John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, my friend (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield to my distinguished friend, the majority leader, the balance of my time for purposes of closing.

Mr. DINGELL. I object. I reserve a point of order.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I begin with an expression of my affection and respect for my good friend from Texas (Mr. Barton). In most matters he is an extraordinarily fine legislator, except on occasions when he offers these motions to recommit. I begin by pointing out that my good friend's motion to recommit is the same tax about which there have been such prodigious complaints by my Republican colleagues, but that fewer kids are covered, and that there are many impediments inserted into the bill by the motion to recommit to covering the number of kids. Having said that, my colleagues on the other side say they want to ensure that lowest-income States are covered, but they strike the bonus payments that CBO says will get 1.9 million of the lowest-income children covered who would not otherwise be covered. Second, they say they are for working families. But it is interesting to note that they are forcing, by this, many of the working families who would receive coverage under the bill before us are forced to go onto welfare in order to get health care because they strike the provisions which would discourage that kind of unfortunate event. My colleagues, I would observe, still have the wrong medicine for the problem. Now, in addition to this, the recommit would prohibit States looking to expand coverage to a family of three at $52,000 from doing so unless they meet arbitrary enrollment targets. The result of that is, of course, again harder for people who deserve and need this kind of relief to get this kind of benefit. The last point I want to make here is their proposal does not remedy the current problem that has caused thousands of children to lose health coverage due to Republican bureaucratic requirements. I would point out something else, and that is my good friends have essentially in this, as near as I can figure, reenacted the President's proposal, which would set forth a directive to the States as to how they will administer this, something that has caused a huge outrage amongst the States, amongst persons affected and amongst advocates for the poor and the unfortunate. This is perhaps the worst part of what the proposal to recommit does. Let's look at what the bill does. The bill increases the number of children who are eligible for coverage, for health insurance, from 6.6 to 10 million young Americans. It must be observed that we are doing this amidst a circumstance where we have seen significant increases in the number of our children joining the ranks of the uninsured. The bill does more. It sees to it that we take care of the problem. Nearly 70 percent of all uninsured children are from families below $41,300 for a family of four. Of the 9 million uninsured children, nearly two-thirds are either preschool or elementary school age. This is the time when health care becomes singularly precious and important to them. I would remind my colleagues that a Nation is judged by how it treats and cares for those who are most vulnerable and least able to help themselves. The bill sees to it that we amplify and include greater numbers of those who are most dependent upon others for their survival. But in addition to that, I would remind my colleagues that this legislation is something which is of great importance because we are talking about the future of the kids. Giving them health care now when they have need of it is something that ensures that Americans in the future will be the kind of productive, valuable citizens who are able to carry forward the competition of this Nation in some of its most difficult, competitive times. Now, this bill would significantly increase and improve access for needed health care to children. The proposal in the motion to recommit significantly cuts back on that. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and vote for the bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the war in Iraq in part because I feared the challenges that the United States would face installing a government that was both democratic and responsible. I am increasingly concerned about the recent reports concerning the corruption of the Maliki government in Iraq. The Bush Administration has told us that the controversial troop surge has led to political progress in Iraq. The unfortunate reality is that corruption has been prevalent throughout the Iraqi government, hindering political progress in the nation. Even worse, our own government has attempted to shield the American people from the disturbing reality of what is really going on in the Iraqi government. I am pleased that the House of Representatives is considering this resolution, which condemns the deceptive actions of the State Department.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I have noted in recent days that some of my colleagues have asked to have their names removed from the list of those cosponsoring House Resolution 106. I have not asked to be removed as a cosponsor because I still strongly support the goals of the Resolution, and believe that it is important to acknowledge the atrocities committed against the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire do indeed constitute genocide. While I support the message of the Resolution, I have recently signed a letter asking that it not be brought to the House floor at this time. While the Armenian genocide is a tragic part of history, in the present there are American soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq. Regrettably, Turkey has responded to this Resolution with threats that would endanger the safety of those soldiers and make it more difficult for us to quickly and safely bring our troops home. I know that my friends in the Armenian community have worked very hard over the years on behalf of this Resolution, and I know that they will be disappointed if its passage is delayed. However, they will be no more disappointed than I am about the fact that more than four years after the President launched his misguided war in Iraq, our troops are still in harm's way.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Dalai Lama upon being awarded the prestigious Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. The Congressional Gold Medal is the nation's highest and most distinguished civilian award. The honor must be approved by at least two-thirds of the Members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in order to be awarded. Over 100 awards have been conferred since its creation in 1776, including recipients General George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Nelson Mandela. His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, has exemplified the spirit of the award, demonstrating tremendous compassion and tolerance. Through his selfless advocacy of peace and human rights, the Dalai Lama has lived as an example of what one committed individual can accomplish. His efforts to better the lives of the Tibetan people have not gone unnoticed, and I am truly honored to play a role in this special day. I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me in honoring His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill entitled the ``Protecting Consumers through Proper Forbearance Procedures Act of 2007'', which I am introducing today. This legislation is intended to correct persistent problems in procedure created by two words in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 10 of the Communications Act permits a telecommunications carrier to file a petition with the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, asking the FCC to forbear from applying certain statutory or regulatory requirements to it. The FCC may grant forbearance if it finds that doing so is in the public interest. It is certainly within the prerogative of Congress to create a statutory regime that permits a regulatory agency to forbear from applying a statutory requirement, so long as the agency finds that consumers will continue to be protected and well served. The problem in this circumstance is that the statute states that the carrier's petition will be ``deemed granted'' if the FCC does not act within a prescribed timeframe. In other words, if the clock runs out before the FCC has reached agreement on the merits of a petition, the petition is automatically granted. This untenable situation must be corrected. It can and has led to undesirable results. First, the FCC last year permitted one forbearance petition to be ``deemed granted'' without issuing an accompanying written order, thereby making it impossible for Congress or the courts to ascertain the scope of relief granted or the legal rationale supporting the agency action. In this situation, which could easily occur again, it is difficult for Congress to conduct proper oversight of the implementation of the Communications Act, as well as oversight of the telecommunications industry. Second, the ``deemed granted'' language results in unsound decision- making at the FCC. Faced with contentious, complicated issues as set forth in these petitions, the FCC now routinely waits until the last possible minute--in some cases literally the 11th hour--to make a rushed decision. All the while, during the FCC's deliberations, the threat of an automatic grant of forbearance from statutory provisions hovers over the proceedings. Such a disjointed process is not likely to result in public policy that benefits consumers. This bill simply removes the ``deemed granted'' language from the statute. Carriers are still free to seek forbearance, and the FCC may still grant forbearance where appropriate. But the ``deemed granted'' language must be removed to safeguard the ability of Congress and the courts to conduct appropriate oversight, to protect consumers, and to restore transparency to the decision-making process.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of a world-class learning and educational institution: The Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum. On October 20, 2007, the Hands-On Museum will be Celebrating 25 Years of Discovery. The Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum serves as a focal point for informal science education in the greater Ann Arbor community, occupying 40,000 square feet in an old firehouse. From exhibits that tangibly display the effects of gravity, photography, anatomy, geology, music and many other scientific phenomena, to a live bee colony spread throughout the building; the Hands-On Museum brings learning to life. Special events like the Big Freeze and National Engineering Week are just part of what make the Hands-On Museum such a wonderful place; one which allows children and adults to experience learning first hand, together. The history of this great institution is filled with instances of well meaning people building it from the ground up. In 1982, a small, but extremely dedicated group of individuals came together to create the Hands-On Museum in the old brick firehouse in downtown Ann Arbor. They did this because they wanted a place for their children and many others to come and learn, while having fun at the same time. These volunteers were able to raise enough money to open the museum and ensure its future funding. These first efforts eventually led to the further expansion of the Hands-On Museum and in 1986 it received a Kresge Foundation Challenge Grant, which allowed it to open up new exhibits on the third and fourth floors of the firehouse. The Hands-On Museum initiated its own $6.5 million Capital Campaign fund, in 1993, which allowed it to expand by purchasing adjoining buildings and introducing new programs. Ever-evolving, recent renovations were finished in October 1999 funded with additional gifts and donations. Thanks in large part to the work of many generous donors, the Hands-On Museum has seen over 3.1 million visitors to date. The Hands-On Museum is a remarkable institution and has been widely recognized, including being named ``Best Museum'' in 2003 by the Detroit Free Press. It was also named both ``Best Museum'' and ``Best Kids' Activity'' by Ann Arbor News readers in 2006. Along with these awards, the Hands-On Museum has also received national recognition by the National Science Foundation, the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the Association of Science and Technology Centers. The Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum has now served to educate several generations of children. It is truly a treasure for residents of the City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and the State of Michigan. I applaud the Hands-On Museum for all that it has done; all that it means to the children who walk through its doors; and for all that it will do to educate both current and future generations of children.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

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

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to show the bipartisanship of this bill which is supported by one of every four of our Republican colleagues, including our dear friends Mr. Grassley and Mr. Hatch in the Senate. At this time, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) 1 minute.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). I will also yield 15 minutes of my time to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Today we face an awesome responsibility to do what is right for America's children. The debate here is about one thing only: health care for kids. Some have tried to change the subject, obfuscating this debate with misconceptions, half-truths, and outright lies. Whether this is ignorance or malfeasance, allow me to help them understand the legislation. First, the bill terminates the coverage of adults under the CHIP program. I repeat, terminates. Second, the bill prohibits the use of Federal funds for illegal aliens. Section 605 plainly states, ``No Federal Funding for Illegal Aliens.'' Third, the bill is fully paid for and will not increase the national debt. In fact, CBO estimates this bill, if enacted, will return money to the Treasury. The legislation before us would provide health care and health insurance coverage for 10 million needy American children. It provides funding for States to enroll millions of low-income children who are already eligible for benefits yet remain uninsured. Under current law, these boys and girls are entitled to their benefits. Continuing this situation of not providing coverage is a travesty. I am not alone in this view. Former Surgeons General for Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and for the current President recently wrote in support of this legislation the following: ``We implore you to not put off the health needs of our Nation's children. Please act today.'' This legislation has the strong backing of the entire medical community, children advocates, educators, school administrators and school boards, as well as insurance companies across the country, and 43 of the Nation's Governors want SCHIP enacted because they know children cannot learn if they are not well. They also know something else. These are the most vulnerable people in our society. We will be judged how we care for them; but beyond that, this is an investment in the future of the country. More than 300 organizations and a long list of distinguished Americans support this bill. I urge my colleagues to join in overriding the veto. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the chairman of the subcommittee, a great expert on the business of health.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds for purposes of responding to the comments just made. I want my colleagues to take a careful look at the remarks just made and the poster just presented. Every one of those statements is false. There is no treatment in this for illegals. There is no treatment in this for their parents. This is not socialized medicine. It is supported by the health care industry. It is also supported by the insurance industry. It has no relationship to and it doesn't even look like the Hillarycare thing about which the gentleman complains. I would note something else. This is a proposal which is a block grant to the States. It is not an entitlement.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I would observe that here we have three speakers before we're prepared to close. And if you would permit, Madam Speaker, the Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, will close for us. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) 1 minute.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from South Carolina, my friend, Mr. Clyburn, 3 minutes.

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

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