John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I have the privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

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

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I have no further requests for time and I am prepared to close if my good friends and colleagues here on the other side have that wish.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I have great affection and respect for my good friend the ranking member of the committee, but some of the things he has just said would tend to indicate the lack of understanding that there is in this place about this legislation. The committee has had three hearings on SCHIP. We have another hearing coming up next week. The subject will at that time be oversight, to find out how the matters are being conducted. There have been a lot of misrepresentation, mostly by the administration. For example, the administration says in its veto message the bill covers illegal immigrants. Not so. It says that children whose parents can afford private health insurance are included in the legislation. Not so. The ceiling on these kinds of children is $51,510 a year. It also says that families with incomes of $75,000 a year are eligible. Not true. It says that childless adults are covered. All of these will be removed by the end of this year under the legislation, and it should be noted that those who are now eligible under this provision are done so under waivers which have been granted by this administration. Regrettably, we have here then either misunderstanding or just plain hard-heartedness and dishonesty on the part of the administration with regard to what this legislation does. What we have taken care of in this legislation is children who are identical in terms of all of the conditions of eligibility of the 6 million who were covered under the original law and who have been covered up to this time. We have added to them 4 million children who are identical in every particular to those 6 million. What is wrong with that? How is anyone here going to be able to justify to his or her conscience denying 4 million kids who are fully eligible but do not confront a situation where the Federal Government puts the money and the eligibility in place so that they can be covered? I ask my colleagues, how can you then accept this veto? How can you deny these kids, whose need is as great as the 6 million now covered, and deny that 4 million? It is impossible for me to understand that. There are a plethora of other misrepresentations about this bill coming out of the administration, and they appear, unfortunately, in a veto message from the President of the United States. The bill prohibits States from receiving Federal funding if they exempt portions of income that go to families with incomes over $51,510. That is the ceiling, and those are families who have real need. Let us meet that need. The number of kids who are going to be eligible and have need for health care is growing as this recession which threatens gets nearer and becomes a worse and more threatening reality. I urge my colleagues, vote to override the veto. Vote for the kids. Vote to override the veto.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, as we are well aware, the bill before us, H.R. 6, is not the product of a formal conference, but rather the result of amendments being passed between the House and Senate as a means of resolving the differences between their respective bills. I have noted in the past, and will continue to note, that I find this manner of legislating to be unsatisfactory and unwise. Given the difficulty experienced by the Senate in going to conference on any bill this year, however, this process is the best that we can hope for under the circumstances. One of the reasons this process is inferior to that of a formal conference is the lack of a conference report and, thus, the lack of a written legislative history detailing why certain policies were adopted and others excluded. When the House passed its version of the energy bill currently before us (H.R. 3221) on August 4, 2007, the Committee on Energy and Commerce had contributed more to this legislation than any other committee in the House of Representatives and is the Committee of primary jurisdiction over the entire legislation. The Committee's contribution was the result of six bills that were ultimately engrossed in H.R. 3221: H.R. 3236, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2007; H.R. 3237, the Smart Grid Facilitation Act of 2007; H.R. 3238, the Renewable Fuels Infrastructure Act; H.R. 3239, to promote advanced plug-in hybrid vehicles and vehicle components; H.R. 3240, the Energy Information Availability Act; and H.R. 3241, an act dealing with energy loan guarantee amounts. With the exception of H.R. 3241 (which was dropped in its entirety), the majority of the Committee's work was preserved in the bill before us today and the committee reports filed on August 3, 2007, remain relevant. Therefore my remarks today will deal primarily with policies adopted in the bill before us on which the House initially had no position, such as the changes in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) found in Title I, and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) found in Title II. Both policies are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and represent a substantial change in current law. Title I of H.R. 6, as amended by the Senate and now under consideration by the House, increases energy security and reduces emissions of greenhouse gases by improving vehicle fuel economy standards. This legislation represents a comprehensive overhaul and expansion of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT. The specific objectives and targets reflect Congress's determination of the maximum feasible increases in fuel economy that would permit the development and application of technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance. The CAFE program, administered by DOT, had been the sole means for regulating the fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions of new motor vehicles made for sale in the United States since the 1970s. Congress specifically prescribed how DOT should determine the maximum feasible levels for fuel economy standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, carefully balancing technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other regulations on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve oil. Approximately 30 years after Congress enacted the Clean Air Act to regulate air pollutants, however, the United States Supreme Court recognized the obligation of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under that Act. Carbon dioxide is widely recognized as one of the greenhouse gases that are emitted from motor vehicles, and one way to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide from motor vehicles is to improve the fuel economy of those vehicles. As such, there is potential for EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to overlap and conflict with that of the Department of Transportation. H.R. 6, as initially passed by the Senate, included a section 519 expressly addressing the ability of EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new motor vehicles and its authority to grant preemption waivers to California to regulate the same. Section 519 stated that ``[n]othing in this title shall be construed to conflict with the authority provided by sections 202 and 209 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 and 7543, respectively).'' The House of Representatives later amended the Senate amendments to H.R. 6 without including the Senate language in Section 519. Although the Senate further amended the House amendments to the Senate amendments of H.R. 6, the language of section 519 was not reinserted. Subsequent to the Court's decision, but prior to consideration of this legislation, the President of the United States issued Executive Order 13432 requiring EPA and the Department of Transportation to coordinate their efforts when addressing emissions of carbon dioxide from new motor vehicles. The Supreme Court interpreted section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act as providing EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. That grant of authority provides the EPA Administrator sufficient discretion to promulgate EPA regulations that conform to corresponding regulations issued by the Secretary of Transportation under this legislation. The Secretary, however, does not have corresponding flexibility to conform her regulations to those issued by the Administrator. The Secretary of Transportation is constrained by statutory guidelines contained in this legislation and the statutes it amends. For example, to ensure the economic practicability of the fuel economy standards it establishes, section 102 of this legislation prohibits DOT from issuing standards for more than 5 model years at a time. The Department should issue standards only for those model years for which it can obtain reasonably-developed confidential product plans from vehicle manufacturers, and it is the determination of Congress that the amount of time should not exceed 5 years. This timeframe allows for reasonable and realistic estimates of market conditions, the availability of new and developing technologies, and other considerations of technological and economical practicability. Likewise, any other regulations issued or enforced regulating emissions of carbon dioxide that affect motor vehicle fuel economy should correspond to the timeframe and relevant limits placed on the Department of Transportation by Congress under this legislation. This legislation provides clear and comprehensive direction to the Executive Branch regarding any and all regulations and enforcement actions with respect to increased motor vehicle fuel economy standards. Pursuant to this legislation, Congress intends for any regulations issued or enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency regulating emissions of carbon dioxide from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act that affect vehicle fuel economy, be consistent with the provisions of this legislation, the CAFE program, and any regulations issued or enforced by Department of Transportation. Title II of H.R. 6, as amended by the Senate and now under consideration by the House, pertains to the Renewable Fuels Standard or RFS. It was first created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109- 58) for both environmental and energy security reasons. Since its inception, the RFS has been administered by EPA under the authority of the Clean Air Act. The RFS has experienced initial success in helping wean the Nation from its dependence on foreign petroleum. In 2007, our passenger vehicles used approximately 6 billion gallons of ethanol, thereby burning 4 billion fewer gallons of gasoline. This is well ahead of the schedule adopted in 2005. Several factors have converged that cause us to scale the program up to the levels in the bill before us today. First, with the price of a barrel of oil hovering in the $100 range for several weeks now, the need to continue to decrease our dependence on foreign petroleum is more apparent than ever and to do so will require increased amounts of renewable fuel. Second, the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector is also more apparent, and renewable fuels hold great promise in helping meet this challenge. Conversely, several concerns have been raised with the viability of relying on corn-based ethanol as our primary renewable fuel: making ethanol from corn competes with other uses of corn as a food commodity and food-making feedstock; requires heavier use of pesticides and fertilizers; and also requires an increasing amount of farm acreage devoted to its cultivation. To address these competing concerns, the bill before us places an emphasis on the use of cellulosic biomass as a means of producing ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol holds great promise for the future of renewable fuels because it uses what now constitutes agricultural residue waste or low-value plant matter, and it contributes fewer greenhouse gas emissions to our atmosphere than either corn-based ethanol or conventional gasoline. The challenge with cellulosic ethanol is that it is not yet available on a commercial basis. This is a young industry that requires two things before its product can be widely deployed: (1) technological breakthroughs that will allow it to be produced on a cost effective commercial scale; and (2) the support of the Federal Government. To that end, the bill mandates the use of 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022. A dramatic expansion of alternative fuels was initially proposed by President Bush in his State of the Union address this year, and an expansion of renewable fuels was later championed by the Senate in the energy bill it passed on June 21, 2007. Both proposals, however, contained serious flaws that would have made implementation of this policy extremely difficult or failed to capture the promises of new technology. First, both proposals would have kept the current RFS in place at EPA under the Clean Air Act and created a new, additive program under which authority is directly assigned to the President, presumably permitting delegation to an unspecified entity of the Executive Branch. This would have caused a tremendous amount of regulatory uncertainty for the obligated parties who must meet the mandates of the RFS and would have caused bureaucratic duplication of a character that often bedevils the Federal Government. The compromise bill before us properly amends the current program, and in doing so makes significant changes to the existing renewable fuel standard, many of which require EPA to modify its existing regulations. Section 210(a) and (c) of the bill govern the transition from the existing RFS program to the modified RFS program. Section 210(a) provides that the increase in the renewable fuels mandate level for 2008 goes into effect without additional rulemaking by EPA. The other statutory changes to the RFS do not go into effect until January 1, 2009, by which time EPA is required to have completed a rulemaking to amend its RFS regulations. Second, while cellulosic ethanol holds great promise, it is not commercially available today. If we are going to formulate policy to encourage its successful deployment, we must also be prepared to fall short and in so doing, plan for a worst-case scenario. The earlier Senate-passed bill failed to do so. The compromise bill before us couples an aggressive, technology-forcing schedule for cellulosic biofuels with a ``safety net'' for refiners in new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(7)(D). On an annual basis, EPA must compare the projected domestic production for cellulosic biofuels for the following calendar year to the level set in the statute. For any calendar year in which projected domestic production is less than the mandate level set in the statute, EPA is required to revise the mandate level so that it equals projected domestic production. EPA will thus be waiving the requirement to meet the amount of the mandate set in the statute that is higher than projected domestic production. Obligated parties, such as refiners, will then have to turn in credits at the end of the year in an amount equal to the revised mandate; they will not have to turn in credits equal to the mandated level set in the statute. If EPA issues such a waiver, the bill authorizes and requires EPA to make credits available for sale pursuant to new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(7)(D). Absent such a credit provision, artificially high prices might be charged for biofuels, which could occur in a tight market. The credit provision effectively caps the price for cellulosic biofuels if cellulosic technology is not deployed as rapidly as required by the bill. Third, neither the President's proposal nor the Senate bill ensured that cellulosic technology would significantly assist in meeting the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. One of the important potential benefits of cellulosic biofuels is that their lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are predicted to be 80 to 110 percent lower than those of gasoline, although there is some uncertainty about the reduction level because cellulosic technology and the lifecycle greenhouse gas analytical methodology are still under development. This bill requires that cellulosic biofuels achieve at least a 60 percent reduction. Cellulosic biofuels that do not achieve at least a 60 percent reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions can get credit as advanced biofuels if they achieve at least a 50 percent reduction. Section 210(b) of the bill before us also adds subparagraph 211(o)(12) to the Clean Air Act to clarify that nothing in subsection 211(o) or rules issued thereunder shall affect or be construed to affect the regulatory status of carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas, or to expand or limit regulatory authority regarding carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas, for purposes of other provisions of the Clean Air Act. The reference in Section 204(b) of the bill to Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(12) does not change this intent in any way, but merely ensures that Section 204(b) is not read as overriding new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(12). Fourth, the bill before us provides more specificity than the President's proposal or the Senate bill about what qualifies as renewable biomass. New Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(1)(I) adds some important environmental safeguards to the RFS program, including ones that will help protect certain wildlife habitats and special eco- systems. The bill before us also contains other new provisions designed to make the program more workable. Under certain circumstances where an insufficient volume of biofuels are produced to meet the mandated levels set in the statute, new Section 211(o)(7)(F) of the Clean Air Act directs the administrator to reset the mandate levels for future years. In doing so, the administrator is to use the same criteria, standards and processes as he is required to use by new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) when setting mandated levels post-2022. The reference to new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) incorporates new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(2)(B)(iii) and (iv). It is the intent of Congress that these criteria will ensure that, if the administrator sets the applicable volume of advanced biofuel under new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(17)(7) for any particular year, it shall be at least the same percentage of the applicable volume of renewable fuel in the previous calendar year. When the administrator must establish mandated levels of cellulosic biofuels, new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) directs the administrator to set the mandate at a level that the administrator expects can be met without the use of the safety net provisions in new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(7)(D). Nonetheless, the safety net provisions would continue to be available if needed. Although the mandatory requirements of the RFS program are limited to transportation fuels, it is possible that renewable fuel could also replace petroleum-based fuel used for home heating or jets. Rather than expand the mandated coverage of the RFS program to include home heating oil or jet fuel, which might result in additional obligated parties or make implementation of the program more burdensome, new Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(5)(E) gives the administrator discretion to allow RFS credits to be earned for renewable fuel sold for home heating or as jet fuel.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I am submitting the following remarks for the record on H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act of 2007, as clarification of House Report 110-501 to accompany the bill H.R. 4040, and which shall be considered part of the legislative history of this bill. H.R. 4040 was ordered favorably reported to the House, amended, by the Committee on Energy and Commerce on December 18, 2007, by a recorded vote of 51 yeas and 0 nays. This landmark legislation, which enjoys broad, bipartisan support, was brought up before the House the next day, December 19. In light of this expedited consideration, the Committee was forced to file its report on an accelerated schedule. The following remarks are offered to clarify the Committee's intent with respect to certain provisions of H.R. 4040. Section 101 establishes a Federal ban on lead in children's products beyond specified minute amounts, with section 101(a) addressing lead content in children's products. The intent of the Committee in providing a defined limit by weight is to establish a standard that is readily understood and easier to monitor for compliance. The Committee's primary goal is to provide standards that eliminate children's exposure to lead from toys and other children's products, and thereby further reduce the potential for harm to children's health. The exception in paragraph (6) for inaccessible component parts that are contained in sealed coverings and casings is intended primarily for sealed electronic devices where component electrical parts and lead solder are necessary for the device to function. Subsection (b) applies to lead paint in children's products. The alternative measure provided for in paragraph (1)(C) is intended to enable the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, to inspect more products and enforce the paint levels in less time than would otherwise occur if they were confined to testing products in the agency's laboratory. In administering subsection (c), which gives the CPSC authority to extend, by rule, the implementation period for the new lead standards for an additional 180 days, the Committee expects the CPSC to give careful consideration to the effect on small- and medium-sized enterprises. The Committee intends for the agency to put the public health and safety first, but within that construct also to work with small- and medium-sized enterprises that may be disproportionately affected to help them to achieve compliance in a timely manner. In general, this section is intended to authorize the granting of a modest time extension for manufacturers encountering unexpected technical or technological challenges in complying with the lead standard. The Committee expects that manufacturers will apply for waivers on a product-by-product or class-by-class basis, and that CPSC will carefully evaluate each application to ensure that any extension will have no adverse health or safety impact. Section 102 establishes requirements for mandatory third-party testing for certain children's products. The Committee intends for these requirements to be vigorously enforced, but it does not intend the provision to be interpreted to require unnecessary duplicative testing. Section 103 requires manufacturers to place distinguishing marks, to the extent feasible, on both children's products and their packaging that specify the location and date of production of such products. The Committee intends for this provision to aid in determining the origin of the product through the supply chain and the possible cause of the recall. The Committee believes that this will facilitate accurate identification of products subject to a recall so that consumers, retailers, and others throughout the chain may expeditiously remove the product from their homes and the stream of commerce. The Committee does not intend for the date requirement to impose an obligation for a daily date change, but may include an indication of a period of time if such label will accurately identify the product in the event of a recall. Section 107 directs the CPSC to examine the effectiveness of the current voluntary standard that governs a wide variety of hazards that could be presented by children's toys. The Committee is disturbed by the large number of recalls this year, and expects this review to be undertaken diligently to determine the effectiveness of the applicable standards, the relevant risks of injury and the available injury data, and the need for mandatory standards and third-party testing, as appropriate. The Committee believes that small powerful magnets present a serious hazard to children and should be a high priority for CPSC action. Section 201 authorizes increased funding levels for the CPSC to enable the agency, among other things, to attract and retain talented and experienced personnel in order to carry out its important mission effectively. The Committee urges that, to attract talented scientists in the various disciplines necessary to achieve that goal, the CPSC will encourage scientific staff to seek appropriate publishing opportunities in peer-reviewed journals and other media. To that end, the Committee expects the CPSC to adopt, within a few months after enactment of this legislation, an internal policy that encourages such publication and sets forth appropriate guidelines and timeframes for management review and consideration of staff requests for clearance to publish. The Committee intends to conduct oversight of the CPSC publication policy and practices as part of its review of the CPSC's performance of its mission.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which makes a number of important improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Congresswoman McCarthy and I first offered this legislation in 2002, when it became obvious to us that the NICS System was not working as Congress had intended it to. Those shortcomings were highlighted earlier this year when a gunman with a history of mental illness shot and killed 32 people and wounded many more. Cho Sun Hui had been adjudicated mentally ill by the state of Virginia, and under the law should not have been able to purchase the guns he used to kill his classmates. This legislation will ensure that individuals like Cho Sun Hui are included in the NICS database. This legislation will also benefit lawful gun purchasers, many of whom face unnecessary delays when waiting for their background check to be completed. For the first time since the creation of NICS, it will live up to its name and be both national and instant. It also benefits those who have been wrongfully included in the NICS database by providing a mechanism for petitioning the government for removal from the system. This is an important improvement which will strengthen the second amendment rights of all Americans. There are many people who should be thanked for their hard work on this bill, but I would like to take just a moment to recognize a few of those people. Representative Carolyn McCarthy and I have worked on NICS improvement legislation for a few years now and while most would say we are an odd pair when it comes to this particular issue, I would suggest we are just two legislators trying to fix a legitimate problem. I have tremendous respect for Representative McCarthy; it has been an honor and privilege to work with her. I would also like to thank Senator Chuck Schumer for his hard work and dedication. Also, I would like to extend my appreciation to Senators Craig and Hatch, as well as Representatives Conyers and Lamar Smith. Lastly, I would like to thank the National Rifle Association. The NRA's support for this legislation has been invaluable and is a testament to the NRA's commitment to passing sensible and responsible legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3793, the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act of 2007. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation because I believe the men and women who bravely serve our country deserve everything they are promised when they sign up for the military. This bill ensures those forced to leave military service because of a combat injury will receive the bonuses they are entitled to. Moreover, this bill recognizes that the men and women injured in battle, in Iraq and Afghanistan, would much rather be with their brothers and sisters in the field than in a hospital nursing their wounds. The least we can do is afford them with the benefits, pay, and assistance to which they are already entitled. I would like to thank Congressman Altmire for his tireless work on this legislation. It is a fine example of how the Democratic Congress is keeping its promises to our dedicated men and women valiantly fighting on behalf of our country. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend for yielding to me. I want to express my commendations to the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Rush, for his outstanding leadership in this. I am proud, indeed, of your work here. I also want to say a word of praise to my dear friend, the chairman and the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton, and also Mr. Stearns, who have served so well. Working with them has been a privilege and a pleasure. I want to salute them for what they have accomplished. I also want to salute the staff. We have on this committee, on both sides of the aisle, a superb staff. I will not mention all of their names, but I do want to express my appreciation to Consuela Washington for the outstanding leadership she showed in the very difficult work that was done here. But that doesn't demean any member of the staff on either side of the aisle. They are superb, dedicated, wonderful public servants, and we owe them a great debt of thanks. H.R. 4040 is a superb piece of legislation. Is it perfect? No. But it's as good as can ever be achieved in this place. It shows that the House of Representatives can work together, and in a 51-0 vote we have established that the Commerce Committee still carries forward its traditions of working well together and moving forward the business of the House in a proper, bipartisan fashion. In that, we may all, indeed, be proud. It shows a real vigorous collaborative effort by all members of the committee to craft a commonsense solution to the consumer safety problems that have received so much public attention in the past year. We have developed, with input from government, consumer advocate groups and industry stakeholders, a bill which represents a comprehensive approach to improving consumer safety. Most importantly, the bill contains a very significant reauthorization, the first in 15 years at CPSC, and it gives that agency remarkably enhanced tools to enforce the compliance of both domestic and imported consumer products with laws and regulations that will enable the CPSC to do a much better job of protecting our Nation's people and our children. I want to conclude, again, by thanking my good friends and colleagues who have worked so hard on this. I want to comment on the fine works of Representative DeGette, Representative Schakowsky, Representative Capps, and Representative Harman, who provided extraordinarily fine leadership to us as this matter went through the committee. Again, I want to stress what a pleasure it has been to work with the chairman of the subcommittee, the ranking minority member of both the full committee and the subcommittee, and my gratitude to all of the members for the extraordinary way in which they have put together a piece of legislation in which this body may indeed be proud. There will be some carping about the legislation, but I remind all that the perfect good is oft times the enemy of the good. We are moving forward speedily and well to protect our consumers in a proper fashion and to do so in a timely fashion and in a way which ensures not only the protection of the people, but the protection of the people in a timely and speedy fashion and a proper response to the concerns that all have set forward. I, again, thank my colleagues.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the K.T. Safety Act of 2007. This is another example of commonsense legislation, bipartisan approach to regulating an industry and adequately protecting our people and our children. I want to commend Representative Schakowsky and Senator Clinton for working with me and with the able and distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Rush, in achieving this compromise. I cannot praise too highly the cooperation and the assistance of our good friends on the other side of the aisle, Ranking Members Barton and Stearns, for their fine support and for the very cooperative way in which they have worked with us, and I thank them and salute them for that. The legislation requires the Department of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce injury and death for nontraffic accidents involving automobiles, particularly to protect children. This is the right thing to do, and it must be, and under this legislation will be, implemented in a responsible manner. The bill has the support of safety advocates, including Public Citizen and the Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety, as well as the automobile manufacturers. This is an important bill for our children, including Franklin Dean Beedle Atizado whose mother worked on this legislation. I urge its swift passage, and I do again commend its author, Representative Schakowsky, for her remarkable leadership in this matter.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3996, legislation that will provide critical tax relief to millions of middle class Americans. I support the Democratic majority's commitment to passing sensible legislation that will provide a solution to the looming Alternative Minimum Tax crisis. I am disappointed that President Bush and the Republican minority have opposed our efforts on this matter every step of the way. If this bill is not signed by the President, more than 60,000 families which I have the honor of representing here in the House will be required to pay the AMT when filing their 2007 return--an increase of almost 1000 percent since 2005. I also support the Democratic majority's continuing commitment to responsible fiscal policies. Last week when the House passed AMT relief, it was paid for by closing tax loopholes that allow hedge fund managers and corporate CEOs to use offshore tax havens as unlimited retirement accounts. Unfortunately, the President and our Republican colleagues in the Senate once again sided with a few of the wealthiest individuals over millions of middle class American families. This speaks volumes about their misplaced priorities, and we are left with an AMT bill that does not meet paygo rules. However, I understand Chairman Rangel--for whom I have the utmost respect--has committed to finding an offset for this fix next year as he continues to find a permanent solution to the AMT crisis.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. While this is a vastly different package than the 11 stand-alone appropriations bills that the House passed earlier this year, it is a package that for the first time in over eight years focuses on the priorities of the American people. Without a doubt the budgetary process is never easy. This year, however, the process has been exacerbated by the fact that this Administration has been unwilling to come to the negotiating table to hammer out the details of this legislation, instead barking orders at Congress--the people's representatives--from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Furthermore, this process has been held up by the inability of the Senate to pass these bills as stand-alone measures. As a result, Congress has no choice but to consolidate the remaining appropriations bills in order to complete our budget work. Like many of my colleagues, I had hoped that this Administration would have worked with Congress to find a compromise that would have reflected the domestic needs of our country and the priorities of our working families. Unfortunately, the budget proposal the Administration sent to Congress earlier this year proposed cuts to many important domestic programs including: Medical research grants at NIH; Grants for low-income schools; Vocational education programs in high schools and community colleges; Homeland Security Grants for police, firefighters and medical personnel; Renewable energy programs; and Community Health Centers. Yet after proposing cuts to these vital programs, the President had the nerve to request another blank check for the war in Iraq. The truth of the matter is our troops have the funding they need. Congress passed and the President signed a Defense Appropriations bill last month that contained more than $450 billion in funding for the military. Moreover, the House passed an Iraq supplemental last month that would provide $50 billion worth of funding for the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, that bill has been blocked by Republicans in the Senate because it contains important provisions that would require the President to begin to plan for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. I would note that recently, the Congressional Budget Office has reported that costs related to the Iraq war could reach $2.4 trillion over the next decade, even if the number of troops is cut by half. Furthermore, we have seen more than a billion dollars gone unaccounted for in Iraq due to fraud and misuse on the part of contractors and poor accounting by our own government. By threatening to veto any spending bill that does not give him a blank check in Iraq, it is the President who is playing politics-- playing politics with our service men and women and their families, and playing politics with critically important domestic programs. The bill before us today is significantly better than what the President sent us at the beginning of this year. It does, as I mentioned earlier, focus on the priorities of the American people. For example, the bill invests in: Medical Research: $607 million above the President's request to study diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's and diabetes. Healthcare Access: $1 billion above the President's request, making targeted increases to programs like Community Health Centers to provide 280,000 more underinsured Americans with access to healthcare and High Risk Insurance Pools to help 200,000 more people afford health insurance. Rural Healthcare: $147 million above the President's request to help 1,200 small, rural hospitals. K-12 Education: $767 million above the President's request with targeted increases to Title 1, Special Education, Teacher Quality Grants, After School Programs, and Head Start. Student Aid: $1.7 billion above the President's request for Pell Grants and other student aid programs. Vocational Education: $575 million above the President's request for technical training at high schools and community colleges. State and Local Law Enforcement: $1.2 billion above the President's request, to help local communities across the country. Homeland Security Grants: 41.8 billion above the President's request, recognizing that fighting terror must be a top priority. Highway Infrastructure: Meets the guaranteed levels set in the authorization bill and provides a $1 billion initiative for our bridges. Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency: $486 million above the President's request for important investments in Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Biofuels, and Energy Efficiency, with a careful blend of new scientific investments and conservation efforts. Chairman David Obey deserves our thanks for plowing through what many of us would consider unworkable circumstances and producing a bill that puts the American people first. Now, it is unfortunate that Senate Republicans have chosen to give the President the blank check he requested in terms of war funding. I cannot, however, in good conscience, hold the rest of the federal government--and the above investments--hostage to Iraq funding. Instead, I will continue to work with my colleagues in the coming year to bring an end the President's failed Iraq policy. Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of Congress to pass spending legislation each year, and it is a duty we take very seriously. I would like to take just a moment to remind President Bush that Congress is a co-equal branch of government. Our founding fathers intended that no one branch should set the course for our country, and in fact compromise has long been one of the hallmarks of our government. It is time that the Administration recognizes that a seat at the negotiating table can accomplish much more than the wave of the veto pen.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 877, I offer a motion.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the distinguished majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my good friend, the next speaker, I want to say a word of gratitude and praise for our distinguished majority leader who leads us so well. Mr. Hoyer is an outstanding Member of this body, and I express my personal gratitude, affection and respect for him. At this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Boucher, who has worked so hard and so diligently on this legislation. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend. I don't agree with what he is saying, but I love him dearly and I think even though he is making a bad speech, I want him to have another minute. So I yield him, at this time, 1 additional minute.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, with appropriate thanks to her and with great respect for her and appreciation of her extraordinary leadership in this very difficult matter, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I yield to our distinguished Speaker the balance of our time on this side.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 877 and as the designee of the majority leader, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6) to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, my good friend, Mr. Peterson.