John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I express my thanks to my dear friend. Madam Chairwoman, we should not throw away those protections, nor should we open those lands up to being blasted, drilled, ditched, and dug without wise protection. After all, good conservation is wise conservation and wise use of the resources. We are going to find, as time passes, the predictions of our Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior, that this oil is not present in NPR-A and in the arctic game range and is not there in the amounts that we would like, and there is no real reason for increasing that oil production, especially by permits that will not yield any additional production of oil to this Nation. I urge my colleagues to reject the legislation. Let the administration continue its production of oil according to wise use and see to it that we protect the treasures that we have in Alaska against unwise use.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I rise first to pay respects to the distinguished gentleman on the majority side handling the legislation to tell him that I have affection and respect for him, but he is handling a bad bill. I also want to thank my good friend for yielding me this time. I have been to Alaska many times. I have hunted there. I have fished there. I have been to the NPR-A. I have been to all of the refuges in the national forests and national parks and the BLM lands up there. I have seen what a treasure it is. I have also supported, actively, the idea that this Nation must make it possible for us to easily produce energy, but not at the price of throwing away things like our basic fundamental environmental protection laws. This legislation is not going to significantly increase production of oil. All it is going to do is throw away the things that are necessary to protect it against unwise use. This has been a battle that we have had in this body many times, where the majority will consistently seek to make it easier to drill for oil that either isn't there or isn't there in the amounts or that is not going to be produced by the oil companies, because we are finding that there is a lot of oil where there is authorization for drilling where they just got the drilling permits and they sit there and look at the drilling permits. Oil is not produced. Having said this, the Secretary in the last year or so has increased the ability of this Nation to continue producing more and more oil from the public lands. One of the problems with Alaska is the public lands are cold, they are intractable, they are harsh, and they are hard to produce oil from; so it is necessary that it takes longer for us to produce oil on those lands, and that is properly so. It is easy to produce it in the warmer, more gentle climates here in the United States. Given that fact, we can expect that we will see more rapid increases in production here than we will see up there. We have a tremendous national treasure in Alaska. It produces fish, wildlife, open spaces, salmon, all kinds of riches of renewable resources of all kinds.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I express great affection and respect for my dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), who serves the House and his constituents well. However, Mr. Speaker, this is a regrettable piece of legislation. It is nothing more or less than the kind of insurance policies, which are being authorized by it, that were sold by snake oil salesmen around this country, policies which gave no relief, no help, and no benefit to the American people. The sad situation is that this not only allows some people to keep their policies, but it allows a lot of snake oil salesmen to run around the country, selling bad policies which undo almost all of the protections which we have put into the Affordable Care Act, things like protections against preexisting conditions or the fact that a woman who might be buying a policy can be charged more under this legislation on a new policy issued by some sneaky insurance company. The harsh fact of the matter is that this is not a help to citizens. The President said yesterday that he was going to take steps to correct the problems. If we really want to have this done properly, then that is the way to do it. Let us work together to have these matters corrected properly. Let us see to it that the American people get the protections they need against abusive practices and not that we return to them. H.R. 3350 allows the new sales of bad policies--which contain programs and practices that are barred by ACA--to new and gullible purchasers, the ones whom we say we seek to protect. As I observed yesterday, the insurance companies feel that this is going to cause huge confusion in the market, and they do not seek this legislation. The average citizen has been sold a bill of lading which is just plainly false. He is not going to be benefited by H.R. 3350. He is simply going to be afforded the opportunity to buy bad policies, whereas what we want to do is see to it that if he has his policy he can keep it. The hard fact of the matter is that he can keep it, and he doesn't need the legislation before us. The legislation before us simply assures that folks can run around selling bad policies under fictional and false misrepresentations to do hurt to the American people, who, frankly, need protection against the abuses that the Affordable Care Act would put in place.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 992, the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act. Part of the problem that led to the 2008 financial meltdown was that banks were taking huge risks by exposing themselves to risky swaps and derivatives. We passed the Dodd-Frank Act in part to address this problem by forcing depository institutions to spin off their swaps and derivatives activities to separately capitalized affiliates. H.R. 992, if passed, would nullify that part of Dodd-Frank and again allow banks to engage in the type of reckless behavior that caused the gravest economic calamity since the Great Depression. Voting in favor of H.R. 992 is tantamount to unlearning the lessons of the recent past. I find it absolutely appalling that five years on, we're considering legislation to permit the very type of bad behavior that necessitated the Dodd-Frank Act in the first place. I urge my colleagues to vote down H.R. 992, if only out of good common sense.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 99. My Republican colleagues can't help themselves. It wasn't enough that they nearly caused a global economic meltdown by forcing the government to close and stonewalling an increase in the debt limit earlier this month. Now they want to do it all over again by revoking the President's authority to raise the debt limit, which Congress granted him in a bipartisan manner. Republicans in the House aren't just welshing on that compromise, but they're also signaling their intention to take the country over the brink again, all to score political points. This is a farcical exercise and one undeserving of this body's consideration. I would hope that early October's nightmare taught us a lesson or two, but it appears that some of my colleagues haven't learned a thing. All of this boils down to a simple question: Do you support preventing a catastrophic worldwide economic calamity that will decimate the lives of your constituents? If so, then vote down H.J. Res. 99.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, well, here we go again. The House is taking up another bill that seeks to gut the Dodd-Frank Act. H.R. 2374's authors purport that the bill is meant to protect investors. But its practical effect would be just the opposite. The bill would impose onerous--and unnecessary--new requirements on the Securities and Exchange Commission from imposing a common fiduciary standard on broker-dealers and investment advisers alike. Dodd-Frank directed that the Commission study this matter, and it did. The Commission found it necessary in a 2011 report and stands ready, willing, and able to complete a rulemaking. What's worse is that the bill would also prevent the Department of Labor from moving forward with a fiduciary duty rulemaking for employee benefit plans until after the Commission has acted. In the simplest of terms, the Commission's and Department of Labor's common intention with these rulemakings is to protect investors. H.R. 2374's practical effect would be to prevent both from doing so. This is another example of not having learned the lessons of the past. Investor abuses in part precipitated the 2008 financial crisis. Passing H.R. 2374 would be a terrible step backward and a validation of the practices that nearly brought this country to its knees. The financial services industry is in no way, shape, or form deserving of this type of deregulation. Vote this bill down, and stand up for the financial security of American investors.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say thanks to my good friend from Florida for yielding me this time. I urge that the rule be rejected. There is no reason why we can't have an opportunity to amend this legislation to address some of its failures. As the author of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, I was proud to usher in a new era of environmental and wildlife conservation. Moreover, NEPA passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, by a vote of 372-15. A similar vote took place in the Senate. During the debate on NEPA, I noted: Mankind is playing an extremely dangerous game with his environment. We have not yet learned that we must consider the natural environment as a whole and to assess its quality continuously if we really wish to make strides in improving, preserving, and protecting it. NEPA has a very simple promise: look before leaping. The law ensures that Federal agencies weigh the environmental consequences of development projects before they are undertaken. This bill puts its finger in the eye of that particular approach. I worry that the provisions included in the bill before us today will lead us down a path going back to those days of impunity and disregard for the well- being and concerns of the public, where actions were taken without any full appreciation or understanding of the environmental impact of that. That was the reason NEPA was passed, so that we would know what we were doing, and so that we would have a fair opportunity for people to participate in the judgments by having these decisions made in an open and a transparent fashion. Now perhaps changes are needed, and perhaps an update, if you will. We cannot say that this legislation does that. However, before we make changes, we need to have some comprehensive hearings in the committee of jurisdiction. I note that the committee that brings this legislation to the floor is not necessarily the committee of jurisdiction. This is a proposal which is disregarding one of the things which was said by President Nixon when he signed it. He said that this was going to stop the decay of the environment. We are renewing that decay.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my dear friend from Massachusetts. As I begin, I express my great affection and respect for my colleague from Texas, who is my dear friend. Mr. Speaker, I think we are here to be ashamed of ourselves. We're wasting the taxpayers' time, the taxpayers' money, and we're wasting the business and the time of the House. We are taking up a bill to require that Members of Congress sit down and talk about deficit reduction and raising the debt limit. The last time I checked, we didn't need a law to do that. It's already our job. We have a conference that we can call at any time between the House and the Senate, which would enable us then to get to the serious business in handling this matter under the regular order. We don't do it. I don't know why. The President says he is not going to negotiate with a gun at his head. Frankly, I wouldn't either, and I don't think anybody else in this place would. Beyond that, he also is not going to negotiate the full faith and credit of the United States, which is one of the questions at issue. So one of the problems we seem to have with our Republican friends is that their Tea Party fringe is so ideologically hell-bent in getting their way that they're finding that they're too extreme to get it. Now, we Democrats have shown a willingness to cooperate and to compromise. In fact, as the minority leader observed, we have asked Speaker Boehner to convene a budget conference all year, but to no avail. Two hundred Democrats, including myself, sent a letter to Speaker Boehner on Saturday, saying we'd support an extension of sequester- level spending through November 15. Democrats don't want the sequester to begin with, but the interest of compromise and keeping government open says that we're going to show good faith to my Republican colleagues. And what is my Republican colleagues' response? No. Resurrect the failed supercommittee. They have apparently read the Peter Principle, which says, when you can't think of anything else to do, appoint a committee, and they will obfuscate the matter further. Mr. Speaker, it's time to put an end to these asinine antics and maneuverings. It's time to pass the Senate continuing resolution. It's time to show the Americans and the rest of the world that a great institution, created by an enormously wise group of men who made the United States Constitution, is an institution that is not beyond hope of redemption and that it can work together. We offered to work together with my Republican friends and colleagues. We hope that they will do this. I would simply observe that we are engaged here in another curious practice also. We're going to have it so that we're going to pay Federal workers for doing nothing. Imagine that. My Republican colleagues, over the years, during my career here, have always been complaining about ``welfare queens'' who would ride to the welfare office to get their pension checks. Well, here we are going to convert a bunch of Federal employees to ``welfare queens'' by paying them while they do not work. The whole thing is silly, and the American people feel so.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for the time. One of my colleagues yesterday said, You've seen it worse, haven't you? Well, I've only been here 57 years, and I never have. I've never seen such small-minded, miserable behavior in this House of Representatives and such a disregard of our responsibilities to the people. We're supposed to solve the problems of the people. We're supposed to deal with the concerns they have. We're supposed to see to it that the Nation prospers. None of that is being done. The American people could get better government out of the monkey island in the local zoo than we're giving them today. I'm embarrassed and I'm humiliated. I certainly hope that my colleagues on both sides--especially on the Republican side--are embarrassed. This is going to cost us huge amounts of money. It's going to waste money in an amount which will exceed that which we saw wasted during the last time the Republicans shut the House down. They shut it down in 1995 and 1996. In today's dollars, it cost $2 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget. This shutdown is no different. It's going to end up not only costing money, but hurting the economy, hurting jobs, and hurting the American recovery. During the last shutdown, we lost huge amounts of revenue through the IRS, EPA, and other agencies. Passport applications were not processed, which meant even more revenue was lost. National parks, battlefields, and monuments were closed. Now we're going to pass a budget with hit-and-miss legislation and the subjugate people are going to think that in some quaint way we're solving the Nation's problems. We are called the Congress. That means coming together. I see no coming together here. I see a waste of time, a waste of money, and a behavior of a bunch of people who look small, petulant, and small- minded. I'm embarrassed. I hope my colleagues are embarrassed. And the American people are not only embarrassed; they're being hurt by the shameless, miserable behavior that we're demonstrating today in this Chamber and on the television to the Nation. Let's get down to business. Let's pass a continuing resolution. Let's do our responsibilities. Let's behave as a Congress of the United States, not an aggregation of petulant children.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, here we are again wasting the people's time. But I want each and every one of my colleagues to know that we're wasting their money, too. Seventeen years ago, Republicans shut down the government for 27 days. In today's dollars, that cost American taxpayers $2 billion. For all the high-handed talk by my Republican friends about reducing deficits, they seem to have no problem with trying to score political points at the expense of hard-working American families. This afternoon, we're going to take up the same cut-and-bite bills that the House rejected last night. We find ourselves hoping for a different outcome by doing the same thing over and over again. I'd like to remind my friends that this is the definition of insanity. On top of that, Republicans are using the World War II Memorial closure and veterans to try to shame us into going along with their charade. I'm one of two World War II vets left in this place, and I can tell you that the best way to honor and help this country's veterans is to get the whole government running again. Mr. Speaker, I call on my Republican colleagues to gather the collective will to do the work the people expect of them. They are putting the economic well-being of this country at severe risk, which is beneath contempt. Enough of acting like spoiled children: It's time to be adults and get this country moving again. The responsible choice here is to get together and pass a funding resolution for the ENTIRE government. The American people demand nothing less.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It's not perfect, but it is a huge stride forward. It represents a major step in securing our pharmaceutical supply chain and improving FDA's authority to oversee compounding pharmacies. It also is done under a bipartisan, bicameral, cooperative, and enthusiastic effort by Members on both sides of the aisle and of the Capitol working together. It addresses the problems of the deadly fungal meningitis outbreak of several years ago, which were traced to lots of supposedly sterile steroid injections made at the New England Compounding Center. There were 264 cases of fungal meningitis in my home State and 19 deaths. This will address that concern in a very excellent way. It also sees to it that FDA and the States are able to cooperate together, have better funding and more authority over compounding pharmacies. It also does something else, which is very important: it sees to it that now we can track and trace pharmaceuticals through the channels of trade, a very important need. And it is for the first time going to see to it that Americans are able to address their concerns about the safety of pharmaceuticals in these important areas. I want to thank Chairman Upton for his leadership, Ranking Member Waxman, Representatives Pallone, Matheson, DeGette, Latta, Pitts, and Griffith, and my good friend, Mr. Green, for their hard work on this legislation. I hope that we can quickly send this legislation to the President's desk for signature. Now just one thought: why is it that on legislation of this kind, this body can work together, and we are not capable of dealing with massive problems like government shutdowns and dealing with continuing resolutions? Perhaps maybe a little bit of informed, intelligent behavior by this House on other matters would be in order. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res 59, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution of 2014. With only ten days left until funding for the government expires, it shocks me that we are considering legislation that will do nothing to solve our problems. This is yet another political stunt by my friends on the other side of the aisle who clearly want the government to be shut down, and it should be rejected. Our economy is recovering, but much more work needs to be done. A government shutdown would destroy all that progress and would cause much damage to middle class families across our nation. Social Security beneficiaries would not get their checks, veterans services would be cut, and every American would feel the impact. Furthermore, this resolution continues the misguided policy of sequestration. If this continues it will cost our economy 1.6 million jobs in 2014 and will prohibit our nation from making critical investments in education and life saving medical research. Democrats have an alternative that ends the sequester in a responsible manner and keeps the government running for the next year. My friends on the other side of the aisle do nothing but slow our nation's recovery with these futile efforts. Government funding remains in jeopardy. These stunts provide only further uncertainty for our businesses, left unable to hire workers, expand facilities, or make any of the necessary decisions to prosper in this economic environment. Madam Speaker, I plead with you to work with us in a bipartisan manner rather than wasting precious floor time on a bill that is going nowhere. We all know my friends on the other side of the aisle oppose Obamacare. They have already voted 41 times in this House to repeal or undermine the law, and this bill increases this number to 42 by defunding Obamacare entirely. The American people spoke just last year in the elections, and the Supreme Court has spoken as well: Obamacare is the law of the land, and this effort is not going anywhere. In less than 2 weeks time, people who have never had access to health insurance for their entire lives will be able to purchase an affordable plan that gives them the health coverage they deserve. Even if you oppose the President, you should agree that this is a reasonable goal to have. And this bill goes beyond just defunding the parts of the law they don't like. It would let insurance companies deny coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, they could drop coverage when people get sick, and would prevent young Americans from staying on their parents plan until age 26. We should not turn back the clock when we are so close to making real, measurable progress. I look forward to full implementation of the law in the coming weeks so the American people can receive the full benefits of Obamacare. In closing, this is a waste of our time. With such little time left to avoid a government shutdown, I would expect the Majority in this body to work with us in a bipartisan manner rather than continuing to play political games. I know we can come together to prevent a government shutdown and prevent miserable harm from being inflicted on the American people. But today, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this misguided bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Lawrence J. Schweinhart, president of the HighScope Educational Research Foundation, who retires next month after nearly 40 years of exceptional service to the organization and a career of commitment to early childhood education. Dr. Schweinhart has made the economic and social benefits of high quality preschool programs well known to educators, researchers, legislators, philanthropic organizations, parents, and the general public worldwide while demonstrating extraordinary leadership through his service on local, state, national, and international boards and policymaking committees He has provided an example of ethics and integrity the public seeks in those who serve as role models for young children and the people who care for them and has brought the highest standards of research and practice to the field of early childhood education. Dr. Schweinhart has simultaneously earned the esteem and affection of long-time colleagues and inspired a new generation of early childhood educators. After a professional lifetime of securing active participatory learning for children throughout the country and around the world, he is retiring on October 31, 2013. I honor Lawrence for all he has done for the education community and for children. Please join me in thanking Lawrence for his unparalleled leadership. We wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, here we go again. Time in the House is being wasted. The business of the Nation is being obfuscated. The Republicans have got more nonsense to put on the floor. We're told that this is important. That's baloney. This is the 41st time that the Republicans have tried to gut the Affordable Care Act. They don't understand that you're supposed to respect the will of the people and to carry forward the business of the Nation. What a shame that we have such behavior on that side of the aisle. All Members agree that we have to verify the incomes of those getting subsidies through the marketplaces, and that is exactly what will take place starting on October 1. This is obfuscation and deceit. All income data will be submitted through the marketplaces and will be checked against data from both the IRS and the Social Security Administration under existing practices. This is a lot of witchcraft and baloney. If there is an inconsistency, then additional documentation is going to be required. Furthermore, all the subsidies are reconciled by the IRS when an individual files their tax returns. This is just spinning by people who don't want the legislation to come to be, and again, this is the 41st time we've engaged in this silly exercise. The practical impact of this bill is to deny millions of Americans from getting subsidies for purchasing health insurance. Its purpose is to delay and obfuscate the implementation of the legislation that it is supposed to be helping. To pass this bill is simply going to prove to be a malicious assault on the most vulnerable people in our country and those most in need of the Affordable Care Act. We've seen this song and dance before. As I mentioned, this is the 41st time we've engaged in this nonsense, wasting about $1.5 million each hour we're doing this. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 2775. This is political gimmickry. It is going to have harmful effects, and it is intended to do so. I urge that the legislation be rejected and that we stop this nonsense and we get going forward to try to see to it that we do implement, in a proper way, the Affordable Care Act. I thank my good friend New Jersey for yielding this time to me, and I urge my colleagues to reject this nonsense.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my beloved friend for yielding me this time, Mr. Speaker. I rise to ask: Aren't you embarrassed to go a 40th time in a fruitless, hopeless act? This is the 40th time we've tried to kill the legislation. It costs us $1.5 million every time, none of which have been successful. My Republican colleagues have never come forward with a proposal which they have presented to this House, but they sit over there railing and complaining about what is going on. They're going to take the rights of the American people for protection against pre-existing condition, bans on their insurance. They're going to take away from the American people all kinds of protections which we have in the Affordable Care Act. The Speaker the other day said the Republicans were the party of repeal. I think he's right. I suspect we don't want to call them the Republicans anymore, but I think we ought to call them the ``Repealicans'' or perhaps the ``Repealican'ts,'' because they've never been able to repeal anything, and they can't enact legislation. There have been 12 bills, I think, that this Congress has sent to the White House, and there is small prospect of anything more coming from here. It's interesting to note they can't move a budget; they can't do legislation on jobs; they're incapable of seeing to it that we do the other things that are necessary to help the middle class. Yet we keep coming over here with nonsense like this. The Republican Party is like the Bourbons of France: they forget nothing because they never learned anything.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jaclyn Schultz of Wyandotte, Michigan, who was crowned Miss Michigan USA in September 2012 and represented the great state of Michigan at the Miss USA pageant in Las Vegas, Nevada on June 16, 2013. Miss Schultz is a graduate of Wyandotte Roosevelt High School and Central Michigan University. Not only is Jaclyn recognized as a successful competitor in the pageant community, but she has also established a successful career in public relations. She is currently exhibiting her great determination in her quest to obtain her Master's degree while continuing to compete in pageants, be an advocate for women's health issues, and work full time. Her hard work, determination, and drive for success have allowed her to be a role model for young girls and bring a voice to women's health issues that are not well known to many people. Jaclyn has done a tremendous job in her work with the Beautiful You MKRH Foundation to raise awareness of an infertility syndrome which affects 1 in 4,000 women who are born without a uterus. This is a personal issue for Jaclyn as she was diagnosed with this syndrome at the age of 15. It is with great courage that Jaclyn has stepped forward to tell her story and be a voice for the scores of women around the world who are diagnosed with MKRH. Jaclyn has proven herself as a role model to young girls and women across our country and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Jaclyn Schultz for all of her efforts and wish her great success on all of her future endeavors.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Detective Scott A. Galeski of Wyandotte, Michigan, who was awarded the 2013 Presidential Volunteer Service Award for more than 4,000 hours of volunteer service over his lifetime. Detective Galeski has tirelessly and selflessly dedicated himself to teaching, training, and mentoring the community's youth, as well as exhibiting a great love for his public service as a member of the police force. Detective Galeski's biggest impact has been through his direct efforts guiding and shaping several generations of youth throughout the downriver communities. He has been a steadfast and selfless advocate of shaping and mentoring youth into what he calls ``just good, solid kids'' on occasions and hours too countless to measure accurately. Detective Galeski elevated and added to his efforts with youth by founding the Downriver/Detroit Police Cadet Program in 2008 while at the same time coaching high school athletics. The Cadet Program was established for youth interested in careers in law enforcement, and thanks to Detective Galeski's efforts, it became the largest program in the state, boasting a roster of over 73 cadets and having the highest ranking cadet (Major) in the nation. To date the program as produced seven sworn law enforcement officers in various agencies. Detective Galeski, aside from his countless hours of service to his community and youth, also is known for counseling youth with difficult life circumstances and problems. Detective Galeski is a tremendous asset to the community, and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Detective Galeski on receiving the Presidential Volunteer Service Award, and for all of his efforts to make his community a better place.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both H.R. 2667, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act, and H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act. Here we are once again taking another cheap shot at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), rather than working to continue providing its benefits to the American people. Both pieces of legislation are political stunts which will not help Americans get access to quality, affordable health care. There is no need for passage of H.R. 2667 since the President has already acted to delay by one year the employer responsibility requirements under ACA. Given the fact that this type of change has long been sought by my friends on the other side of the aisle and their allies, you would think they would be praising the President for taking this action. Instead, they have done nothing but used this as another opportunity to score cheap political points, which is very telling. Although I wish the employer responsibility provision would be implemented on time, the fact of the matter is that this delay will have very little practical impact. Over ninety six percent of large employers already offer health coverage to their employees. It is important that we take our time in getting these new reporting requirements right, which is exactly what the President is doing. Since the President has already acted in this manner, H.R. 2667 is duplicative and unnecessary. H.R. 2668 also should be rejected by this body. The individual mandate is the cornerstone of the ACA, and the Supreme Court has affirmed its constitutionality. Simply put, delaying the implementation of the individual mandate is just a back door attempt to undermine the entire law. The Affordable Care Act has already brought many benefits to the American people. Thanks to the law, 206,000 people in my district have access to preventative services without a co-pay, and 8,500 young adults have health insurance through their parents' plan. Adopting this bill today would jeopardize this progress we have made in recent years. Today we received news that health insurance premiums will fall by an average of 50 percent in New York once their exchanges are up and running in 2014. The individual mandate is a key reason for this. For years, New York had a prohibition on discriminating against individuals with a pre-existing condition. However, the state did not require all individuals to purchase insurance, which caused rates to skyrocket. The individual mandate, combined with the new health insurance marketplaces, are in large part responsible for this precipitous decline in insurance rates in New York. We should ensure that these results are replicated in my home state of Michigan and across the rest of the country. Repealing the individual mandate will increase Americans' health care costs, not decrease them. I hope we can come together and work in a bipartisan manner to improve our health care system and provide real benefits to the American people. Until that day comes, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against these two pieces of legislation, as they are nothing more than political stunts which do nothing to address the problems we face as a nation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both H.R. 2667, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act, and H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act. Here we are once again taking another cheap shot at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), rather than working to continue providing its benefits to the American people. Both pieces of legislation are political stunts which will not help Americans get access to quality, affordable health care There is no need for passage of H.R. 2667 since the President has already acted to delay by one year the employer responsibility requirements under ACA. Given the fact that this type of change has long been sought by my friends on the other side of the aisle and their allies, you would think they would be praising the President for taking this action. Instead, they have done nothing but used this as another opportunity to score cheap political points, which is very telling. Although I wish the employer responsibility provision would be implemented on time, the fact of the matter is that this delay will have very little practical impact. Over ninety six percent of large employers already offer health coverage to their employees. It is important that we take our time in getting these new reporting requirements right, which is exactly what the President is doing. Since the President has already acted in this manner, H.R. 2667 is duplicative and unnecessary. H.R. 2668 also should be rejected by this body. The individual mandate is the cornerstone of the ACA, and the Supreme Court has affirmed its constitutionality. Simply put, delaying the implementation of the individual mandate is just a back door attempt to undermine the entire law. The Affordable Care Act has already brought many benefits to the American people. Thanks to the law, 206,000 people in my district have access to preventative services without a co-pay, and 8,500 young adults have health insurance through their parents' plan. Adopting this bill today would jeopardize this progress we have made in recent years. Today we received news that health insurance premiums will fall by an average of 50 percent in New York once their exchanges are up and running in 2014. The individual mandate is a key reason for this. For years, New York had a prohibition on discriminating against individuals with a pre-existing condition. However, the State did not require all individuals to purchase insurance, which caused rates to skyrocket. The individual mandate, combined with the new health insurance marketplaces, are in large part responsible for this precipitous decline in insurance rates in New York. We should ensure that these results are replicated in my home State of Michigan and across the rest of the country. Repealing the individual mandate will increase Americans' health care costs, not decrease them. I hope we can come together and work in a bipartisan manner to improve our health care system and provide real benefits to the American people. Until that day comes, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against these two pieces of legislation, as they are nothing more than political stunts which do nothing to address the problems we face as a Nation.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for the time; and I rise in strong opposition to the seriously misnamed H.R. 2668, Fairness for American Families Act. It's a lot of baloney. This is nothing more than a sorry political stunt that would undermine the critical portions of the Affordable Care Act, which is already bringing enormous benefits to the American people. Delaying the individual mandate by 1 year will simply undercut ACA when it is the time that we must be focusing on fully implementing the law. Just today, we found that the health insurance premiums in New York are going to fall by an average of 50 percent when the exchanges are up and running. Other States can do the same thing, and that is the experience which we're finding across the country. This is happening elsewhere. I would point out that repealing the individual mandate is going to cost Americans additional health care costs, not decrease them. Let us move forward with the implementation. I ask my Republicans colleagues to cooperate with us in that goal. I ask them to work with us to better the welfare of the American people by seeing to it that this comes into law. The Congress has spoken and the American people approve. I say that it is time for us to provide real benefits to the American people rather than continue playing these sorry and tired political games. I say shame on those of us who are wasting the time of this body. Let us address the problems of the economy. Let us deal with jobs, employment. Let us deal with student loans, where the interest rate is doubling. Let us see to it that we implement this law which will do away with things that are so hurtful to the American people, such as having Americans unable to get insurance because they have a preexisting condition or where insurance companies can cancel a policy because people are getting sick. It is time for us to deal with the real problems. Einstein observed that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again with the full expectation that the results are going to be different, but getting the same result. I say this country needs better leadership, better understanding, and a Congress that will work on behalf of the American people. As I look around, I do not see that on this floor today. Again, I say shame. This is a terrible, terrible waste of the people's money and the people's time. It costs a lot for us to make this Congress meet and to conduct its business, and we are wasting that time now with this kind of nonsensical legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by my good friend from Virginia. I urge them to strike section 112. There's no one in this Chamber that owns this world. We borrow it from those who come behind us in the future, and we owe them a duty to see to it that we return it in proper form. The bill, as drafted, forbids the Federal Government from seeing to it that all manner of defilement is not dumped into the navigable waters of the United States. This is having an appalling consequence, destroying waters, killing fish, polluting the water sources of our communities and cities. But beyond that, it's doing something else. A race of unscrupulous people are sawing the tops off our mountains in the Appalachians and other places, and they're taking that spoil and dropping it in river valleys and filling them up, the result of which is that the water flowing through that valley becomes highly acidic, and it produces severe danger, not just to fish and wildlife, but to human beings. These are the waters of the United States that are being defiled. The amendment would at least afford a moderate level of authority to the Federal Government, which has always been that authority of the Federal Government, to protect one of the greatest treasures this Nation has: its flowing waters. My colleagues on the other side think that that is a question of jobs. We're going to mine, and we should, but we should do it carefully and wisely and well, with due attention to the future and to our trusteeship of the world that we love. We do not have the right to defile our waters. We have a duty to protect this land and to see to it that it is returned to future generations of Americans in as good a shape as we have found it, and perhaps, if we can, in a better shape. What they have done is to change the situation, where now almost anything goes, and the result is a calamity for the future of the United States. Water is one of the next coming great shortages of this Nation. It's something that is going to be very much missed by our future generations because we have, by adopting this bill without this amendment, defiled those waters, made them unsafe to drink and to recreate in, made them unsafe for all kinds of purposes, including even industrial use of those waters. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by my good friend from Virginia. I urge you, my dear friends and colleagues, to look to the future of the country whose custodians and trustees we are, to see to it that we return this beautiful Nation of ours to the future generations in the condition in which we found it and which is suitable and fitting to the greatest Nation in the world. We can have mining, we can have all of the other things we need, but all we have to do, under the law, as it has been, is to do it wisely, carefully, prudently and well, with due regard for the future. This language in the bill stricken by the amendment offered by my colleague from Virginia would defile those waters and defile the future of this Nation. I beg you, support the amendment. I beg you, strike the section. I beg you, be good trustees of the future and of the great gifts that God has given this Nation, and to strike section 112 so that we can properly protect one of the great blessings that this Nation has, an abundance of water, which the language of the bill, as now drawn, will defile and destroy. And people in the Appalachians will curse us for what we have done to them by filling stream valleys with muck and corruption, by defiling the waters and the rivers and the streams and the lakes of the United States. This is not good custodianship. This is a disregard of the greatest opportunity that we have, and that is to return to our future generations this Nation in the shape in which they will want it to be and we want it to be. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Moran-Dingell amendment that gives this and future administrations the flexibility they need should they decide to address the issue of ``fill material.'' While the Clean Water Act has been a success, we still have a long way to go to fulfill the promise of the Act. According to the EPA, for the first time in many years, the Nation's waters have actually started to get dirtier. The response to this disturbing news should be a renewal of the Nation's commitment to clean water. Unfortunately, the previous administration charted a different course and worked to dismantle the very tools that make the Clean Water Act work. Through regulatory changes, the previous administration eliminated a 25-year-old ban on dumping mining and other industrial wastes into streams and wetlands, and adopted policies abandoning the long-standing national ``no net loss of wetlands'' goal. That administration also proposed weakening the Clean Water Act's program that guides the cleanup of polluted waters. Congress made it clear that the Clean Water Act covers all of these waters. I know this because I was there. In 1972, I spoke on the floor of the House about Clean Water Act and stated for the legislative history that that the bill covers all the waters of the United States. What we in Congress said when the law was passed remains true today: in order for the goal of clean water to be met, all waters must be protected for water pollution to be eliminated at its sources. We in the Congress knew in 1972, as we know now, that the purposes of the Act--to restore and maintain the integrity of the country's waters--could not be achieved if any of the nation's vital waters are removed from the law's scope. As a conservationist, hunter and avid sportsman, I see a pressing need to protect and restore our Nation's waterways and wetlands. These valuable systems support a diverse array of migratory birds, as well as many other species of wildlife. These waters are also an integral part of the landscape that serves mankind. Wetlands help prevent floods and are natural filters, removing pollutants from drinking water. I was proud to play a part in enacting the Clean Water Act. Prior to that landmark legislation, rivers were catching on fire and fishermen dubbed Lake Erie the Dead Sea. We have come too far to allow a roll- back. I ask my colleagues to support both Moran-Dingell amendments.

Mr. DINGELL. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairwoman, if you like confusion, keep the status quo and oppose the amendment. If you want to get clarity and you want to understand and you want to get investment and progress and if you want to have people understand what the law is, support the amendment. The proposal that has been put forward by the Corps of Engineers is clarity itself. It does not change the decision wrongly made by the Supreme Court, no matter how much I might dislike that decision. What it does is it allows people to know what the law is as set forth by the Supreme Court. Foreclosing the Corps of Engineers from carrying out its proper responsibilities under the law going back before 1899 is an act of extraordinary unwisdom and stupidity. My colleagues on the other side do not understand the issue. The simple fact of the matter is all this does is to allow the Corps of Engineers to tell the people of the United States what the law is with regard to what is navigable waters that may be affected by pollution, ditching, draining, and doing other things. So when you vote to strike this section, you are not changing the law; you are allowing the Corps of Engineers to set forth what the rules happen to be, and you're allowing the Supreme Court to bring clarity to the decisionmaking of the United States and seeing to it that people may then go forward and invest and do the other things that are necessary in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, which again, I repeat, is not changed, not by the amendment which is offered by my friend from Virginia. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia because it brings clarity to a confused situation, and it makes plain and apparent what the law is. So if you want to get progress so that people will know how they're going to invest in doing things that affect their property and the waters of the United States, supporting the amendment is the way to do it; and failing to support the amendment is to ensure that confusion will continue to exist and that businesses, industry, and the communities of the United States that need to act upon the waters to see to it that they are protected and that they are preserved, you're seeing to it by opposing the amendment that that cannot be done. The Supreme Court was wrong in the decision which they made. I was here on the floor when we agreed that the navigable waters are all of the waters of the United States. The Supreme Court was either too ignorant or too lazy to bother reading that particular debate, but the legislative history of the law is clear. And I repeat, this does not move us back to the old way, and it does not change the unfortunate decision of the Supreme Court. What it does is it ensures that for the first time since this kind of amendment was offered on the floor, that we are able to finally begin to move forward to deal with the law as it affects navigability, the Clean Water Act, and the other things which are so important both to protecting our waters and to ensuring that business and industry may invest with a clear understanding of what the law is. To oppose this amendment is to ensure that there will be more litigation, which will cause more obfuscation and delay and more difficulty in terms of achieving our purpose of having American citizens be able to enjoy the water in accordance with the law as the Corps of Engineers will set it out so that everyone will know what the law is rather than the Congress stultifying the law and seeing to it that we're incapable of having a clear pronouncement of what the law is as made by the agency which has the responsibility to do so under the law. I urge you to support the amendment. I urge you to strike section 107, and I urge you to get this country going forward on a very important matter which is being thoroughly obfuscated by a lot of people who know nothing about the matter. I urge adoption of the amendment and the striking of the section. I yield back the balance of my time. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Moran-Dingell amendment which will protect not only the Clean Water Act but also the power and integrity of the United States Congress. When the Clean Water Act was passed, I stood on the floor of this House and explained the intent of the Conference Report on the Clean Water Act. I said, ``the conference bill defines the term `navigable waters' broadly for water quality purposes. It means all `the waters of the United States' in a geographical sense. It does not mean the `navigable waters of the United States' in the narrow technical sense we sometimes see in some laws.'' In 2006, the Supreme Court wrongly restricted the original Congressional intent of the Federal government's authority under the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court completely ignored Congress' intent to provide a broader definition of ``U.S. waters'' and instead upended 35 years of precedence simply because they refused to review the facts. But the issue before us today is not whether or not you agree with the Clean Water Act. The question is, simply: Is the Corps of Engineers going to be able to tell people what the law is and how it is to be interpreted by the Corps and how citizens will then have to behave? Under the law, our amendment simply says the Corps may inform people of what the law, as set forth in the Supreme Court's rulings, means. I think that is something which is important in terms of seeing to it that people may go forward with their planning, with economic development and everything of that sort. In light of the Supreme Court's misguided decision, the Army Corps of Engineers is working on updated guidelines that will take into account the decision of the Court and define what their new jurisdiction will be under the Clean Water Act. This is not a massive expansion of power by the Corps as some would have you believe. This is simply attempting to comply with the Supreme Court's decision. By preventing the Corps from spending any funds to implement these new guidelines, this House would be casting a pall of uncertainty over the country. If someone wants to build a home or new business near a wetland or other body of water, do they need to consult with the Army Corps of Engineers before doing so? The language in this bill would not answer that question and would likely lead to more costs on that homeowner or businessperson in legal and court fees. The language in this bill would certainly lead to more court battles and create a wonderful mess that would lead to lawyers making plenty of money. To say anything else about this legislation is either to be misled or to mislead. I would beg my colleagues to vote in favor of the intelligent approach of seeing to it that we are going to allow people to know what the law is and allow the Corps of Engineers to set out what the law is for the benefit of business, industry, and people.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.