John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 98, a resolution disapproving of President Obama's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit. We have been through this song and dance several times before, and we have reached the same conclusion every time. Failing to raise the debt ceiling would do irreparable damage to our economy, our financial markets and our credit rating. We know we must raise the debt ceiling to prevent a default on our nation's obligations, avert an international economic crisis, and prevent further harm from being visited upon middle class families. Why are some around here so hopelessly slow--or is it malevolent? With the coming of the new year, most of us hoped that Congress would reconvene with a real dedication to getting our economy on track and putting Americans back to work. Yet here we are, rehashing the same tired debate for the third time and continuing to play the same sorry old political blame games. It is no surprise that the approval ratings of this institution are at record lows when the American people see us engaged in political posturing instead of trying to deal with the problems average Americans face every day. People across this country are hurting and are sick of the inaction in Washington. Instead of passing a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut, reauthorizing our Nation's surface transportation programs or federal aviation programs, we are faced with another symbolic vote which has no chance of being signed into law. Why would leadership even schedule this vote? Is it to pander to their base and score cheap political points? Congress has plenty of items to consider which could provide a real benefit to the American people and our country. It is time to stop playing games and get to work, and we might just do something good for America.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3630. Working Americans cannot wait another minute for Congress to make up its mind and act. The country and its people are ill-served by the House leadership's inability to make up its mind. The economy and its future, as well as our credit rating, are being severely impaired by leadership's failure to lead in finding a solution to this problem and Republicans' followership to follow and support such solution. While the Senate's solution is less than perfect, it's a desperately needed start. Our failure to prevent an increase in payroll taxes and the expiration of unemployment benefits will cut the legs out from under our country's economic recovery. To be clear, I am not at all comforted by the Senate's compromise on extending unemployment benefits. By not addressing the contentious ``look-back'' issue, it is all but certain that states with persistently high unemployment rates that have improved very marginally--like my home state of Michigan--will all of a sudden find themselves ineligible for emergency federal benefits. As far as I'm concerned, that's like taking a sick person's medicine away because he's gotten slightly better. That's not to say the bill is all bad. The Senate amendment to H.R. 3630 also extends for two months the critical section 508 hospital reclassification and will allow us more time to find a workable and sustainable solution to the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate reimbursement levels. I urge my colleagues--particularly those on the other side of the aisle--to do the right thing by the American people and vote in favor of the Senate's amendment to H.R. 3630. The House leadership cannot continue to move the goalposts every time Congress appears close to a deal. The GOP strategy of trying to keep America down to win elections endangers the country, our people, and our future. In short, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and punish hardworking Americans in the process. We cannot in good conscience go home to our districts for the holidays without passing this bill and committing to coming back here in March to enact a full one-year extension of UI benefits, the payroll tax cuts, and Medicare physician reimbursement rates. The Congress's dithering around has brought us to the brink again, but we have an opportunity to salvage this situation tonight. We will be foolish to let it pass us by.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act. While this legislation is not without problems, it still provides the necessary resources and support to our men and women in uniform. As our nation winds down one war and continues to fight another, giving the troops the resources they need to succeed should be a top national priority. The legislation before us today accomplishes this important goal. H.R. 1540 does the right thing and gives our service members a pay raise of 1.6 percent. It also ensures that we are taking adequate measures to protect our troops which are still in the theatre of combat by authorizing $2.7 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles, which protect our troops from improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Additionally, the legislation provides $3 billion for directly combating IEDs in Afghanistan, and increases the Abrams tank program by $255 million. All of these important increases will have a real impact on the safety and wellbeing of out troops overseas, and it would be irresponsible to not support this legislation because of that fact. The provisions relating to military detention for foreign al-Qaeda terrorists has generated much discussion, and rightfully so. Any effort which deals with civil liberties and constitutional rights must be taken very seriously. H.R 1540 simply restates what has become law on this issue through court decisions and executive actions over the last 10 years. It provides for military custody for foreigners who are members of, or substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, but gives the president wide latitude to try any such suspect in civilian courts. Specifically, the president is granted the authority to issue a national security waiver to authorize a trial in civilian courts. The legislation also explicitly states that U.S. citizens are not subject to military detention, which is a vitally important safeguard. Finally, H.R. 1540 includes language to ensure that the FBI can continue with their investigations of terrorists on U.S. soil. While this language is certainly not perfect, I believe it strikes a fair compromise between national security and civil liberties as it simply restates what our policy has been over the last decade. Decisions about war and our national defense should never be taken lightly, and this is especially true in this instance. This legislation makes the necessary investments to keep our troops safe and deserves to be supported.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with disappointment over the legislative package put before us. As American families struggle to heat their homes, find jobs in their communities, and save for retirement or their children's education, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are using this package to provide assistance to these families to insert controversial policy riders. Like all members of the U.S. House of Representatives, I agree that we must pass a sensible solution to fix the way providers are paid under Medicare, an unemployment extension, and tax relief for middle-class families, but I cannot in good conscience support H.R. 3630 as written. Like my colleagues, I agree strongly that we must address the Sustainable Growth Rate, ensuring that our medical providers are paid sufficiently for the coverage they provide under Medicare. However, H.R. 3630 will address this problem for only the next two years, leaving us to once again deal with a massive payment cut--37 percent-- in 2014. I believe strongly that we must come together and find a way to permanently address the way we pay our doctors rather than kicking the can down the road time after time. Further, I cannot stomach though the drastic cuts to our healthcare programs. H.R. 3630 will pay for these extenders by increasing Medicare premiums for some beneficiaries and increasing the number of beneficiaries required to pay increased premiums. It also cuts over $21 billion from Affordable Care Act programs, endangering the implementation of health reform, increasing the number of uninsured by 170,000 people, and breaking our promise to American families, seniors and children that they will have access to affordable health coverage. In another act of blatant cynicism, my Republican colleagues seem to be blaming the recession on the unemployed by slashing their benefits. America's working families didn't cause our country's economic troubles, yet the Republicans seem bent on making them pay all the same. We're not out of this recession, and my friends on the other side of the aisle want us to swallow an unheard-of 40-week reduction in benefits for people struggling to make ends meet? As if that weren't enough, Republicans seek to ensure that state agencies can engage in all manner of bureaucratic rascality to deny the truly needy the benefits they must have to keep the heat on and put food on the table. This GOP strategy to keep America down so they can win elections next year sickens me. The people in Michigan are hurting badly and need more help, not less. The Republicans' solution to the economic woes of working men and women would do Ebenezer Scrooge proud. The final nail in this legislative coffin is the decision by the Majority to roll back efforts to protect our environment. I believe it is important that the Clean Air Act's health-based and air quality standards be protected. The federal government has a system already in place to keep our air clean and maintain the health of our citizens and rather than dismantle this system, we must bolster it. I agree any solution to air pollution issues must represent an equitable balance among all affected industries and parties. The existing Clean Air Act is such a solution and before we take any steps to alter it, as the so- called ``EPA Regulatory Relief Act'' does, we need to know we have developed something much better to put in its place. In hearings on this and other bills to change the Clean Air Act, I've asked my colleagues to come up with real solutions but instead their only idea is to indefinitely postpone Clean Air requirements without any regard to air quality or health effects. As we work to improve our fragile economy, it is important that we support businesses so they can have the tools to create and maintain jobs and put Americans back to work. However, it is also important that we not cede ground in our efforts to keep our air clean; the health of our citizens is too important. Mr. Speaker, this bill is yet another in a long list of partisan bills that my Republican colleagues have brought to the House floor with the knowledge and understanding that it is dead on arrival in the Senate. If Congress is to govern properly--by producing balanced plans to reduce our deficit, investing in our Nation's infrastructure, and creating jobs--then we must set aside the extreme ideological agenda and come together for a common cause. The American people want and need the federal government working to restore our economy, increase our competitiveness in the global marketplace, and provide American families with the opportunity to succeed. When this bill fails to move in the Senate, I hope my Republican colleagues will realize that we cannot spend the rest of the 112th Congress legislating from the fringes of the political spectrum.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2845. This is a bipartisan bill, somewhat a rarity, and the more welcome for that reason. It's going to help instill public confidence in our Nation's pipeline safety system by increasing safety standards without overly burdensome actions towards industry. The legislation shows that bipartisanship is possible in this Congress, and that we can conduct the business of the American people if we will but sit down and work together. I first want to thank Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman and my friend, Mr. Larsen of Washington, for their hard work. I also want to recognize and thank Jeff Baran and Garrett Golding of the committee staff for their hard work, as well as Greg Sundstrom of my personal staff, who worked with great diligence and skill on this matter. Chairman Mica, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and Mr. Rush also deserve recognition for their hard work as the two committees have worked harmoniously together to forge an agreement on the final product we have before us today. The inclusive process used in this case is an excellent model of how Congress should move forward on a host of other issues, and I hope that the instructive character of it is accepted by my colleagues. Recent accidents in California, Pennsylvania, Montana, and my home State of Michigan each highlighted serious deficiencies in our pipeline safety laws. H.R. 2845 incorporates the lessons learned in these incidents and strengthens laws in the areas of concern. Specifically, the bill expands the integrity management program to improve inspections while phasing out our class location requirements, thereby putting stronger safety standards in place while taking steps to remove redundant regulations. The leak detection, automatic or remote-controlled shut-off valve, and maximum allowable operating pressure provisions are a step in the right direction and will do much to improve safety. Pipeline safety is not a partisan issue but, rather, is something that impacts all Americans. We have an obligation to protect the American people and the environment from harm while maintaining a system that transports our energy resources efficiently. It is my hope that the Senate will take up this legislation promptly and that the Obama administration will implement these changes in a meaningful way. We will all be watching to make sure that this happens. Together, we have come up with a sound piece of legislation which has the support of both industry and safety advocates, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I would also like to observe, when one of these things lets go, it's quite an event. You will see something that looks a little bit like hell with the fire and flame and explosion and blasts and dead people and scorched automobiles, homes and the environment. I am delighted to see that we are doing this because we are protecting us both from gas and oil spills, and the evil consequences of that.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a magnificent solution to a nonexistent problem. But it's made a lot of money for a lot of lobbyists, and a lot of industrial polluters are going to enjoy this, hiding behind the supposed benefit that it's going to give to the farmers. In a nutshell, this legislation is not going to help the farmers; it's going to help the people who farm the farmers. And the end result is that, when this nonsensical bill gets over to the courts, the courts are going to look at it and say, Just what, in the name of common sense, is the House trying to do with this legislation? Nowhere in the Clean Air Act is a word about nuisance dust, but it's very prominently put here in the legislation. And lo and behold, it also has something do, supposedly, with some kind of action that the EPA is supposed to take. But diligent looking at the legislation doesn't reveal what that might be. The question here, then, is: We have a solution in search of a problem. We've got a job crisis in our Nation, crippling debt, excessive deficit, and the gaping inequality between the poor and the well-to-do is putting democracy at risk. And when this country needs us to focus on serious problems like deficit and national debt, we are here busily scratching around to try and fit a solution on a problem that doesn't exist. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were the last major changes to the original Clean Air Act of 1970; and, unlike what we are piddling around with today, those legislations were needed, and they have served us well. The Congress held lengthy hearings and did a tremendous amount of work to understand what it was. Eighteen months or so of consideration of the legislation led finally to its enactment, and it has cleaned up the air for our people. While the amendments of 1990 were truly bipartisan, only four of the 120 sponsors of this legislation are Democrats. Ten amendments were considered in the committee, but only one Democratic amendment was adopted. The final adoption of the legislation occurred strictly along partisan lines. It should be clear to anyone that this is not compromise legislation. Supporters insist the legislation is necessary due to uncertainty regarding EPA action. There is no uncertainty here. The Republican author of a similar Senate bill, a former Secretary of Agriculture, takes a different position. In one of his weekly columns, the Senate sponsor stated, ``I asked only for clarity from EPA, and this week Administrator Jackson finally provided it.'' It's obvious to our friends in the Senate and from the EPA Administrator, herself, that EPA will not implement stricter regulations. Even newspapers in the sponsor's home State have questioned the logic of this legislation. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader wrote that the bill is fighting ``against a made-up problem'' and that it's time for the sponsor ``to let the phantom issue of dust regulation settle.'' The Yankton Daily Press and The Dakotan gave a ``thumbs down'' signal on the bill, in which they say it is unnecessary. The two local papers wish that those who had sponsored this legislation would stop trying to stir the fear of farmers and ranchers and, instead, spend time fighting real problems rather than those which are imaginary. This bill does not help the farmers and ranchers. It helps the people who farm the farmers and a fine collection of well-to-do lobbyists down on K Street who are profiting mightily on selling a nonsensical piece of legislation which wastes the time of Congress and does nothing for the farmers or the ranchers or the economy or the jobs. So I hope that the House will reject these half-baked bills that are poorly written, contain no solutions, deal with no problems, help no one, and that the two parties can sit down and find real, important, reasoned compromises to real problems. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 10, the REINS Act. This misguided piece of legislation would do nothing to put people back to work, it would do nothing to reinvigorate the economy, and it would do nothing to rein in our debt and excessive deficit. Worse yet, it would serve to make our government even more dysfunctional. By prohibiting all major regulations from going into effect unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval, the REINS Act would put up a major roadblock for implementing important consumer protections, including regulations which help keep our food safe and prevent Wall Street from rascality that could bring our economy to its knees again. Supporters of this legislation claim that the Obama administration's excessive regulations are crippling our economy. However, the conservative columnist David Brooks of The New York Times recently pointed out that in a recent poll by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 13 percent of companies said regulations were a major factor in why they laid off workers. Interestingly, this number has stayed steady over time. If overregulation is what is hampering our economy, you would expect a big spike in this number. This leads Mr. Brooks to conclude that ``Obama's regulations may be more intrusive than some of us would like. They are not tanking the economy.'' I would urge all members to read this column to help dispel some common myths about the impact regulations are having on our economy today. It is important to note that Congress already has the authority to review regulations before they go into effect. The Congressional Review Act of 1996 allows Congress to pass a joint resolution to overturn a regulation to block its implementation. Additionally, all regulations must be subject to a public comment period, giving this body and members of the general public ample time to weigh in with their concerns. Given that these safeguards are already in place, it makes you wonder if the supporters of the bill seek simply to kill all regulations, including those that keep pollution out of our air and water, our armed forces safe, our commerce uninterrupted and our foods safe to eat. H.R. 10 is a crass attempt to stop important consumer protections by those who are fundamentally opposed to any government intervention in the private sector. I urge all members to oppose this flawed legislation, and get back to work doing the business of the American people--producing a balanced plan to reduce our deficit, invest in our infrastructure, and put the American people back to work.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. This bill should be defeated because it does nothing to help create jobs or put this country back on the path to sustainable economic recovery. Rather, H.R. 3094 is an unconscionable assault on the right of every American worker to organize, a right that I have defended for my entire congressional career. The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act is a partisan reaction to a recent rulemaking by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning union elections. This one-sided bill carries on in the fine Republican tradition of stifling any attempt of working men and women to gain any leverage on management by unionizing. This frightens my Republican colleagues to no end, and while they will tell you that H.R. 3094 allows workers equal opportunity to hear both sides of the story, the hard truth of the matter is it will not. The bill we consider today allows employers to use all manner of litigious rascality to postpone union elections and fire workers for objecting to having to listen to anti-union propaganda. That is neither democratic nor fair, and is certainly undeserving of our support at a time when our country's middle class is being decimated. Vote down this bill, and stand up for America's working families.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it is certainly worthy of our support. H.R. 2112 represents a fair compromise between both parties and is an example of how we can achieve concrete results for the American people if we roll up our sleeves and get to work. Earlier today, I called on Congress to skip the upcoming planned recess so we can accomplish the business of the American people. Passage of this bill will represent the first step forward in that regard. There is much to be proud of in this legislation. H.R. 2112 provides $2.5 billion for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is $334 million above the House-passed version of the legislation. This bill will give FDA the necessary resources to continue the implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act, of which I am the author and will help keep tainted food off of our shelves. We will also restore our commitment to the most vulnerable among us by providing $6.6 billion for the Women, Infant and Children (WIC) nutrition program, which is $570 million over the House-passed level. I have called on my colleagues to pass legislation that will invest in our infrastructure and H.R. 2112 will make small progress in that area. It includes $500 million for a third round of TIGER grants, which have been critical in helping state and local governments to move forward on large, regional projects that will have significant impacts on their communities. The federal-aid highway program will receive $39.8 billion, which is $12.1 billion more than the House proposal, an investment that will result in 400,000 more jobs than what House Republicans supported. This bill will also include $10.5 billion for transit programs, $2.5 billion more than the House bill, which means DOT will be able to continue to support projects that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide commuters with an alternative to their personal vehicles when traveling to work or to run errands. I am, however, disappointed that this bill contains no funding for high-speed rail. I would remind my colleagues that we are continuing to cede innovative ground on this development to the Chinese, Japanese and French, and it is imperative we do not halt progress on President Obama's vision to create national high-speed rail network. H.R. 2112 will also invest in innovation by providing an increase of $173 billion, or $7 billion, for the National Science Foundation. This investment is critical to ensuring that the United States is supporting high-risk, high-payoff ideas that the private market cannot or will not invest in. Such innovation will also be supported through an increase in funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which helps small to medium-sized manufacturers to become more efficient and more competitive in a globalized economy. It also maintains funding for research efforts in the Great Lakes, a national treasure we must preserve and which provides countless opportunities for recreation, conservation, and jobs. Compromise is never perfect, and quite often neither side is fully satisfied with the outcome. But everyone will need to make sacrifices if we are to adequately address the unfinished business of the American people. And that is what this bill is--unfinished business. H.R. 2112 will ensure that Congress is back here to have the same debate on a different set of appropriation bills on December 16th. If Congress had passed the 12 appropriations bills individually, we would not be debating H.R. 2112 today. We were elected to be civic leaders who could put public interests before self interests. It is not in America's best interest to sit here refusing to support a bill that does not mirror each of our individual priorities. What is in America's best interest and helps move us forward is to come together today and support a compromise that, while imperfect, gets the job done. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to serve that purpose by supporting this bill and continue to find ways to make meaningful agreements to pass legislation that will put Americans back to work and help rebuild our economy.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the honorable Suffragan Bishop Harry S. Grayson, who is celebrating his 60th birthday and 20th year of service as the pastor of The Messias Temple Church, as well as the 70th Anniversary of the Church in the community of Ypsilanti, Michigan. As friends and family and community members gathered last Saturday on November 12, 2011 to honor both anniversaries, my wife Deborah and I joined the service to honor the church and Pastor Grayson's service and care to the Ypsilanti community. Time tends to show us what is really important in life. Since the founding of the Messias Temple on November 10, 1940, four pastors have dedicated their lives to spreading the Gospel and ministering to the well-being of the congregation and the community. As the church family grew in size, so did the church's community outreach and it was the spirit and leadership of these ministers, including Pastor Grayson, that have made the difference. Over the past 20 years, many programs that promote the joy of giving have been initiated under the fine leadership of Pastor Grayson. They include the sharing of hot meals, holiday food giveaways, and vital prison, shelter, and re-entry ministries. I also applaud his commitment to promoting education in Ypsilanti through tutoring, financial assistance programs, and educational children activities. Pastor Grayson and his lovely wife Mary have raised their three children in the same place where he came of age and found his call for the ministry. His compassion, tireless efforts, and loving care for the Ypsilanti community is extraordinary and I am not alone in celebrating the amazing positive impact the church and Pastor Grayson have had in my district.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Ronald Haddad, Chief of Police in Dearborn, Michigan, for being named a Public Official of the Year by Governing Magazine. As a resident of Dearborn, I can say that Chief Haddad is very deserving of this honor. His commitment to the safety of the residents of Dearborn and his emphasis on community policing is admirable and worthy of all of our praise. Chief Haddad is the first Arab-American police chief in the State of Michigan, and he is an excellent liaison with Dearborn's large Arab- American community. The reforms he recently spearheaded have turned the Dearborn Police Department into a model law enforcement agency which other cities have sought to replicate. Specifically, the BRIDGES program, which entails regular meetings between leaders of the Arab- American community and government officials, has done much to promote trust and understanding in Dearborn, as well as Southeastern Michigan as a whole. Due to the good efforts and hard work of Chief Haddad and the entire Dearborn Police Department, Michigan's 15th Congressional District is a better place to live and work. We all owe Chief Haddad an enormous debt of gratitude for his leadership and contributions to our society. Governing Magazine was very wise in choosing Chief Haddad as one of their honorees. I wish him all the best of luck in the future, and I am proud to represent Chief Ronald Haddad in the House of Representatives.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, today the House is considering legislation that will repeal the onerous requirement that federal, state, and local government entities withhold three percent of payments to government contractors. H.R. 674 will also take the first step in passing a piece of the President's American Jobs Act, by providing tax credits for businesses that hire unemployed or disabled veterans, and will help provide servicemembers who are leaving the service with job training and other skills necessary for starting a career outside of the military. While I support these initiatives, I am disappointed that my friends in the House and Senate are pairing two bipartisan pieces of legislation with legislation that will change the intent of the Affordable Care Act and roll back eligibility for middle-class Americans to qualify for tax credits in the new Health Insurance Exchanges or Medicaid and CHIP. As a veteran myself, I want nothing more than to help veterans to find gainful employment after the military and I believe that as we draw near the end of our engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan the need for this assistance is paramount. I will also gladly help my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to repeal their own three percent withholding requirement which we have delayed year after year. What I do not support is how we will pay for this repeal--on the backs of middle class Americans who as a result may find themselves paying more for their health care. This legislation will add Social Security income back into the calculation of the Modified Adjusted Gross Income or MAGI for purposes of determining eligibility for the premium tax credits in the exchange and for Medicaid and CHIP. Some have suggested that excluding nontaxable Social Security benefits in the MAGI definition was a glitch. This is not so. The Affordable Care Act used the definition of MAGI that excluded nontaxable Social Security benefits because it is typical when determining eligibility for tax benefits. Changing the MAGI definition to add Social Security income back in will make 500,000 to 1 million people ineligible for Medicaid and Chip and ineligible for premium tax credits. This will impose high costs for health care on low-income and middle-income families, early retirees and the disabled, and consequently could shift them out of Medicaid coverage or require increased out-of-pocket costs for health coverage. This goes against the very intent of the Affordable Care Act. Madam Speaker, I oppose the sort of legislating that is before us today as I believe each chamber should be allowed to work its will on separate items, rather than be forced to accept bad policy sandwiched between pieces of bipartisan legislation. This goes against the pledge to openness and transparency my Republican colleagues have claimed to support. While I will lend my support to the legislation before us, I cannot continue to accept such abuses of procedure.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important question. The Great Lakes are 20 percent of the world's freshwater supply. It is endangered, and the fish and the wildlife and the whole ecosystem are endangered by the constant entry of imported species that come in in the ballast water of ships entering the Great Lakes. What we're talking about here is protecting something of enormous value that has been here since geological times and which has provided enormous opportunity for our people--food and all manner of things, including recreation, transportation, fish and wildlife. This process of trying to give a few bones to a bunch of importers who are bringing these things in from the Black Sea and other places in Europe is a shameful thing if permitted. The United States and the Congress have not done the job that we should have done to protect our Great Lakes. And already we have a large number of things, including some nasty diseases such as viral hemorrhagic septicemia, sort of the Ebola virus of fish. This is something we have to protect our Great Lakes against, and other waters of the United States. If foreign shippers are going to be bringing in dirty ballast water, discharging it into our Great Lakes, if the States want to spend the time protecting the States' water and the interest in the Great Lakes, or other bodies of water which are threatened by these practices, they want to do it, the Congress should very well permit them to do it because failure to do it is going to jeopardize 20 percent of the world's freshwater. And more importantly, a resource which is recreational which relates to fish and wildlife values and which provides us with opportunity for transportation, drinking water, and a whole array of other precious and important things. If we don't adopt this amendment, we'll find we're taking care of a bunch of foreign ship owners instead of our people and the future of the United States. Support the amendment. My home state of Michigan is blessed with a vast and marvelous natural resource--our Great Lakes. As a steadfast conservationist, I firmly believe that we owe it to future generations to restore and protect this national treasure. In addition to that, however, we also must consider the economic value of our Lakes. 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 non-native navigable waters. For the reasons outlined above, ballast water represents a significant threat to our Great Lakes. The language in this bill would restrict states like Michigan from enacting commonsense laws to protect our shores, local economies, and recreation opportunities. The Dingell-Slaughter amendment would strike that language and allow Great Lakes and other coastal states to make the necessary decisions that are in their individual state's best interest in order to keep these invasive species from destroying our waters, fisheries, shorelines, and economies. Among the invasive species affecting the Great Lakes are the zebra and quagga mussels. On the beaches of Lake Erie and Lake Michigan, we have seen fish and bird kills numbering in the thousands because zebra and quagga mussels have caused massive botulism outbreaks. Zebra and quagga mussels concentrate nutrients along the bottom of the nearshore area and make the water very clear. The extra food and sunlight promotes the growth of algae that coats the lake bottom in thick mats. As it dies, it becomes infected by botulism. The zebra and quagga mussels eat the dead algae and the botulism, which has no effect on them, and in doing so create higher and more deadly concentrations of botulism. When fish eat the zebra mussels, they die of botulism poisoning and wash up on the beach. There, birds eat them, and they too die of botulism poisoning. Power and water treatment plants are also at risk. Zebra and quagga mussels attach themselves to hard surfaces including water intake pipes. Gradually these invasive species build and build until they clog the pipes, risking shutdown of these facilities. Other invasive species include the Spiny Water Flea and the Fishhook Water Flea which fish can't digest. The viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) disease is like the ebola virus for fish. While it's mortality rate in the Great Lakes is still relatively low, it has caused thousands of fish deaths, further polluting the waters and shorelines. Invasive species are costing Federal, State, and local governments as well as businesses billions of dollars every year. I ask that you vote for this amendment to give states the tools they need to fight invasive species.

Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will yield, let me express my great respect and affection for the gentleman.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2930, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, and H.R. 2940, the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act. Just as I remarked earlier this week during the House's consideration of H.R. 1070 and H.R. 1965, I strongly support measures to free up capital for job creation, but such measures must be responsible and protect investors. I lament that the bills we consider here today fail to meet that threshold. H.R. 2930 has as its goal the facilitation of crowdfunding, a relatively new phenomenon and one the Securities Exchange Commission is beginning to study. Mandating laxer regulatory requirements in statute strikes me as premature, if not irresponsible, in this case. Further, I recognize the potential the Internet holds for the financial services industry but also have grave reservations on the nefarious ways in which it can be used to defraud investors, particularly the more casual kind that might participate in crowdfunding. The other bill on which we will vote--H.R. 2940--would seem to obviate the regulatory distinction made between private and public securities. The latter are permitted to be solicited publicly in exchange for greater regulatory scrutiny. I am extremely wary of granting the same privilege to private securities without associated reporting requirements. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues on the Committee on Financial Services for producing bipartisan legislation. Nevertheless, I cannot in good conscience support either H.R. 2930 or H.R. 2940 because each bill obfuscates transparency for investors and could expose them to new risks that any intelligent person would seek to avoid in this economy. On a final note, I would add that the financial deregulatory bills considered by the House this week will put more pressure on our country's broken fiduciary system. By waiving registration and reporting requirements, we will be further muddying the distinction between brokers and investment advisers. This will be to the detriment of investors and market integrity.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1070, the Small Company Capital Formation Act, and H.R. 1965, the Increase Shareholder Threshold for SEC Registration Act. While I applaud the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues to help small businesses grow and create jobs, the sting of the effects of financial deregulation is still too strong to allow me to support these bills. With respect to H.R. 1070, I note that Congress has raised the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation A threshold five times. Each time, however, was a modest increase that was in my mind relative to the rate of inflation and the purchasing power of the dollar. H.R. 1070 would mandate an unprecedented tenfold increase in the current threshold of $5 million to $50 million. Such an increase strikes me as grotesquely large, especially since inflation has risen only 165 percent since 1980, and in my view constitutes a tremendous incitement to perpetrate fraud on investors. I take a dimmer view of H.R. 1965, which increases the number of shareholders a bank can have before having to register with the SEC. Under current law, that number is 500, and H.R. 1965 would increase it four times to 2,000. I am not at all satisfied this increase is justified and furthermore consider it a sly way to skirt federal reporting requirements that are in place to protect the American public. Mr. Speaker, I share my colleagues' concern that not enough jobs are being created and that Congress must take swift action. Where I part ways with them is voting for seemingly innocuous measures like these that unfortunately will decrease transparency for investors and create incentives for all manner of financial rascality.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to vote in support of H.R. 674, which would repeal the onerous requirement that federal, state, and local government entities withhold three percent of payments to government contractors. Although never put into effect, the requirement would constitute a significant burden on all levels of government, which are presently sorely lacking in resources. Withholding three percent of payments was unsound policy when enacted by the Republican Congress in 2005, and I gladly will help my colleagues on the other side of the aisle correct their mistake. I am less disposed to be helpful on H.R. 2576, a bill to adjust the definition of ``modified adjusted gross income,'' MAGI, so that fewer Americans qualify for tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. This strikes me at best as a solution in search of a non-existent problem. To add insult to injury, H.R. 2576 will cause American families, seniors, and those with disabilities to pay more for their healthcare at a time when they can least afford it. I have spent my entire career fighting to ensure working American families have access to affordable, good-quality healthcare. Supporting H.R. 2576 would be in direct contravention of that goal, and I cannot in good conscience do so. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by noting the rascality underlying the rule for H.R. 674 and H.R. 2576. It allows separate votes on both bills--one non-controversial and the other very controversial--and then requires they be merged for consideration by the Senate. I oppose this sort of legislating and believe each chamber should be allowed to work its will on separate items, rather than forced to accept bad policy in the guise of procedural tricks and faux compromise. This is skullduggery at its finest, Mr. Speaker, and an unnecessary affront to regular order, which your side so consistently claims to cherish.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have sad news for the House today. I rise to inform the House that we lost a former Member of this great institution. He was our friend, Howard Wolpe, who served in this body for 14 years. He was particularly known for his concern for the poor and unfortunate and about peace in the world. He was a true patriot, a devoted teacher, and a fine statesman. He was a dear friend of mine and many others with whom he served. He shared our collective love for this great Nation and for our State of Michigan. He had an enormous impact upon public policy in Michigan and our country, as well as across the world, which was a positive one. He contributed most of his life to bringing civility to government relations and to making this world a better place--a passion that I was able to witness during his long and distinguished service here. He served Michigan ably and honorably and went on to serve as the Presidential Special Envoy to Africa's Great Lakes Region, where he initiated peace talks and helped to end civil wars in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2832, a bill whose consideration by the members of this House is long overdue. It is absolutely unconscionable that working Americans displaced by trade have had no Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) benefits since the beginning of this year. I am ashamed that partisan rhetoric has stalled congressional consideration of TAA, once a reliably non-partisan issue. In more human terms, my home state of Michigan has weathered the ill effects of free trade agreements arguably longer than any other state in the union. Thousands of displaced workers in my district have relied on TAA to start their careers over in fields like nursing, alternative energy, an information technology. These workers have experienced first-hand the benefits of TAA and understand--as I do--the value the program brings to communities across the country. In closing, I call on my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 2832 and stand up for the American families all over the country to whom free trade has been less than fair. And when we finish voting on this measure, I urge everyone on both sides of Capitol Hill--Republicans and Democrats alike--to take the country's best interests to heart and pass legislation to create jobs.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the pending free trade agreements (FTAs) with Colombia and Korea. I wish, however, to commend my good friend from Michigan and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Sandy Levin, for his hard and effective work with the Obama Administration to improve them. Sandy and the Administration have fought hard to ensure improved market access for American workers and companies, all while insisting that our trading partners' labor protections be improved. Nevertheless, my experience with FTAs has been one of nearly two decades of broken promises and widespread domestic economic dislocation, particularly in my home state of Michigan. With our economy teetering on the edge of recession and the painful memory of millions of lost jobs, I cannot vote in good conscience for more free trade agreements. With respect to Colombia, I am disappointed by the Administration's decision not to include the Labor Action Plan as a binding and enforceable provision of the FTA. Colombia has a well known history as one of the world's most inhospitable places for labor leaders. While the country was showing some signs of progress under the action plan, there is nothing to prevent Colombia from backsliding once the FTA is in effect and the plan itself does not have the force of law. Although I recognize that significant improvements in terms of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade have been made in the Korean trade agreement, I rather unhappily believe that promises will not translate into reality. In short, I believe the United States is giving up far too much for mediocre market share gains in the short term. This agreement may well boost our exports to Korea over the next few years, but I am firmly convinced that the benefits Korea will reap in the long run--especially in the auto sector--will eclipse any that the U.S. may achieve. Even the International Trade Commission estimates that our auto trade deficit with Korea will rise by over $700 million in the next ten years if this agreement is implemented. With due recognition of my colleagues' hard work to improve these agreements, I must respectfully part ways and vote in opposition to them. Lest we be condemned to repeat it, I ask my colleagues to learn the lessons of history and vote ``no'' on these trade deals.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate my dear friend, the Reverend Doctor Steven D. Riley, who was honored this past weekend for his 30th Anniversary as Pastor of Christ Temple Baptist Church in Ypsilanti, Michigan and his 40 years of teaching the gospel. A large and enthusiastic group of friends from all walks of life, leaders from the community, and people he touched throughout his life all gathered for a service to pay tribute to this wonderful local leader. The greatest message given that evening was seen on the faces of the audience whose love, gratitude, affection and respect for Reverend Riley's service to the church and his community radiated throughout the service. He has led Ypsilanti and Southeast Michigan by his ministerial example and being steadfast in his mission to shape and mold the present into a better future. He has worked hard to ensure that residents in Southeast Michigan have a friend in faith, are cared for, and have a roof overhead. For that, I would like to say on behalf of the people of Michigan's 15th Congressional District, thank you. Reverend Doctor Riley has dedicated his career to spreading the gospel in Southeast Michigan. His commitment to serving others has helped my constituents lead healthier, more fulfilled lives. He has been a leader among the church-affiliated groups in Southeast Michigan. I want to thank him for his love of all people and for his tremendous friendship. Mr. Speaker, I am told that Reverend Doctor Riley chose his career early in life. At the age of 11, he began ministering to his neighbors in Detroit, and stayed focused growing in the faith by earning a bachelor's degree in theology and philosophy. He felt called to continue learning more, going on to get a master's degree in theology and religious studies, and a doctorate of divinity degree along with a doctorate of humane letters. Mr. Speaker, Reverend Doctor Riley is an honorable man who has done many great things for the citizens of Southeastern Michigan. I am honored to have him as friend. I ask that you and all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Reverend Doctor Riley for his tireless support, kindness and leadership to his community and to give him our best wishes for the future.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, today's debate is deja vu from the debate within the House Energy and Commerce committee. Once again my colleagues and I on the Energy and Commerce Committee had the opportunity to address and protect human health and environment, while also promote and encourage innovation and job creation. These are serious issues facing our country and the EPA, issues that require serious solutions. Sadly, this bill does nothing to actually address those issues. In addition to the lack of a well thought-out strategy, the proposed amendments to this bill would make serious changes to the Clean Air Act without any congressional hearing or testimony. None of these proposals have had serious examination by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over this matter. This is not the open and transparent legislative process that my colleagues have committed to. We cannot responsibly govern in this matter and ignore our Constitutional obligation to hold hearings, hear testimony, and give these matters the in-depth consideration major policy initiatives deserve. As I said, there are legitimate problems with some of the proposed rules coming out of EPA, and they need to be dealt with. However, this Polish lawyer from Detroit happens to believe we would get further with a more surgical approach to dealing with these matters. I am particularly concerned with the Utility MACT, which in its current form, could have a devastating effect on the economy of Midwestern manufacturing States, including my home State of Michigan. I am convinced that a balanced, bipartisan solution to this issue was available to us. In fact, I offered to work with all of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans on this matter. Sadly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather play political games rather than work on a reasonable solution to a legitimate problem. I would note to my colleagues that we spent only one day on the failed Continuing Resolution, but will spend two days on this bill. This, I believe, demonstrates the true intention of the GOP. That is not to actually deal with a legitimate and disconcerting problem, but to spend time on their favorite whipping boy, EPA. Now, I have had my share of issues with that particular agency, but I have always sought a solution--not played games to gain political points. As such, it is my intent to vote against the TRAIN Act and the amendments proposed by the other side of the aisle. The President already indicated his strong opposition and as such, the bill before us is nothing more than veto bait. I would call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with me on these matters in a reasonable way.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Here we are again. Yesterday, the House rebuked the Republicans because they came forward with almost as bad a bill as this. They were going to destroy, as they are tonight, the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program. It's one of the most successful programs we've had. It has made 40,000 jobs for Americans. At a time when Americans are losing their homes, losing their jobs, running out of unemployment compensation, they want to hear us say what we're doing about jobs, what we're doing about opportunity, what we're doing about making the economy grow. So the Republicans, when they got their heads handed to them yesterday, went back to caucus and made the bill a little bit worse so that they could appeal to their right-wing extremes. The result is that you've got a bill here that has been brought to us that nobody has had an opportunity to see and a bill on which we haven't got any idea exactly what it does. We hear our good friend from California tell us how the private system of government is working. He says it's working in China because the Chinese have forced GM to work with them to manufacture cars over there so that they can sell them over here. We say that we ought to be manufacturing those cars over here with American workers to sell over there in China and in other countries that are playing the same game with us. This is an enormously successful program. They're submitting their successes of yesterday by trying now to cut other programs which do this. They talk about Solyndra. Solyndra went broke for a very simple reason. I sat in on the hearings when I don't think many of the other Members on this side did. I heard that the reason they went under was the trade practices of the Chinese. That's why. They're underselling them in an intolerable way in spite of the fact that we've tried to bring that technology over here and to make it work for the American people in order to provide jobs for the American people. My Republican colleagues are making a war between the American workers and American industry on the one side and those who have need of relief from the disasters. That's not good. It should not be. It is quite sufficient that we help both. There is no need to have an offset for a disaster, and time after time we have not done it. But not so the Republicans. They are out to kill Department of Energy loan programs. These are programs that create jobs. Take a look in your district, if they'll give you a copy of this bill, and ask yourself and ask them and ask of the legislation: What are they cutting that is in your district or your State that's going to make jobs and opportunity for your people? You're going to find, when this legislation passes--God forbid it will do so--that you have cut the opportunities and the well-being of your American people who desperately look to us to make the economy go again. You are burning here tonight the seed corn of the American people. You are taking and striking a major blow against the economy and the well-being of this Nation. I say, Shame. Reject the rule. Reject the previous question. Reject the proposal.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this bill is brought to us by people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The hard fact of the matter is they've fought two wars on the credit card. This is one of the few times that we've ever found that they have required offsets for emergencies, so now we're trying to fix a bad bill. I want to make the observation that we have a serious problem. We have a natural emergency, and we have people who have a lasting unemployment situation that is going to destroy the country and destroy families and people in this country. Having said that, I am baffled as to why we are considering a measure that is going to cut funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program. This is a loan program that has created or saved over 40,000 jobs so far, and if it's left alone and not destroyed, as would be done here, it will create another 10,000 more by year's end. For all the talk in Washington on that side of the aisle about creating jobs, we find that they're out to kill jobs again, and killing ATVM just plain makes no sense. It is going to prevent job creation. The Economic Policy Institute just released a report that my home State of Michigan has lost nearly 80,000 jobs to China since 2001, where they sustain and support their industry and where we do not. If we cripple this loan program, Michigan and the rest of the country can expect to lose even more jobs and their ability to compete globally in the 21st century. I understand we're living through tough economic times and have to squeeze every penny to make sure it counts, but I want to remind everybody here present that there are more applications in the pipeline than there is money to participate in this particular program. So we are essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul, but it is going to come at an enormous cost to the economic future of your constituents and mine. Now, it comforts me that many of my colleagues have seen through this rascality and have observed it for what it is. Over 100 of them have signed on to a letter by my friends Mr. Peters and Ms. Eshoo in opposition to gutting ATVM. I urge my colleagues to stand up for what is right by defeating the previous question and by adopting my amendment. If we can't do that, let's vote this rule down and let's vote this bill down, and let's go about the Nation's business in a wise and sensible fashion which will create jobs and not strangle economic opportunity for our people. I want to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New York for her leadership on this matter; but I want to denounce the behavior that I see on the other side, where they are walking into one of the most important issues that this country confronts with their eyes completely closed.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in unequivocal opposition to H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act. This devious legislation carries on in my Republican colleagues' fine tradition of masking hard truth with pithy and inaccurate turns of phrase. H.R. 2587's goal is not to protect jobs, but rather to neuter the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the protections it affords America's working men, women, and their families. In point of fact, H.R. 2587 will prohibit the NLRB from reinstating production lines closed as retaliation for union activities. The bill will also prevent the Board from issuing any order that rescinds any relocation, transfer, subcontracting, or outsourcing of work by a company as retribution for union activities. As I have said, this bill does nothing to offer increased protections to American workers. It will, however, protect union-busting activities by businesses that are still sitting on billions of dollars and asking for a tax holiday for repatriated profits, yet all the while making precious little effort to add new jobs. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle are using a pending dispute between the NLRB and a certain airplane manufacturer to justify the supposed need for this abominable legislation. H.R. 2587 is explicit proof of the Republican Party's strong desire to wipe out the very unions that built this country's middle class and make sure American workers have no better protections that their brethren in third-world countries. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.