien species. Aquatic invasives pose a particular threat because of their ability to spread quickly through connected waterways. Ballast water, which is used to stabilize freighters, is taken on board before a voyage begins. It can often contain organisms which become invasive species when released in navigable waters. For the reasons outlined above, ballast water represents a significant threat to our Great Lakes. To its credit, the National Park Service has already taken steps to prevent ballast water from spreading a deadly fish virus known as VHS in Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. But much more must be done to protect the Great Lakes and other waterways from the exotic species contained in ballast water. H.R. 2830 takes these necessary steps. This legislation for the first time creates strong ballast water management treatment standards in statute and requires that ballast water treatment technology be installed on board beginning next year. In addition, the bill requires all discharged ballast water to be thoroughly treated and implements tougher standards beginning in 2012, with a goal of zero species in discharged water by 2015. The manager's amendment to the bill also includes clarifying provisions to ensure that ballast water management activities are properly reported, so that freighters can be held accountable for complying with the law. I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Chairman James Oberstar, for his hard work on this important legislation. We in the Great Lakes region are lucky to have one of our own, the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota, overseeing these matters. I urge all of my colleagues to support this critically important bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in observance of the 93rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide. On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman government detained hundreds of clergymen, professionals, intellectuals, and other political and community leaders. This marked the opening of a campaign of genocide that over the next 2 years would lead to the deaths of a million and a half Armenians. It is important to both remember this event, and to acknowledge it as genocide. Not only does it allow us to pay proper respect to those who lost their lives in Armenia at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, but it also helps us to comprehend the malevolent and inhumane events that take place in our global community today. Ethnic conflict and sectarian fighting remain an urgent issue for both the U.S. and the international community to address. The historical lessons and the exchange of ideas that flow from an honest discussion about the genocide that took place in Armenia can help us take steps to prevent further atrocities from occurring in our time. It is my hope that today's observation and reflection on the genocide in Armenia is part of a renewed effort of focusing our efforts towards the goal of understanding and eliminating the circumstances under which genocide can exist.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 323) expressing Congressional support for the goals and ideals of National Health Care Decisions Day.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I reserve the balance of my time. My good friend from Georgia, I know, has some important comments.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5613, the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008. This is a bipartisan bill, critically important to our Nation's safety net. The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported it favorably with a strong bipartisan vote of 46-0. I want to commend and thank our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Pallone, and our distinguished colleague and cosponsor of the legislation, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, for their leadership on this matter. And I want to express to my good friends and the ranking members on the committee and the subcommittee, Mr. Barton and Mr. Deal, for their superb cooperation. I also want to thank my colleagues on the Committees on Ways and Means and Financial Services for the splendid cooperation and help they gave us in moving this legislation to the floor expeditiously. The support of Chairmen Rangel and Stark were both necessary and very much appreciated. H.R. 5613 places a 1-year moratorium on seven regulations recently issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The regulations would have restricted payments to critical safety net providers such as hospitals and nursing homes, as well as payments for graduate medical education training. The regulation would have reduced or eliminated payments that allow children with severe mental illness to remain in family settings, and payments to schools transporting poor children with disabilities. The Governors of all 50 States oppose these rules, as do the State Medicaid directors, State legislators, and the National Association of Counties. More than 2,000 national and local groups such as the American Hospital Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the March of Dimes support this legislation. They know of the devastating effect these rules would have upon local communities, upon the hospitals, and upon vulnerable beneficiaries. Without this moratorium, schools would be forced to lay off workers starting in June. Hospitals and nursing homes would be forced to cut off services and to lay off workers as well. In troublesome economic times, we cannot afford to lose good-paying jobs or to cut services that enable people with disabilities to be gainfully employed. H.R. 5613 will postpone the implementation of these seven rules for 1 year, giving Congress time to evaluate the effect they would have on States, providers and beneficiaries. I want to again commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including my dear friend, Mr. Barton, and Mr. Deal for their leadership and hard work on this matter. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5613. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Will the gentleman from Texas yield?

Mr. DINGELL. I want to again commend my friend from Texas for his superb performance on this legislation. And I want to assure him that I share his concerns on the intergovernmental transfer matter, and that we will be going into it. I thank my friend.