John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Great Lakes Task Force, I rise today to honor Dr. Chris Goddard, executive secretary of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, who retires this month after nearly 20 years of exceptional service to the organization and a career of commitment to the health of our treasured Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is a U.S./Canadian institution established by the 1954 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, a treaty between the two nations. Under the treaty, the commission advances science; helps the States, the province of Ontario, and the U.S. tribes work together to manage the Great Lakes fishery; and carries out the essential sea lamprey control program, an effort upon which the very existence of the $7 billion Great Lakes fishery depends. Because the commission stands alone in the Great Lakes basin as the locus for multilateral fishery management, its executive secretary must be a savvy leader and must motivate cooperation. Chris is enthusiastic, passionate, dedicated to the institution, committed to science, and driven by a deep-seated motivation to simply do what is right for the Great Lakes. During his tenure, Chris led the commission into the new millennium with a positive vision for the future of the fishery and a plan to create a commission capable of responding to the basin's biggest challenges. He made it a priority to acquire the funds necessary to increase the control of sea lamprey--a destructive, invasive fish that changed the way of life in the basin but is now suppressed by 90 percent. In doing so, he helped create the conditions necessary for a thriving and healthy fishery. Perhaps most notably, he helped the commission make prominent and essential contributions to the President's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by focusing commission projects on native species recovery and invasive species control. Chris' time at the commission is the culmination of a long and productive career. A native of Canada, he grew up in Virginia Beach (his father was stationed there while serving NATO), was educated in Toronto, and managed Ontario's fishery assessment, fishery research, client services, and remote sensing programs. He was the district manager of Algonquin Provincial Park and was responsible for Canada's freshwater fishery program. I am proud to note that he lives and works in Ann Arbor, Michigan, part of my district. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Chris Goddard is largely responsible for the active, vibrant, and respected Great Lakes Fishery Commission that we see today. I honor Chris for all he has done for the commission, for the two nations, and for the Great Lakes. Please join me in thanking Chris for his unparalleled leadership. We wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I don't know whether to rebut or to agree. I want to begin by thanking Mr. Hoyer, our leader and our whip, and my dear friend Mr. Barrow, a wonderful, courageous gentleman from Georgia, who has to fight very hard to remain here. I am proud that you are my friend. Thank you. You, Dan Kildee, bear a great family name. Your uncle was my dear friend. I am satisfied that he is going to be very, very proud of you, and I am grateful for your friendship. I want to thank my old friend Gene Green from Texas for his kind words about me. He is a wonderful man. He has a wonderful wife. He is concerned with and cares about people. And I want to say how much the remarks of my colleague from Maryland, Donna Edwards, meant to me. Donna, you are a wonderful lady. There is a story about her. I worked awfully hard to see to it that her predecessor was able to stay here, but, by golly, she was so good that he never stood a chance despite everything I could do to save him. She has made me proud that she is here. She is a great lady and full of goodness. The story she told about the kids was just a story about her goodness, because she saw to it that these wonderful young people had a place to stay here during the President's inauguration when they were going to play and march in the parade. I want to say to my old friend Sander Levin how grateful I am to him. Our families have been friends and have a history that's interwoven with affection and friendship going back into the 1920s when I was just a glint in my dad's eye. I want to also say to Mr. Markey, our colleague who is going to be leaving us, how much we have cherished his friendship and his valuable service on the Commerce Committee and how proud I am of his service. He and I have had the opportunity of engaging in some fights over the jurisdiction of the committee when they were trying to raid the Commerce Committee, and we found--guess what?--when the fight was over, every time that he and I were involved in it, we had more jurisdiction than we'd had when we went into the fight. To you, my wonderful friend Carol Shea-Porter, what a wonderful lady you are, and how proud we are that we have a friend like you here who cares about people and who works so hard for them, and I am proud of the words that you have said. To my Polish colleague, Paul Tonko from New York, we Polacks--and I am very proud to be a Pole--are very, very concerned about loyalty and friendship and about homes, and he certainly exemplifies that and the goodness. I am proud of the little things I've been able to do while I've been here. I am prouder even still more of the people I've been able to serve and help, and I am very grateful for the friendship of the people of southeast Michigan. The legislature has redistricted me so many times that they can't find a place now that they can put me that I haven't served before. So I have a great deal to be grateful for. My father was a wonderful public servant, and he taught me that we here are public servants. We are not masters of the people--we are their servants. This is reason for us to be particularly proud because that is the highest calling of all. So to you, my colleagues, who have so graciously and kindly made this rather embarrassing evening possible for me, I express to you my thanks and my gratitude for your friendship and for reminding me that there still is the wonderful warmth of friendship and goodness in this institution. The lovely Deborah, my wife, and I thank you for your friendship and kindness. To all of the other colleagues whom we are serving with now and those with whom we have served before who are no longer with us, we are grateful to them, and we are proud. This is the greatest Nation in the world. We are part of the greatest experience and the greatest experiment in the history of mankind--an experiment in government, which gives equality and opportunity to all of us. We are reminded that serving and saving and protecting those people whom we serve and the values that they hold dear is a tremendously important concern, one which we are going to have to go to bat about again to see to it that the Voting Rights Act is extended because the protections of the rights of our people--the greatest of all in the right to vote--are not yet fully assured. So, to all of my colleagues tonight who have been so gracious and kind to me, I express to you my thanks and gratitude. It's a privilege to serve with you. It's even a greater privilege to have you for friends and to have you be people up to whom I can look for your goodness and decency and concern and for the service which you so gladly and generously give to the people of the United States and to the people you represent in your different districts. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back with great gratitude to my dear friend from Georgia and with my thanks to all of my colleagues who have spoken excessively kindly about me tonight.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today, Wednesday, June 24, 2013, I, along with my good friend Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, would like to honor the contributions of Carla R. Hultberg on the occasion of her retirement from the House of Representatives after more than 24 years of exemplary service to Congress and the nation. Carla began her career in the House of Representatives in 1989 as Assistant Clerk for the Committee on Energy and Commerce, helping to implement a demanding legislative agenda set by then-Chairman John Dingell. In 1995, after receiving recognition for her exceptional work, Carla was asked to begin serving in two roles, conducting the Committee's exacting clerking responsibilities while also incorporating new online technologies that had never been used before on Capitol Hill. In 2007, Carla was promoted to Deputy Clerk of Technology and Administration and supervised a team of staffers managing and maintaining the office's networks and equipment and representing the Committee's administrative interests before the full House. In 2009, Carla took on perhaps her most significant challenge when she was promoted to Chief Clerk of the Oversight Committee under then- Chairman Edolphus Towns, where she helped build a new majority office from the ground up and took the lead on all Committee operations. For the past three years, Carla has served as Chief Clerk for the minority staff of the Oversight Committee under Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings, managing all legislative and investigative records, all clerking responsibilities, and all administrative and personnel operations. Throughout her career, Carla has been an anchor for Committee operations, and she has never sought credit or attention, although it is most certainly due. Carla is defined by her dedication, work ethic, and selflessness. She is the type of staffer that every Member of Congress seeks--and desperately wants to keep. Carla has touched the lives of countless Members of Congress who rely on her, congressional staffers who look up to her, and members of the American public whom she has served for more than two decades. Author Marianne Williamson said: ``Nothing liberates our greatness like the desire to help, the desire to serve.'' No one embodies this quote better than Carla Hultberg. She has been a true servant of the American public, and she will be missed dearly in the halls of Congress.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act. I would very much like to support this legislation. I understand how important it is for Congress to pass a five-year Farm Bill to give certainty to farmers across the nation and to reauthorize and improve critical nutrition and conservation programs. I strongly support many of the reforms made to the farm safety net, including the elimination of direct payments and an increased focus on crop insurance, a risk management tool which actually works. However, the $20 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are unconscionable, and for this reason I cannot support this bill. My Republican colleagues continue to claim that SNAP is growing out of control because participation in the program has grown in recent years. In fact, this is a sign that SNAP is working as intended. The recession left many people in dire financial straits and unable to put food on the table to feed their families. For many of my constituents, SNAP is an important stop-gap measure to help them during a time of need. These people are not asking for a handout. They are simply trying to get by. We should be thankful that we have a strong SNAP program as a part of our safety net. If the reforms proposed by the GOP were in place over the last five years, more Americans would have gone hungry. This is unacceptable and is not the direction in which our country should be headed. I agree that we need to take reasonable steps to stabilize the national debt. However, we must not balance our nation's books on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans, as this legislation proposes to do. My dear friend Senator Debbie Stabenow has a strong, bipartisan farm bill which recently passed the Senate overwhelmingly. The Senate bill makes smart, targeted cuts to SNAP, and I strongly support this legislation. I hope that we can come together in a conference committee to pass a good, strong bipartisan farm bill which I can support.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1919, the Safeguarding America's Pharmaceuticals Act of 2013. The American people deserve peace of mind in knowing the pharmaceuticals they take every day are safe and have not been stolen, misbranded, or counterfeited. In last year's Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, we took important steps to secure the upstream supply chain by ensuring FDA has accurate information about who is manufacturing and importing drugs, as well as requiring manufacturers to notify FDA if their pharmaceuticals may cause injury or death or have been stolen or counterfeited. That was a good first step, but now Congress must act to secure our downstream drug supply chain. A strong, national track-and-trace system for our pharmaceutical supply chain will help improve public health and protect the American people from harm. We have seen far too many examples of counterfeit or unsafe pharmaceuticals entering the supply chain and ultimately ending up in the hands of patients. Now is the time to act and implement a system to trace pharmaceuticals as they move through the supply chain to prevent this from ever happening again. This system must be fair, feasible, and provide certainty to industry as to what is required of it. If done properly, a strong track-and-trace system will protect our pharmaceuticals from tampering and ensure their safety for patient use. I want to thank my friends, Mr. Matheson and Mr. Latta, for their hard work on this important issue. I am the first to admit that this is not a perfect bill, and we have more work ahead of us. I also want to acknowledge the concerns of my friend and colleague from Maine, Mr. Michaud, about e-labeling. I commit to working with him to address this issue of great importance and ask that my colleagues do the same. The Senate has also made real, bipartisan progress on this issue and taken a slightly different approach. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation today to move the process forward on this matter. Congress has a clear opportunity to pass a bill with major benefits for the American people and must avail itself of the opportunity. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of Capitol Hill to send a strong, bi- partisan bill to President Obama.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, once again House Republicans refuse to address the affordability of higher education head on and instead are using sleight of hand to make students think their interest rates will remain low. The awful truth is that H.R. 1911 will add even more to the already $1.1 billion of student debt in this country and further increase the cost of getting a college education. As we continue to recover economically, we must ensure that students can afford a higher education. In 2007, as we were dealing with the worst of the recession, I voted in favor of legislation to reduce interest rates on Stafford loans from 6.8 to 3.4 percent. On July 1, interest rates will go back to 6.8 percent if Congress does not act. An increase to 6.8 percent will add an additional $1000 in debt over the lifetime on a student's loans. However, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that under H.R. 1911 interest rates will rapidly increase to 7.7 percent by 2018. This bill does not guarantee lower interest rates. In fact, it does the opposite. The CBO does not project that interest rates will come down any time in the next 10 years. This is a hard truth students and their families cannot afford. I am a proud cosponsor, along with 138 of my colleagues, of H.R. 1595, the Student Loan Relief Act by Representative Joe Courtney, which keeps the interest rate at 3.4 percent through 2015. That gives the Congress time enough to address comprehensive legislation to amend the Higher Education Act and develop long-term solutions to address student loans. There are nearly 48,000 students attending a university or college in my district who have a Stafford subsidized student loan. Those loans total over $212 million. Increasing the interest rate will add an unnecessary burden on those students as they graduate and enter the workforce. We must do everything we can to help as they get started. We should not have to choose how we are going to invest in our country's future. Republicans don't seem to realize that by not finding a compromise, they are playing politics with students, families, and the future of our country.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, as the House prepares to once again vote on legislating approval of a presidential permit to construct the Keystone XL pipeline, I find it disappointing that the Majority refuses to work with Democratic supporters, like myself, of the pipeline. By attempting to legislate a process set in place by President George W. Bush, the Majority has succeeded in making the pipeline a political issue instead of one of unifying national energy independence. As a supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline, I oppose H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, and ask the Majority to instead work with the Administration to approve this project and legislate issues that can further enhance our energy independence rather than playing partisan politics. The intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is to provide transparency so communities can know the impact of projects on their neighborhoods. However, H.R. 3 circumvents that transparency by simply deeming approved the NEPA review. H.R. 3 also deems approved permits under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. When these laws were passed, they were not revolutionary, they were commonsense, and were passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. One could even say these environmental laws were so important that they were, in fact, nonpartisan. Allowing those processes to run their courses is also commonsense and should be nonpartisan. This pipeline will eventually be built either south from Canada to the Gulf Coast or west to the Pacific where the Canadian oil will be sent to China. As a supporter of the pipeline and American energy security, I, for one, would prefer to see those manufacturing, construction, and other jobs created here in the U.S. Allowing the process provided under these laws to unfold does not mean you have to be opposed to the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The majority claims that this bill is necessary to ``address continued regulatory uncertainty.'' However, this bill does exactly the opposite; it circumvents the established process and potentially opens the project to lawsuits that will ensure the pipeline is kept in the court system for years to come. I oppose this bill, which gives special treatment to a foreign company not afforded to domestic companies. The House should be doing more to secure our country's energy independence instead of playing political games with our nation's energy future. As a supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline, I urge you to oppose H.R. 3.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act. Today we are considering another in a long line of Republican bills that wish to supplant public interest considerations at regulatory agencies with cost-benefit analysis. H.R. 1062 would require the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to perform a cost-benefit analysis when conducting new rulemakings. The bill would also mandate a cost-benefit review of existing SEC rules every five years without appropriating additional funds to that agency to do so. The net effect will be a regulatory agency tied in knots and incapable of carrying out the mission it was chartered to do: protect investors from fraud. Mr. Chair, my father helped charter the SEC because Wall Street nearly destroyed this country's economy in 1929. After years of Republican-led efforts at deregulation, Wall Street came close to doing that again in 2007 and 2008, and we are only now starting to recover from that calamity. It grieves me that the House continues to consider legislation that hamstrings the very agency meant to protect hard- working Americans from the types of rascality to which Wall Street seems inclined by nature. I urge my colleagues not to repeat the past. Vote down this terrible bill and show you stand with the people, not Wall Street.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a prodigious waste of the time of the House working on a bad piece of legislation. I rise today in strong opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. My Republican colleagues are up for the 37th time with this nonsense, and they are fully determined to take away all of the rights that we have given under the Affordable Care Act to the people of the United States. People are going to go back in the doughnut hole, courtesy of the Republicans. No longer will people be protected against being excluded from insurance because of preexisting conditions. And it is going to be possible now for insurance companies to kick people off insurance plans because they get sick while they have a policy. Kids are not going to go on their parents' policies after they are 26 if we pass this nonsensical legislation. Einstein said that expecting a different result from things done over and over again is proof of insanity. Well, this is insanity. But worse than that, it is a waste of time of the people in the Congress and the money of the United States citizens who pay our wages. This is a bad proposal. Vote it down. Mr. Speaker, it has often been said by many, including everyone from Albert Einstein to Benjamin Franklin, that the very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We gather here in this Chamber today not to work on behalf of the American people, but instead to partake in our 37th round of insanity-- repeal of a law that is already helping our struggling American families. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: just what part of helping the American people are you opposed to? Are you content in this preposterous display that is, by its very definition, insanity? You are reinstating the lifetime cap on coverage for people-- including children--telling them there's nothing more that can be done for them, because their insurance provider said so. You are ending the closing of the so-called ``donut hole'' and allowing millions of seniors to see increases in prescription drug costs, amounting to thousands and thousands of dollars in additional burdens on our seniors. You are eliminating tax credits for more than 4 million American small businesses that stand to benefit from providing coverage for their workers, ensuring they can continue to work and provide for their business in good health and wellness. You are telling the American people that it's fine for insurance companies to drop them from coverage just because they got sick. You are returning our American children to the uncertain and vulnerable times when ``preexisting conditions'' meant their life and livelihood was less important than the bottom lines of insurance executives. You are denying care for 6.6 million young people who qualify to stay on their parents' plan until age 26. Is that your preferred way of protecting and promoting the future leaders of our nation? My friends, all that this 37th repeal vote offers is yet another piece of evidence in proving the newfound insanity of this body, further emulating the ``do-nothing'' Congress that was the 112th. This is not what we should be wasting our time with--this is nothing more than political posturing so House Freshmen can make the same foolish mistakes of their most immediate predecessors. This is not a vote for the American people, rather it is a callous disregard for the health and wellbeing of those who continue to work, each and every day, to make our nation great, provide for their families and ask for nothing more than a fair shot at the American Dream. I will remind my colleagues that the very best way of protecting the American Dream is by protecting the American people--the very best asset our country holds. We should be doing the nation's business in a cooperative manner, not working to further divide all of us who are so deeply in need of bipartisanship and unity. Today's insane and useless vote will bring the total amount of taxpayer dollars wasted on hours upon hours of legislative attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act to $52.4 million dollars in just three years since it became the law of the land, and just one year since the Supreme Court upheld it and ensured the care and cost-saving measures that all American families deserve. I ask you, my colleagues, to oppose this insane legislation, end this further waste of taxpayer dollars, and bring this body back to the honest and necessary job we owe to the people we're blessed to represent.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 701. While I applaud the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues to help small businesses grow and create jobs, the sting of the effects of financial deregulation is still too strong to allow me to support this bill. I voted against similar legislation in the 112th Congress because I think raising the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation A threshold is a bad idea. I note that Congress has raised this threshold five times already. In each of those instances, though, Congress approved a modest increase that was relative to the rate of inflation and the purchasing power of the dollar. H.R. 701 would mandate an unprecedented tenfold increase in the current threshold of $5 million to $50 million. Such an increase strikes me as grotesquely large, especially since inflation has risen only 165 percent since 1980. H.R. 701 will force the SEC--without additional appropriations--to do something that constitutes a tremendous incitement to perpetrate fraud on investors. I cannot in good conscience support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote it down.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act. Instead of working productively with Democrats, my Republican colleagues seem content to continue dabbling in debt limit chicanery that threatens the economic security of this country. Let me be clear: H.R. 807 offers no comprehensive solution to the debt limit. It is a legislative blueprint for how the United States should pay its bills after it defaults. More baffling is the fact that the bill prioritizes debt payments to Chinese bondholders over paying our troops, supporting our veterans, and making Medicare payments to seniors. That Republicans continue to push bills like this indicates they have no real interest in fixing the sequester or putting in place the kinds of policies that will contribute to stable economic growth. This will have a seriously debilitating effect on financial markets at a time when we can ill afford it. In addition, H.R. 807 could lead to another downgrade of our country's credit rating because the bill indicates to markets that it assumes a default will actually occur. Madam Speaker, this is irresponsible policymaking at its finest. H.R. 807 threatens to undo the full faith and credit of the United States, a promise that has stood for over 200 years and is the foundation of global capital markets. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan differences and act in the country's best interests by voting this bill down.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act. It outrages me that my Republican colleagues continue to clothe despicable bills in inventive titles. In point of fact, H.R. 1406 offers no flexibility to working families. It does, however, grant employers the flexibility not to pay their employees overtime. The Working Families Flexibility Act is nothing short of an assault on American working families. It will put an end to the 40-hour work week that my father fought so hard to enact in the Fair Labor Standards Act. The bill will force employees to work longer hours without guarantee of fair pay. It contains no provision to allow employees to contest employer decisions not to grant time off for personal or family emergencies. In short, the bill's sole purpose is to empower employers and disenfranchise the American middle class. I urge my colleagues to recognize H.R. 1406 for the evil it is and call on them to stand up for working families by voting it down.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, Is there no one in this chamber who is embarrassed? Or perhaps the question should be: Is no one in this chamber not embarrassed? The Senate panics and passes a bill to correct the failures of a small part of the abominable consequences of the ``sequester'' or sequestration. We are now funding the failures of what we did earlier. With red faces and guilty looks, we vote on a quick correction of one important, but small, consequence--furloughs at the FAA amongst controllers--and now we sneak out of town, believing that we have made the travelling public safe. Have we? Baloney! A really huge problem still remains unaddressed. The budget is a giant mess. Many other perils to our society, to our safety, and to the wellbeing of our people are quietly ignored as we sneak out of Washington to go home for speeches, campaigning and schmoozing with our people. How many of us will describe our real failures we leave unaddressed? Dangers at the borders, cuts and furloughs to Custom & Border Protection, the Department of Homeland Security, and other security agencies--all unaddressed. Food and Drug Administration--cut, sequestered, and unable to protect our people's health and safety. Roads, highways, and bridges--all in danger. Law enforcement at risk and with cuts, sequesters, and all that goes with those events to fester in our absence. Education--our schools, colleges, universities, and research facilities are all affected with uncertainty. Business, investments, and job creation all delayed because we can't--or won't--address our budget problems. Almost nothing in government, or the economy, is able to prosper or carry out its responsibilities because we cannot, or will not, address the budget problems of this Nation, using the sequester as a substitute for courage, responsibility, and just good, honest work with compromise and cooperation. This Republic has prospered for over 200 years because this Congress--the House and Senate--and our political parties worked together in the public's interest. Apparently--No more! We now go home, one small matter dealt with. How many more are not dealt with? And what will be the consequences? As we sneak home shame-facedly it may be that we ourselves will be safe from these failures. Perhaps we will even be safe politically for a while, but we do not deserve to be; and we won't be when people figure out how poorly we do the Nation's business. We have much to do. This country believes that we should do so, and it will demand that we do so. Let us buckle down. Let us do the job we are paid to do. We have a vital responsibility. Let us carry it out. Let us get busy and do the Nation's business--now. Our responsibility is more important than our ideology. I am ashamed. Is the rest of this body ashamed? And what will we do about it?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I commend the sponsors of this legislation, and I urge the adoption of the bill. It is appropriate that we should honor these four young girls who gave so much to the cause of civil rights. They gave their lives. Just before this event, we had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Immediately thereafter, we passed legislation, cosponsored by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Loser) and me, which made it a crime to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of destroying buildings or churches. Shortly thereafter, outraged by the events that took place on this awful day, the Congress passed the '64 and then the '65 Civil Rights Acts. These four beautiful children contributed in a most meaningful way to those events which caused the legislation to become law, and they saw to it that we honor their doings today with enactment of this legislation. I rise in support of H.R. 360, legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal to four brave little girls who tragically lost their lives 50 years ago in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Alabama, Congresswoman Sewell, for bringing the attention of Congress to this fateful incident that helped transform the history of our nation and for giving the victims of this attack the recognition for which they are long overdue. I remember the day of this tragic incident, and my thoughts and prayers continue to be with the families of the victims of this senseless act of violence. The Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing changed the nature of the conversation in Congress, which had stagnated in the 1950s and early 1960s. With the strong leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other leaders in civil society, those four little girls did not die in vain. The Birmingham bombing galvanized the nation and gave real urgency to the Civil Rights movement, which culminated in the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 less than a year later, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 after that. I was proud to stand with President Lyndon Johnson as he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because nothing is more important than ensuring that the rights enshrined in our Constitution are granted to everyone in our society. In many respects, the movement that was sparked by this tragic bombing 50 years ago continues today. We must continue to make every effort to rid our nation of discrimination of any kind. Our work today goes beyond voting rights or the right to own property. The battle we must focus on now is one of social justice. Americans of all walks of life deserve to be treated fairly and decently, whether it's in the workplace, in our businesses, or in political discourse. As we reflect on this tragedy, let us not forget Dr. King's wise words, which he penned from a Birmingham Jail 50 years ago this month. He said, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1120, the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act. This bill's very title is fundamentally misleading. H.R. 1120 will, in fact, lead to more uncertainty in labor-management relations. The bill is part and parcel to the Republicans' ongoing war against working American men, women, and their families. Its purpose is nothing less than the wholesale abrogation of the right of workers to protect themselves from unfair labor practices. H.R. 1120 will neuter the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and give employers greater rein to intimidate workers who have the temerity to try to organize or protest unjust workplace practices. The bill will prevent the NLRB from certifying union elections, enforcing orders to comply with existing labor laws, and taking to trial employers accused of unfair labor practices. Mr. Speaker, my father nearly lost his life because of his union activities. All he sought to do was make a better life for himself and his family. He lost his job and was sent west to die of tuberculosis, which very well could have happened if not for the Union Printers Home and the union of which he was a founding member. I will not stand idly by as my Republican colleagues seek to destroy his productive legacy. H.R. 1120 is another legislative expression of the contempt in which my Republican colleagues hold American working men and women and the unions they founded for their protection. I am grateful that this bill will never be taken up by the Senate, much less signed by the President. It saddens me, however, that Republicans continue their march at every opportunity to demolish the capacity of the federal government to protect the health and well-being of Americans not fortunate enough to have been born with silver spoons in their mouths. I urge my colleagues to vote down this shameless excuse for a bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my dear friend, David Curson, on the occasion of his retirement. Many of you know David from his seven weeks of service in the House during the 112th Congress representing Michigan's 11th district. He was elected with the help of community activists, including his beloved United Auto Workers, to fill a vacancy for the shortest term in recent memory. While he was here, David unflinchingly stood up for working American families, always remembering his roots back in Michigan and Ohio. His time in the House was not wasted: His was a key vote in avoiding the fiscal cliff this past January. It was a tough one to take, but David did so with the greater good in mind, as he has always done. His service here was nothing short of honorable, and the Michigan Delegation is better off for his having a part of it. David's service to his fellowman far predated his time in Congress. He proudly served his country as a Marine in Vietnam. When he returned to the United States, David started a life-long career at Ford and with the United Auto Workers, particularly Local 898 in Rawsonville, Michigan. David has held nearly every imaginable position in the Union, from chairman of the Local UAW/Ford Joint Apprenticeship Committee to Director of Special Projects and Economic Analysis to Executive Assistant to the UAW's President, Vice President, and Secretary Treasurer. He led contract negotiations that saved thousands of American jobs and helped set the standard for job security agreements in North America. In short, David has devoted his life to his fellow working men and women and done a magnificent job for them. Mr. Speaker, I am humbled and grateful to call David my friend. His dedication to social justice and public service are example to us all, and one which I hope we will all heed. I know David's entire family-- from his wonderful wife Sharon, to his children David Jr., Lisa, David II, and Kathryn, to his grandsons Peyton and Parker--all appreciate David's extraordinary life of service and are thrilled to be able to spend more time with him as he retires. To my good friend, David, and his family, I wish health, happiness, and long life.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 25, the fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget resolution. Once again, this body is considering another misguided budget that asks seniors and middle class Americans to make great sacrifices so the wealthiest among us can get a tax cut. While supporters of this budget claim they deserve credit for producing a budget that balances, this is not a balanced plan, nor a serious one. The Republican budget is a slippery, dishonest collection of old, failed ideas that the American people roundly rejected in the last election. Some say that this budget plan represents a serious attempt to reform Medicare; in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. It ends Medicare as we know it by creating a voucher program which would shift costs to our seniors. It also repeals the Affordable Care Act which is already providing critical benefits to those in need across our country and that has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional. By reopening the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, beneficiaries would see their costs increase by over $13,000 from now through 2022. This is not the treatment our seniors deserve, and I know we can do better for them. Instead of making critical investments in our economy to promote growth and create jobs, vital domestic programs would face drastic cuts. The entire mandatory Pell grant program would be cut by $98 billion over 10 years, virtually eliminating the program. Student loan rates would rise from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent in July, which would have a negative impact on college students across the nation. The budget also doubles down on the disastrous sequester and goes even further than that by cutting an extra $55 billion from domestic discretionary spending in FY 2014 alone. To top it off, the top tax rate would be lowered to 25 percent, costing our nation nearly $6 trillion over 10 years. In order to pay for these disastrous proposals, critical tax deductions for middle class families would be eliminated, leaving the average family with an increase of $3,000 in their tax bill. The priorities of this budget are completely backwards. I commend the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, for offering a balanced approach in the Democratic substitute budget. This budget replaces the sequester, makes investments which are critical for economic growth, and puts our nation on a sustainable fiscal path. It gives critical support to transportation, education, and small businesses programs which will have a real impact on middle class families and help maintain the upward trajectory of our economy. The Democratic budget also includes $50 billion for immediate surface transportation projects which will create jobs today, in addition to vital tax incentives for the manufacturing sector which has been so critical to our economic recovery. All of these important goals are achieved while continuing the Medicare guarantee for our seniors and generating enough deficit reduction to eliminate the sequester, thereby avoiding losing 750,000 jobs which would occur if sequestration is allowed to continue. If my Republican colleagues are serious about producing a balanced budget then let us set aside this partisan rhetoric and recycled ideas and come to the table willing and ready to make tough decisions for the benefit of our country. American families across the country make tough decisions about their family's budget on a daily budget. Whether it is postponing that new car purchase, refinancing their homes, or cutting back on the types of groceries they buy, American families do not have the luxury to return to past bad ideas. They have to make the tough decisions now or face losing their home, missing a tuition payment, or having their heat turned off. Instead of debating political documents such as this one, Congress must put aside the political games and come together to find common ground to put our nation on a sustainable fiscal path in the long term while making much needed investments in the short term. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Republican budget.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to the Continuing Resolution before us today to continue funding our government in a more prudent manner than was seen in the House Republican measure. I believe that funding of our Nation's most essential programs must continue at a responsible level, and I'm disappointed in the constant partisan politics being played with the important financial matters of our country. While I still believe that this constant week-to-week, Continuing Resolution funding of our government is irresponsible and incomplete, it is necessary to ensure that our seniors and veterans can continue to receive the important benefits that they deserve, ensure proper funding for our state and local law enforcement programs that protect our communities, and a continued investment in scientific research that will help us to lead the world in discovery and opportunity. I'm disappointed that this Continuing Resolution does nothing to address the harsh automatic budget cuts of sequestration, does not reinstate proper funding of the much-needed protections authorized in the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform laws, and leaves in place broad cuts to environmental protection and food safety and inspection that keep us safe. But, simply put, this measure will prevent a government shutdown and keep our Nation moving forward, and I believe it will allow us ample time to come together on a 2014 budget that I know the American people are owed and deserve. We cannot afford to keep bringing this great Nation to the brink of the fiscal cliff for nothing more than purely misguided political reasons. It does nothing but further jeopardize the certainty that the American people need, now more than ever, to ensure that their family or small business can find success and prosper. While at it's very core I find this measure incomplete, I will support it and hope that my colleagues agree to come together, craft a budget that properly funds our Nation that can be signed into law by the President, and work each and every day hereafter to put our country back on a path to fiscal responsibility and prosperity.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 803, the SKILLS Act. What we have before us today is another sorry excuse at legislating dressed up as compassionate conservatism. The SKILLS Act will ensure that disadvantaged populations, like youth, minorities, older workers, and the disabled, continue to suffer disproportionately in hard economic times. These are precisely the jobseekers whom the workforce investment system was designed to serve, but the practical effect of the SKILLS Act would be to reduce their access to programs meant to help them find meaningful employment. Madam CHAIR, the SKILLS Act's justification as a rationalization of worker training programs is nothing more than lip service to the real needs of chronically unemployed Americans. It consolidates 35 separate programs into block grants and attaches few, if any, strings to their use by state governors. In point of fact, the SKILLS Act is an extension of House Republicans' plans for Medicare and Medicaid, which would amount to a decrease in disadvantaged Americans' access to important services. Moreover, the SKILLS Act freezes the Workforce Investment Act's authorization level through 2020, an amount already demonstrated to be woefully inadequate to the needs of the unemployed. It also grieves me that H.R. 803 eliminates separate training funds for youth programs, eliminates the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program, and eliminates the priority of service delivery for low-income adults or out-of-school youth. These people should be at the front of the line, yet the SKILLS Act cuts them out completely. Finally, the SKILLS Act severely restricts the participation of unions, community-based organizations, and community colleges on state and local workforce investment boards. Collectively, these organizations have nearly unparalleled experience in proper workforce development and must be a part of any worker training plan. Madam Chair, H.R. 803 is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. It will not prevent the further erosion of our labor force. The SKILLS Act is another expression of Republican indifference to the crumbling infrastructure that once made this country great. Some things are worth substantial investment, and that includes our workforce. If we don't heed this call, our country will become a second-rate economic power at best. I urge my colleagues to vote down the SKILLS Act. I further encourage my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative to this bill, the Workforce Investment Act of 2013, and in so doing demonstrate a clear commitment to getting our workforce in shape for the 21st century.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to say that I must rise today in opposition to this legislation. Yet again, the House is taking programs that should enjoy bipartisan support--such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families--and adding such partisan provisions that make it wholly impossible to support. In July 2012, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a memo outlining a program for states to consider that would allow for demonstration projects to test alternative job placement performance measures for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients. This was in direct response to the requests from at least 29 states who wanted more flexibility on how they measured work participation. Many of these states requested a waiver so they could focus on more outcome-based measures, rather than job placement rates. The memo released by HHS outlines specific conditions that must be met by a state to receive a waiver: a clear and detailed explanation of how the alternative proposal would increase employment by 20 percent, as well as show that there are clear, measurable goals for work placement. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues would have you believe that the Administration is gutting the work requirements under TANF. This could not be further from the truth. In fact it should be obvious to any honest man who is not blind that this proposal does not waive the work requirements. Rather, this is the Administration being responsive to the needs of the states and providing them with more flexibility to test which strategies they think will work best for their residents. This type of state flexibility is routinely called for by Republican colleagues in federal programs, and now that this Administration has embraced the concept, my colleagues want to claim that welfare recipients will be able to stay on welfare and not work. In my experience, when the Administration has heard your complaints and takes the steps necessary to address these complaints you claim victory. TANF is a necessary and important program that will give families who are struggling a hand-up, not a hand-out. I wish I could vote to reauthorize it today. But I cannot support a baseless partisan measure targeting flexibility for the states to improve this program. As President Clinton said, ``The requirement was for more work, not less.'' I urge my colleagues to reject this nakedly political legislation. Let's do the business of the American people in an honest, thoughtful, and proper way. I would remind my Republican colleagues that you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are that the Administration's proposal would increase work requirements and increase the ability of Americans to get back to work.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 325, the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013. It frustrates me to no end that my Republican colleagues still have not learned their lesson from their earlier failures on matters of similar character. The American people want results, not political gimmicks, which is precisely what this bill is. H.R. 325 does nothing to ensure the long-term stability of markets, promote sustainable economic growth, and protect the credit rating of the United States. Very much the opposite, it is a ``gotcha bill'' that allows House Republicans to thumb their noses at the Senate and blame it for faults in which House Republicans share. I have never been a great lover of the other body, but now is not the time for petulant antics. Now is the time for action in the public interest. I urge my colleagues to vote down H.R. 325. We have time enough-- though not much--to negotiate a bipartisan increase to the debt ceiling that is not just another stopgap measure creating new problems and risks in the immediate future. That will require good faith and hard work by all who choose to be involved. I choose so, and I hope my colleagues do as well.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me this time. Neither he nor I need hair spray, and so we can approach that matter with some serenity. But I want to say here, I yield to no one in this Chamber over what has been done or what I have done on food and drug safety for the American consuming public. I'm the author of the provisions that require Food and Drug to only market those things which are safe and effective. If Food and Drug doesn't like this, they can take it off the market on that ground. They have not chosen to do so. The only reason it is going off the market is because of the fact that it bothers the folks who want the Montreal Protocol to go into place. Now, let's take a little bit of a look at it. There are 1.2 million issues of this particular pharmaceutical. A piddling amount of CFCs is going to be released in that these inhalers are very small. They have a few milliliters of propellent. It's not going to make any significant difference. Food and Drug can take it off the market. It is safe. It is efficacious. Now I want to talk about a couple of other things. The gentleman from Texas has talked about what happens when you have these problem as an asthmatic. My old dad was a former tubercular. He lived through his life with about half a lung, and I listened to him every night, up walking around, gasping like a fish on a rock because he couldn't get air. There are a lot of people who have used Primatene Mist because they thought it worked. And if that is so, in fact it does work because it gives relief to people who are sick. If it is bad, Food and Drug can take it off the market because it is unsafe. That is not the reason it is off the market; it is the Montreal Protocol. Let us consider the fact that there are people out there who need this substance. Now, I hear that it is going to benefit one company, the current manufacturer. That manufacturer is not going to make 10 cents on this deal, and the reason is very simple: the profits and the benefits that are going to be generated by these sales of Primatene Mist are going to go--guess where--to charity. That's where they're going. Who we are helping is the people who have need of this; and if you haven't had a situation where you couldn't get your breath, you don't know the terrors that exist there. And you don't know the kind of terrors that my old dad had when I listened to him walking up and down at night, every night, gasping to get a breath of air. There was no Primatene Mist in those days, and so there was no relief for him. Now, they say, well, you can go to the emergency room or somebody's going to develop relief, but there's nothing on the market that matches the price. Some of these things that they have that they are saying are going to be available are possibly going to be available in a little bit--possibly not. And they also are big, so big that they're not going to be readily available to somebody who has need. They might be helpful if they can put them on wheels so that the fellow can tow them around behind him. But the hard fact of the matter is that Primatene Mist is going to be there when it is needed, and it is going to provide the people who want their free choice to have that particular medication. It will be available to them. I say make it available to the people. There's no rascality. This is a safe substance. If it weren't, Food and Drug wouldn't have taken it off the market because it was either unsafe or inefficacious. So having said those things, let us support the bill. It's a good bill. The opposition of other manufacturers is to be expected. They simply want to cut a fat hog by making profits by selling their competitive devices.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6249, the STEM Jobs Act of 2012. While proponents of this legislation claim that they are making a serious effort at immigration reform, nothing could be farther from the truth. True to their pattern throughout the 112th Congress, the Republican Majority has once again chosen to bring a divisive, partisan bill to the floor rather than seeking compromise and middle ground. I have long called for comprehensive immigration reform, and am pleased to hear this sentiment echoed by others recently. Reducing the backlog for immigrant graduates from American universities who are studying science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) is a worthy and laudable goal. Sadly, H.R. 6429 is not the right way to achieve it. Instead of increasing the number of STEM visas that are available, this legislation would completely eliminate the Diversity Visa program, which provides visas to countries with low immigration rates to the United States. We do not need to rob Peter to pay Paul to help improve our immigration system. We just need some common sense. Our immigration system has been broken for long enough. Let's dedicate ourselves to finding a workable compromise to this serious problem instead of making a half-hearted attempt at reform. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 6429.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan, the Honorable David Alan Curson, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not yet arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome my good friend Dave Curson to the Congress of the United States. He has spent his life serving his fellow man, first as a U.S. marine in Vietnam, then as a representative of the UAW, and now as a Member of this distinguished body. He is also, first and foremost, a family man. He has been married to his wonderful wife, Sharon, for 22 years. Together with her, he has done an extraordinary job raising two daughters and one son; they are Lisa, Katie, and David, Jr. I have no doubt that our good friend David will do a magnificent job representing the interests of the people of Michigan's 11th District. I know he can count on my support, and I hope that my colleagues will extend him that same courtesy. Dave is a good man, and the Nation is fortunate to have him here. Mr. Speaker, at this moment, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the dean of the Republican delegation.