John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted at this time to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, who has done so much to make the investigations which have brought us to the point where people understand the need for this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will yield, I want to compliment the gentleman on his comments and I want to praise him for his valuable and important contribution to the legislation. As he has said, this is how legislation should be done, bipartisan; and we have gone across the aisle. But we have also gone between committees, working with the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I commend the gentleman and thank him.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. DeGette), a Member who has worked very hard on this legislation for a long time and who was one of the original sponsors and has been a valuable contributor to the process of bringing it forward. (Ms. DeGETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, just for administrative purposes, does my friend on the Republican side have a sufficiency of time? I speak about Mr. Barton.

Mr. DINGELL. I will try to see if we can share, if it is necessary. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to one of the original sponsors of the legislation, the distinguished gentlelady who has done much work to get this legislation to the floor, the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) 1 minute.

Mr. DINGELL. At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee's subcommittee on food safety, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), with thanks and appreciation for his good work.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), one of the great leaders in food safety, a distinguished member of the Committee on Agriculture, a man who has worked very closely with me and with the others who have been working on this, including the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. DINGELL. With a great deal of pleasure and pride, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture who has worked so hard not only on food safety but also with us to make this bill something which is acceptable to the House, to him and to American agriculture.

Mr. DINGELL. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds. Would the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. DINGELL. I would just observe to my good friend that we have talked about this before, and I have assured the gentleman that we will continue to work together to address the concerns that he and the very able gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) have expressed their concerns about. It has been a privilege to work with the gentleman, and I thank him.

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on this side, so I am going to reserve my time, but I want to yield 2 minutes to my dear friend, Mr. Barton. And I want to commend him for his courage, his decency, and the extraordinary way in which he has worked with the distinguished Agriculture Committee and its great chairman, and also with me and the Democrats. We are handling this bill the way it should be handled, in a proper bipartisan fashion, and I want to commend him.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time to close. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. It has been worked on long and hard by three committees, including the Ways and Means. The chairman, Mr. Rangel, and subcommittee chairman, Mr. Levin, have been extremely cooperative in resolving questions between the two committees. I would note that staff at all levels of our committee, in the minority and on the majority--Rachel Sher and Eric Flamm--have been of enormous value in these discussions. The complaint made by my colleague about exclusion of Members I can't comment on. I can only say we have tried to include everybody in this process as much as we could, and we have brought in industry, which supports the bill. But more importantly--and I say this to my friend with affection and respect--the reason for a lot of the changes that they're talking about have been that, right up to the time that we have brought this bill to the floor, we have sought to see to it that we included everyone and took advantage of the wisdom of all the Members that we could possibly take advantage of. The legislation will address from the point of origin to the consumer's table. It will enable us to get at unsafe foods, not just in this country, but in China, in India, and other places where these foods are coming in. It will provide Food and Drug with the resources they need to address these problems in terms of personnel and money. It will also keep their laboratories open. More importantly, it will see to it that the public comes first, and for the first time in years, know that the foods that we are bringing into this country and that are being made available to the American people are in fact safe. No major reviews of the food provisions of the Food and Drug Act have been done since 1938, and, as was wisely pointed out by my colleagues, some not back to 1912. This is an important step which will protect the American people, who are today being killed, sickened, and hurt by unsafe foods brought in by unscrupulous people. It will do something more than this. It will protect the American food industry, the processors, the manufacturers, and the growers, against unfair competition in places like China where they are adding melamine to food and delivering patently unsafe food.

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer a tribute in honor of The Ann Arbor News, which has shut its doors after 174 years of service. Since 1835, the Ann Arbor News and its employees served Washtenaw County creating a forum for educated discussion, thoughtful articles, and current events. I want to thank the employees and journalists of The Ann Arbor News for their fine work, and I wish them the very best in their future endeavors. The Ann Arbor News lived to see its town of only 1,000 expand to a city of 110,000 and has watched the University of Michigan become one of the finest universities in the world. It predates the Civil War and covered that historic struggle during the 1860s. In the 1950s it covered the announcement of the groundbreaking polio vaccine in Ann Arbor. The News also spread word of two landmark Presidential programs, Kennedy's Peace Corps and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, also unveiled in Ann Arbor. Later on, the News was recognized as one of the best small newspapers in the country out of a field of about 1,350 papers with daily circulations of 50,000 or less (about 85 percent of all daily papers in America). I am pleased that some of the News' fine journalists will be joining a new venture, AnnArbor.com, which will serve many similar functions as the News, and will guide the Ann Arbor community into the age of digital web information. I would like to offer my tribute to the thousands of people who worked at The Ann Arbor News and established its fine journalistic tradition from 1835 until its close.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I begin by thanking my good friend from New York and the distinguished chairman of the full committee for their kindness and their graciousness in making this time available. I have rarely voted against the rule and rarely voted against the previous question. I am very much troubled by what we see happening here today. I recognize the goodwill of the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Wisconsin, but I would observe that we are playing with fire here. My friend from Wisconsin mentioned billions of dollars we've made available to the auto industry. He's correct. We have. Now the question is do we, by what we are doing here with regard to the auto dealers, jeopardize those expenditures and jeopardize the well-being of our auto industry? That is what is at stake here. This is a serious matter. If the auto industry goes down because we have taken sides in a quarrel between the auto industry and the dealers, we will have destroyed not only the dealers that complain but all of the other dealers and all of the people who work for the auto industry, who are associated with it, all of the suppliers. Frankly, we are playing with fire here. I recognize that there is the intention to use this as a lever to help the dealers, and I applaud that. But I think that this is the wrong lever, the wrong time, and the wrong way to use this kind of lever. The result of this playing with fire can be a serious disaster which we visit upon ourselves, upon the auto industry, upon all of those who are dependent upon it. And I would urge my colleagues in dealing with this to be exquisitely careful with this kind of exercise because it imposes upon all of us and upon the Nation an incredible level of danger which I hope will be avoided, and we are now putting ourselves in a position where all of the good that has been done to try and preserve this important auto industry is being put at risk. Mr. Chair, it is with sadness and great dismay that I rise in opposition to H.R. 3170, the ``Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2010.'' The bill's legislative language, which would force auto manufacturers that have received federal funding to reinstate terminated dealer franchises, has the grave potential to do significant harm to the already suffering national economy. Thanks to the timely intervention of the Administration and extraordinarily speedy bankruptcies, Chrysler and General Motors (GM) are once again on the path toward viability. Nevertheless, section 745 of this bill threatens to undo the delicately wrought restructurings achieved in bankruptcy court for both companies and could very well bring about their collapse. Should section 745 become law, I fear far more dealers, not to mention auto suppliers and other ancillary businesses, would be forced to close than would have otherwise under Chrysler's and GM's original dealer termination plans. Although I recognize that both companies, particularly Chrysler, did a poor job in achieving dealer rationalization, it remains my strong preference to resolve this matter outside of statute. I urge my colleagues to take heed of this warning.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3082, the Military Construction, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This legislation continues the Democratic-Congress' dedication to our veterans by providing $109 billion to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). I am proud to support the passage of a bill which does so much for our veterans. This year, like every other year, our veterans deserve quality and affordable health care, the services needed to transition into civilian life and prevent homelessness, and other important benefits that will help them succeed in their personal and professional lives. I am particularly pleased the bill provides $4.6 billion for mental health care treatment, especially in light of the growing number of returning Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) veterans with post traumatic stress disorder. The bill also provides $440 million to increase access for veterans who live in rural areas, $580 million for research in prosthetics, $533 million to expand eligibility for VA health care to an estimated 266,000 ``Priority 8'' veterans, or those non-service-disabled veterans earning more than $30,000 a year, and $1.1 billion for improving our VA medical facilities. Madam Chair, of particular concern to me are VA medical facilities in Southeast Michigan, where many of my constituents receive care. The Department of Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Health System (VAAAHS) staff believe that any plan to make the Toledo Community-based Outpatient Clinic administratively separate will have the effect of reducing their budget and inhibit their ability to provide services, including specialty services to their constituencies. I share this concern. The VAAAHS is the only VA medical facility in Michigan providing cardiac surgery, interventional cardiology, and neurosurgery. We must ensure they can continue doing so. The VAAAHS has a plan that would double the size of the existing clinic in Toledo, allowing Toledo-area veterans to receive an increased amount of care at the Toledo clinic, from 75 percent currently to 90 percent. We must ensure that we move forward with plans for the existing clinic without impairing the care that is provided to veterans by VA hospitals in Southeast Michigan, including the VA hospitals Battle Creek, Detroit, and especially the one in Ann Arbor. Madam Chair, as a veteran of World War II, I have the utmost respect for those who have served our nation. I also believe that the VA provides veterans with excellent health services, and should continue to stand out as a leader in health care provision in our country. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 minutes for purposes of debate only to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren). Madam Speaker, I yield to myself 4 minutes. Madam Speaker, this a great institution in which we all take great pride in serving. And it is that because of the great Constitution, but also because of the Members who have served here over so many years. And we can be proud of those who have served as elected Members. Beyond those Members who have been elected, there are large numbers of people who have served here by appointment as essentially servants of the House, or perhaps more better said, as public servants. None of those has been more distinguished than the resolution honors. I am very proud to handle this time and to have the privilege of honoring a dear friend. I am also very proud and very happy that we are able to send him off with the dignity, respect and the affection that his long and distinguished service has done. One of the things that enables us to be very proud of people like Pope Barrow is the dedication, the decency and the integrity that they bring to their job. In the case of Pope Barrow, he has done this with extraordinary dedication. But beyond that, he has also done it with extraordinary ability, indeed, remarkable ability. One of the things I like to chuckle about is the way that he and the people who have worked for him have made it possible for the House to serve well and Members of this House to serve well, by giving us the best possible legal advice on the handling and the construction of legislation. From his first day of nearly 40 years of service at the Office of Legislative Counsel, Pope Barrow has been an outstanding public servant. He served first as a law assistant and then more latterly in higher and higher positions until he served as Legislative Counsel. He has served this country, this Chamber and all of the Members of this body with great distinction and wholly selflessly. I have worked together with him, as have most of the Members, throughout my years in Congress. He worked on the complicated and arduous Clean Air Act amendments. At that time, I promised him that no longer would we ever allow this legislation to be opened up to public consideration. And those of you who remember the 1990 Clean Air Act will understand how he would thank me profusely for that commitment. All of us, including myself, have much relied on his expertise in energy, in the environment and public lands. He has been impartial. He has been nonpartisan. He has shown extraordinary judgment. And he has expressed in his deeds an extraordinary sense of duty that has proven to be invaluable to this Chamber. These qualities are reflected in the high regard in which he is held by Members and staff all across the political spectrum and all during his long period of service. If you speak to the attorneys and staff in the Office of the Legislative Counsel, you will see the impact of Pope's leadership and guidance. He has set high standards in the Office while supporting the attorneys and the staff in their professional and personal pursuits. This balance has set a positive, proactive tone at the Legislative Counsel and has served us all, the Congress and the public at large, extraordinarily well. I remember years ago, when Pope and I were young, perhaps we were as young as 50, members of my staff would run back and forth to the Office of the Legislative Counsel to drop off drafting requests.

Mr. DINGELL. I yield myself 2 additional minutes, Madam Speaker. Today, in no small part of because of the extraordinary leadership of Pope, the Office of Legislative Counsel has been modernized. The dedicated and hard-working staff members of the Legislative Counsel are able to utilize technology to provide the critically important service upon which we all rely. I want to wish him well, on my own behalf and on behalf of my wife, Deborah, as well as the entire body of the House, as he retires to spend more time with his children, Isabel, Pope and Rebecca, and to express to him our good wishes for happiness and to give him a chance to spend more time with the family which he treasures. Perhaps retirement will allow him more time to kayak white-water rivers and to sail across seas. I will surely miss Pope, and I will wish him well on behalf of myself and all of us. I want to also congratulate Sandy Strokoff on her appointment as Legislative Counsel, and I look forward to working with her in the future. I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent, Madam Speaker, that my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) may control the remaining time on this side.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with my dear friend, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, regarding language contained in the House report, Veterans Affairs and Related Appropriations Bill for 2010. I'm concerned the language could have the effect of postponing activation of a much-needed clinic for our veterans in Toledo. Clearly, it is not in the best interest of our veterans to postpone activation of a new clinic that will better address a higher workload, especially in light of the increasing numbers of veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I yield to my good friend.

Mr. DINGELL. To continue, the existing clinic is undersized for its current caseload. The VA has been working for several years to establish larger replacements. It is my understanding if we move forward with the current plans, which have been reviewed by the majority of the impacted veterans service organizations, the VA is prepared to have a new, larger LEED-certified clinic in the fall of 2011.

Mr. DINGELL. I will yield to the gentleman.