John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my dear friend Richard ``Dick'' Shoemaker on the occasion of his retirement as the vice-president of the United Auto Workers after 49 distinguished and exemplary years of service. Born in St. Clair Shores, Michigan, Dick joined UAW Local 865 in 1957 at the age of 18. By the time he was 27, he was elected the youngest president of that local in its history. This rapid ascent in leadership would continue throughout his life. In 1969 he was appointed as an International Representative and in 1982 he was named as the Administrative Assistant to the Vice President of the UAW. Through a course of many other prestigious promotions, Dick eventually rose to become a Vice President himself. A constant champion of working America for nearly half a century, Dick's successful negotiations with companies including Ford, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Mazda, Toyota and Mitsubishi created opportunities and advancements for tens of thousands of workers. His inspiring work shows remarkable results such as record raises in wages, job security, and a measure which ensures that employment at GM and its suppliers remains at healthy levels. The members of the UAW and their families, are fortunate to have prospered under his strong and courageous leadership. In addition to tirelessly advancing the rights of the working-class, Dick is also a member of the Michigan Democratic Party, the ACLU, and a lifetime member of the NAACP. His activity in the community and state extends even further as he serves on the boards of the Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO and Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Michigan. Dick once said that those in the labor movement ``have [their] walking shoes on every day.'' Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to join me and all of my colleagues as we congratulate Dick Shoemaker on phenomenal career and wish him a happy retirement with his children, grandchildren, and his wife Mary. Even In retirement, I know that Dick will never take off his well-worn walking shoes.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant, William ``Bill'' Hartwig, on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Department of Interior. For the past few years Bill has been serving as Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System. I first met Bill in 2000 when he was working as the Regional Director for the Midwest Region. Together we embarked on a project unprecedented in America's history: an international sanctuary for birds, plants, and animals of all kinds. Today, Detroit is blessed with the serene beauty of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. This 2,100-acre refuge provides Southeast Michigan citizens with a previously unimaginable opportunity to experience the magnificence of a lush habitat for hundreds of protected species close to home. To Bill's eternal credit, this remarkable project would never have been possible without his vision and powerful determination. Long before becoming one of the Nation's great conservationists, Bill was born in Riverside, CA. Recognizing his life's path early, he graduated from West Virginia University with a bachelor's degree in outdoor recreation. Between WVU and receiving his master's degree in administration from George Washington University in 1976, Bill served in Vietnam where he received Army Commendation Medals and the Bronze Star. Bill began his work in the Department of the Interior in 1977. Through the course of his illustrious career there, his care for the environment and all its inhabitants touched an incredible variety of issues ranging from land management to migratory bird conservation. In 1988 he received the Department's Meritorious Service Award and in 1990 was named an ``Unusually Outstanding Employee.'' Bill Hartwig is a great conservationist and his impact on this country is impressive and profound. I personally thank Bill for his invaluable help in creating the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, and I invite you Mr. Speaker, and all my colleagues, to join me in recognizing Bill for his dedication to the out-of-doors, to conservation, and for his long and distinguished career with the Department of the Interior.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this legislation should be considered under an open rule with lengthy debate and full opportunity to discuss it, not at 8 o'clock at night with the corporal's guard here on the floor. I yield to no man in my support for Israel. I have voted for hundreds of billions of dollars for it over the years I have served here. And I yield to no man my position to terror and terrorism and terrorists. But that is not what is at issue here tonight. The administration says this bill is not necessary. It points out that this bill constrains the administration in delivering meaningful diplomatic effort to resolve the problems of the Middle East. The Middle East's problems and the problems of the Palestinians and the Israelis will not be resolved by starving the Palestinians or by creating additional hardship. They are desperate people, incarcerated in walls, afflicted with high unemployment, suffering from health and other problems. The non-governmental organizations point out that this will strip them in substantial part of contributing to this. It will in large part almost totally strip the United States from the ability to address the needs of the Palestinian people and to address the humanitarian concerns which we have about them. Peace in the Middle East is not going to be achieved at gunpoint. It is going to be achieved by negotiations, by people working together; and that process may be ugly, dirty and slow, but it is the only process that will work. To create additional hardship and suffering for the Palestinians is simply going to guarantee more desperate, angry men who are fully determined that they will go forth to kill Israelis or Americans or anybody else. Our purpose here tonight should be to look to the well-being of the United States, craft a policy which is good for this country. And that policy can only be one which is good for Israel and for the Palestinian people, one which is fair to all, one which puts the United States as a friend and an honest broker of peace to both parties where we can be so accepted. To take some other course is simply to assure continuing hardship and a continuing poisonous, hateful relationship amongst the parties in the area. When this Congress realizes that and when we, this Congress and the others here, will recognize that that is the way peace is achieved, then there will be a real prospect for peace. We can expect that the Palestinians will receive the justice that they seek. We can expect that the Israelis will achieve the security that they need and they want and they deserve and that we want them to have. This legislation will do none of that. This legislation promises further angry men, more bitterness, more hate, more ill-will; and it assures that the thing which we must use to bring this miserable situation to an end, honest, honorable, face-to-face negotiation, will either not occur or will be moved many years into the future. Think about it. The needs of Israel are not served by this resolution. The needs of the United States are not served by this resolution. The needs of the Palestinian people are not served by this resolution. Let us vote it down and get something which makes sense and which serves the interests of all concerned. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution on the floor. I oppose Hamas. I oppose what they stand for. I oppose their use of violence, their targeting of civilians; their vision for the Palestinian people; their rejection of Israel; and most of all I deplore their rejection of peaceful reconciliation. For all these reasons, and many more, I do not think that Hamas is a true partner for peace. But while Hamas may not be, the Palestinian people are. The vast majority of Palestinians want peace. The vast majority value peace, follow the law, oppose violence--and legislation like this only hurts the vast majority we need for peace. I understand the House's desire to ostracize Hamas. But I do not understand how we keep making the same mistakes by punishing the very people we all say we want to help. The restrictions on aid in this bill will not hurt Hamas, they will receive plenty of money from Iran, but this will hurt the Palestinian people. Under this bill assistance will be limited only to ``basic health'', a restriction we reject for almost every other nation. This bill would stop economic development assistance, sanitation assistance, environmental assistance--and most ironically, at a time when we are criticizing their choice of government--democracy assistance. Make no mistake about it; their vote was to get back at our own repeatedly misguided attempts to punish rather than cajole, to batter rather than build trust, and to impoverish rather than to uplift. When we provided Mahmoud Abbas no deliverables and only hardships, it made Hamas's promises hard to ignore. Our actions emboldened the Hamas, and we are about to do it again. My friends, passage of this legislation will create yet another failed state and humanitarian catastrophe in the Middle East. However, this one, unlike Iraq, will be surrounded by our staunchest ally in that region. If we destabilize Palestine we will destabilize Israel. If we help create chaos we weaken the chance for finding peace between Israel and her neighbors--and even threaten the very viability of the Jewish state. If this legislation is signed into law we will lose once and for all the Palestinian people. Our rejection of them will create one clear victor--the government of Iran. If we pass this legislation, Iran will win by default. Instead of textbooks for Palestinian children being written by USAID they will be written by the Iranian Revolutionary Council. Schools will be built with Iranian oil money and our ability to influence peace will be weaker as a result. What I find so strange is that this legislation is being championed by people who believe themselves to be the staunchest supporters of Israel. Mr. Speaker, in order to strengthen Israel peace needs to prevail in the region. In order to guarantee Israel's survival the Palestinians need to find prosperity and view the United States as a friend. This bill will only stymie those efforts. I ask my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend from Minnesota, who has done so much for the natural resources of this country and for the protection of its waters. I salute you, Jim. When the original Clean Water Act and its amendments were passed, the waters of this country were so filthy that they were unsafe for recreational purposes, for swimming, for drinking and even for industry. Imagine that. And we were ditching, draining, drilling and drying our wetlands at a pace which was unbelievably bad for the country. We also were destroying in that process not only wildlife habitat, but one of the finest natural flood control systems that has ever been devised by the mind and hand of the almighty God. Now, in the debates on the Clean Water Act, if you read the history, you will find that there the managers of the bill in a colloquy with me said that this law was to cover all navigable waters of the United States and all waters that affected the navigable waters of the United States, and that has been the settled interpretation of the law ever since. It has stopped the drainage and the drying up of our wetlands. It has done an enormous amount of good to clean up the waters, so that now they can be used for swimming and boating and recreation and industry and irrigation and other things which were not available before. If you will but take a look, you will find the consequences of this understanding which this amendment would deny funding for. The guidance that we are talking about has wiped out the protections for bodies of water like the Sacramento River in New Mexico, a water supply for a number of communities. Despite being a drinking water source, the Folsom South Canal in California has been determined not to be water under the Clean Water Act. Imagine that, if you please. Forested wetlands in Delaware that connect to the Little River, feeding directly into Delaware Bay were declared isolated and not covered. An 86-acre lake in Wisconsin, popular with fishermen, is no longer covered by the Clean Water Act. Now, I want to remind my colleagues that not long back, 218 Members of this body joined in sending a letter to the President of the United States asking him not to implement the plans that were in the offing in the administration. That letter was honored by the President withdrawing the regulatory change, but he left in place the guidance. The guidance is every bit as bad. This corrects that situation. It makes it possible for matters to be corrected so that we can continue the protection of wetlands in the United States, we can continue to protect our drinking water, our recreational waters and the waters which are so important and precious to fish, wildlife, and conservationists. This is an amendment which will stop wrongdoing. This is an amendment which will protect the water resources of this country at a time when the need is clear. This is a proposal which sees to it that the wishes of 218 Members of this Congress, communicated to the President from Members from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, are carried forward and that we do serve as wise conservators and protectors of the natural resources and, above all else, the precious water of the United States. I urge the adoption of the amendment offered by my good friend Mr. Oberstar and by the distinguished gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I again must rise in opposition to the budget before the House. I cannot support another budget that not only adds to the deficit, but for the fifth consecutive year creates the largest deficit in history. The Congressional budget is a reflection of our priorities--and at the risk of sounding like a broken record--I must say that this Republican budget once again gives priority to massive handouts for their fat cat buddies, and forces working families, veterans and students to foot the bill. Unfortunately, this seems to have become somewhat of a Republican tradition. Some of my colleagues will praise this budget for its so-called ``savings''. What they fail to mention is that all of the spending cuts are not going towards reducing the deficit but instead are being used to partially offset the $228 billion price tag of a massive new tax cut. Mr. Chairman, there is no rationale whatsoever to explain how you can decrease revenues while increasing spending and still balance the budget. Anyone with common sense can tell you that if you want to spend more, you must either earn more or save in other areas--otherwise you go into debt. Yet in each of the past six years, the Administration has increased spending faster than national income. As bad as the numbers before us are, the true picture is in fact worse, because the budget resolution includes no funding after 2007 for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for 2007 includes only a $50 billion ``placeholder''--less than half of the amount appropriated for 2006. The war costs are only one of the many budgetary gimmicks used to hide the true nature of this budget. Another is the deceptive cut in veterans' health care. Republicans like to say that they have greatly increased funding for veterans' healthcare. This is true if you are speaking of total spending, but the only reason for the Republican spending increase is the increase in the number patients. On a per capita basis, increases in veterans' health care funding average only 0.1 percent per year, well below inflation. Two days ago, President Bush announced that he will deploy up to 6,000 National Guard members to ``assist the Border Patrol'' along our southern border. It is important to note that in 2004, Congress authorized annual increases of 2,000 border patrol agents from 2006 through 2010. Ironically, for the first two years of this increase, the Administration and the Republican Congress have failed to meet this target. The President's budget proposal for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 failed to include enough funding for an additional 2,000 Border Patrol agents, and subsequently, Congress failed to appropriate full funding for the authorized increase. Under the tight spending constraints provided by the Republican budget framework, the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee reported a bill that provides only 1,200 new border patrol agents--800 agents less than the authorized level. In contrast, the Democratic Substitute provides more than enough funding to provide for an additional 2,000 Border Patrol agents. Education also takes a hit in this budget resolution. The Department of Education is cut by $2.2 billion--the second year in a row that Republicans will cut federal education funding despite school districts' need for promised assistance to meet demanding standards under No Child Left Behind, and the increasing cost of higher education. In addition to funding cuts, 42 education programs will be eliminated under this budget, including the Even Start family literacy program, the TRIO Upward Bound program, the Perkins loan program and all federal vocational education programs. In particular, the Perkins loan program is extremely important to colleges and universities throughout the state of Michigan. At the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University, both of which are located in my district, 8,658 students received Perkins loans during the 2004-2005 school year. At a time when we should be actively supporting opportunities for higher education, this proposed cut is a cruel slap in the face for our colleges and universities and for their students. The environment will also suffer if this bill passes. Funding for the Environmental Protection Agency will be cut by $304 million from 2006, with most of this cut coming from programs that ensure clean drinking water and protect public health. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund is cut by 22 percent from 2006 which, when added to past years' cuts, represents a 49 percent decrease since 2004. Additionally, despite the growing backlog of infrastructure construction and maintenance projects, funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would be slashed by 11 percent. These cuts are ill-advised and will greatly undermine our Nation's ability to preserve and protect the resources we have been blessed with. I would also like to mention one specific program that has been placed on the chopping block--the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). This program provides nutritional food packages to over 475,000 low-income elderly, mothers and children, including 75,000 from my home state of Michigan. Under this budget resolution, CSFP would be eliminated, and all of these individuals would simply stop receiving their food packages. This is unacceptable. CSFP costs approximately $110 million per year, which is .03 percent of the projected deficit for FY2007. This means that eliminating the CSFP program will barely make a dent in the deficit, but 475,000 seniors, women and infants will be in danger of going hungry. It is for these reasons and many more that I stand here today to oppose this budget. The Democratic alternative would balance the budget by 2012 while rejecting deep cuts in essential federal programs. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Democratic substitute and no on the Republican budget.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-advised, ill-conceived, poorly calculated, and deeply regressive tax bill for the same reasons that I rose to oppose the tax cuts of 2001 and the yearly effort by this Congress to make them permanent every year since their approval. I oppose them for a host of reasons. I oppose them because they are leaving our children and grandchildren with trillions, I say that again, trillions of dollars of liabilities owned by the Chinese, the Saudis, the Indians, and the Europeans. We are literally mortgaging the prosperity of today's children to the fickle nature of our competitors and rivals. I oppose them because it has forced our military to go into battle without proper body armor on our troops--soldiers who largely come from families that do not benefit from these tax cuts--and without blast shields on our Humvees. I oppose them because it shifts the tax burden from those who benefit the most from the success of America, to those who are desperately trying to realize their American dream. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the poorest workers under this legislation will end up with a total tax savings of two dollars while those who earn $1,000,000 or more will pocket a generous $42,000. But this distribution isn't just unfair to the working poor; it is deeply unjust to the middle class. Families who earn from $75,000 to $100,000 will only receive a dollar a day of tax relief--not even close enough to cancel out the higher interest rates on credit cards and student loans that are resulting because of our persistent budget deficits. Finally, I am opposed to this legislation because it excuses this Congress from the tough decisions that a future Congress and a future President are going to have to make. We all know that the Alternative Minimum Tax is going to hit the middle class hard and to fix it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. But rather than addressing it, we are asking the Congress of 2012 to take care of our mess. We know that the retirement of the Baby Boomers is going to force massive concessions in our budget, but again, our message is to leave it to tomorrow. Let someone else clean up our mess. Well, I hate to say, with this Congress and this President I am not surprised we are asking someone else to take responsibility for yet another mess.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, rather than bringing legislation to the House floor that would actually help senior citizens get the prescription drugs they need and address some of the problems that they are having with the new drug benefit, the Republican leadership has brought forward an ``advertisement'' in the form of a meaningless resolution that does nothing, absolutely nothing, to make it easier for seniors to enroll in the prescription drug plan. Instead, they are encouraging our constituents to beat an artificial deadline and enroll in these plans without having accurate information to prevent them from enrolling in a plan that does not meet their needs. The independent Government watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office, recently reported that a good deal of the information that Medicare is providing on this new drug benefit is wrong or incomprehensible to the average beneficiary. For example, Medicare representatives gave an incorrect answer 60 percent of the time when they were asked to help a beneficiary find the lowest-cost plan to enroll in. These findings also point to larger problems. Because of inaccurate, complicated, or confusing information, seniors have not been given a fair shake. Why is the House not addressing these matters? We should be here today voting on a bill to extend the May 15 deadline and helping seniors avoid an unfair and unnecessary penalty. Instead, we have a meaningless resolution encouraging seniors to do exactly what they have been doing, which is to evaluate their options. I encourage that--so I will support the resolution. But we should be doing much more to help seniors.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to former Representative Elford Albin Cederberg, who passed away on April 17th at the age of 88. During the 26 years Representative Cederberg served in the House, he and I grew very close and I always considered him an ally in fighting for the people of Michigan. Not only was Representative Cederberg a friend and fellow politician, but also a family man married for almost 50 years to his late wife, Marguerite, and a veteran of World War II decorated with five campaign battle stars and the Bronze Star. Whether he was storming the beaches of Normandy or fighting for his beliefs as the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, he always exhibited strong leadership and a deep appreciation for our community. A native of Bay City, Michigan, Representative Cederberg began his career of public service by joining the Army. He was assigned to the 83rd Infantry Division during World War II. Not long after the war, he entered politics as the mayor of Bay City and in 1950 proceeded to unsuccessfully run for Congress. However, Representative Cederberg was determined, sharp and passionate; it was no surprise that 2 years later he successfully won election to represent the 10th District of Michigan in this great House. He went on to serve for 13 consecutive terms. A strong advocate of the auto industry and Michigan at large, his accomplishments will be remembered and his legacy will continue to impact us. His companionship and great character are already sorely missed by all. I would ask all my colleagues to join me in extending our heartfelt condolences to Representative Cederberg's children, Marilyn and Tom, and the rest of the Cederberg family. His passion for Michigan and for this great institution will not be forgotten.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for awakening at long last to the need to pass strong anti-price gouging legislation to protect America's energy consumers. It would have been far better if the House majority had come to this realization last fall, when Representative Stupak offered a stronger version of the bill we are now debating. Instead, the Republicans voted down the Stupak bill on three separate occasions in Committee and on the House floor. Apparently, the Majority has now seen the light, as this new bill borrows heavily from H.R. 3936, anti-gouging legislation sponsored by Rep. Stupak. Better late than never, I suppose. But in the meantime, seven critical months have elapsed during which all manner of shenanigans may have occurred in the energy markets. Fortunately for consumers, a mild winter sheltered them from the full effects of high prices during the winter heating season, but last month gasoline prices shot up. As we approach the summer driving season, there is no relief in sight. In a perfect world, I would support Representative Stupak's bill over the legislation now under consideration. In fact, since last December House Republicans could have signed the discharge petition pending on the Stupak bill and passed it on the suspension calendar. That would have empowered the Federal Trade Commission to go after price gougers-- or better yet--the enactment of anti-gouging authority might have deterred gasoline price gougers from taking advantage of U.S. consumers. Nonetheless, the bill before us today is much improved from the version the Majority offered in the fall. The American energy consumer is hurting and action is needed. I will, with some misgivings, support the bill before the House.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the legislation before us today. I oppose it, not because I oppose clean, open, and transparent government; or because I don't want the American people to have faith in their legislators. I oppose it, quite simply, because all it does is put lipstick on a pig. It allows the Republican majority to give themselves a self congratulatory pat on the back and then proceed with business as usual. It allows those same Republicans, who have let K Street and corporate greed-heads to feast at the trough of American democracy, to proclaim their reborn innocence. It scolds the lobbying community for the sins of their membership, and does nothing to change the culture of corruption here in the Congress and in the Executive Branch other than making people fill out a couple more forms. I have served in this beloved institution for quite a while now. I love it with all my heart. In my time here I have always tried to do right by the people. I have always tried to spend their money wisely. I have tried to make sure that their government responds to their concerns. I have tried to make sure that the Executive Branch, whether it was run by Democrats or Republicans, understood Congressional prerogatives. And the Congress, as a whole, used to respect these privileges as well. Things have changed. They have changed, not because there's a thriving business for lobbyists--lobbyists thrived when Congress was honest--but because this Congress now sees K Street's interests as its own. Not only have we seen a rise in a culture of corruption, but we have also seen the withering of the culture of skepticism. Too many people here in the Congress accept, without a moment's hesitation, the priorities of a lobbyist. No questions are asked, no criticisms are made. Doing K Street's bidding is not our job, representing the American people is. Until the Majority figures that out, no amount of reform and self-congratulations is going to change our image or restore the faith of the American people.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a very remarkable group of women. As I'm sure many of us here can attest, the aging process can be a daunting experience. This special group has refused to accept that life after a certain age means confinement to a rocking chair. Now, it is hard for me personally to imagine that someone who is merely 50--the minimum age for membership--could approach this spry age with reservation; however, these women tell me that this birthday can be somewhat traumatic. As the story goes, several years ago Sue Ellen Cooper of Fullerton, California read the poem, ``Warning'' by British poet Jenny Joseph. The poem begins, ``When I am an old woman I shall wear purple With a red hat that doesn't go . . .'' So inspired was Ms. Cooper by this poem, that she decided to pass along a copy of it to a friend, accompanied by a vintage red fedora. Her friend loved the gift, and did the same for a friend of hers. On April 25, 1998, under the direction of Exalted Queen Mother Sue Ellen, The Red Hat Society first convened in a tearoom of ladies wearing purple dresses and--of course--red hats. Although it took some convincing, these ladies had to explain to me that red and purple do not actually match. Nevertheless, this fashion faux pas stuck and is quite a sight to see indeed. These wonderful women refer to themselves as a ``dis-organization'' determined to take on aging with a sense of humor, camaraderie and a fun-loving spirit. They organize social events, hold conferences and communicate with ``hat-quarters'' via their own webpage. This inclusive group even allows women of lesser maturity to join their ranks. To differentiate these ``ladies in waiting'' from full-fledged members, this sub-sect is confined to wearing lavender dresses with pink hats, reserving the truly outrageous garb for those who have hit ``the big one.'' My wife Deborah tells me that lavender and pink do not go very well together either, but they are generally preferable to red and purple. Sue Ellen Cooper realized that behind every woman, no matter how responsible and upstanding of a citizen she was in her youth, is a crazy old spirit waiting to get out and cause some trouble. Ms. Cooper and her friends found a way to connect these women, and since that day in 1998, they have seen nothing but success. Any woman who is of a certain age and willing to go out in public dressed in particular flare can start her own chapter of Red Hats. California, Florida, and Michigan lead the nation in Red Hat chapters, with the 15th Congressional District alone boasting 91. There are thousands more active chapters across the United States, and even some international chapters as far away as Egypt and Japan. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me today in commemoration of the official first meeting of the Red Hat Society and honor these thousands of inspiring women who endeavor to remain young at heart and in soul.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Saint Hyacinth Roman Catholic Church, in Detroit, MI on its centennial anniversary. Since 1907, Saint Hyacinth has served as a place of worship and gathering point for the Polish community in Detroit. Saint Hyacinth was established in 1907 by a small group of Polish immigrants. At the beginning of the 20th century, this new parish served the large and growing Polish immigrant community in Detroit. During World War I, the congregation came together in order to provide solidarity for their brothers and sisters in Poland, as well as to contribute to the overall war effort. With a growing population Saint Hyacinth built a new church in 1924. This beautiful Byzantine- Romanesque church building towered over all other local buildings, serving as a deep source of pride for the Polish community. World War II brought another opportunity for Saint Hyacinth to serve its country, community, and loved ones in Poland. With its strong connection to Poland, there was no doubt that Saint Hyacinth and many of its parishioners would play an active role in the American war effort. Their bravery and sacrifice was honored with an honor roll installed in the church vestibule. The post-War years brought change to the surrounding community, but Saint Hyacinth remained steadfast in its dedication to serving the community. Following WWII, then Bishop Monsinger Woznicki appealed to the Church's many Polish parishioners to retain their family names, instead of changing them, as had become the custom. He also called on his parish not to flee to the suburbs, but stay in the surrounding neighborhood. Saint Hyacinth was honored with its listing in the State of Michigan's Historical Site Registry on September 21, 1988. In January 2001, Saint Hyacinth was honored by the City of Detroit and its 300th Anniversary Committee, with a Heritage Award. It also received a granite paver, inscribed in both English and Polish, on the Riverfront Promenade. This serves as a testament to the great contributions this parish has provided to the city of Detroit and its people. Mr. Speaker, for one hundred years Saint Hyacinth has served as the heart of Detroit's Polish community. Innumerable parishioners have passed through its doors through the years and the lessons they have learned helped shape their values and beliefs. Saint Hyacinth has stood as an example of all the hard work, determination, sacrifice and love that the surrounding community provides. For generations, the parish of Saint Hyacinth has turned a beautiful building into something much more, the heart of a community. I want to congratulate the congregation of Saint Hyacinth; the good works they have done serve as an example of all that a community can and should be.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend and distinguished colleague who has done such a fine job on the Budget Committee. We are talking about the Republican budget, and it does not address two pressing health care problems of peculiar and special importance to our people, amongst the other things that it does wrong. First, thanks to this Republican Congress, new part D of the Medicare program is complicated, impossible to navigate, and the benefits confusing, indeed. And they vary from plan to plan. Plans can even change the drugs they cover after seniors have signed up, bait and switch, if you please. But seniors cannot change plans for a year, while the HMO can do so. All too often this confusion has resulted in seniors leaving pharmacies without their medication or paying more than they should for their medications. Pharmacists are going broke because of nonpayment or late payment by Medicare. These problems and many of the others which infest part D are in no way corrected by this budget. They are not even giving seniors enough time to sign up; and as a result, these seniors will have to pay a 7 percent penalty for the rest of their lives for this Medicare part D. Our Democratic substitute would allow seniors until the end of the year to identify and sign up for a plan that meets their needs. It also enables citizens to know that HMOs and private-plan bureaucrats are not going to be able to continue bait and switch, stopping coverage for drugs that a senior's doctor has prescribed and that were covered when the senior signed up. Second, the Republican budget does not even try to protect the most vital relationship the senior has, that which they have with their doctor. Even though doctors in Medicare are facing deep cuts in their payments, the Republican budget does nothing to stop this. Not paying adequately for physician service is going to undermine our entire health care and Medicare program. The Democratic substitute would not permit that to happen. It is another reason for voting with us. Republicans are content to permit traditional Medicare to erode, while steering unneeded billions of dollars to their HMO and insurance company cronies. Democrats want to protect Medicare as we know it and to spend the money to help seniors and those with disabilities, not to shower it unneeded upon greedy health maintenance organizations and others who deserve no assistance. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), my distinguished colleague and friend.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield that back with great gratitude and appreciation to my distinguished friend from South Carolina.

Mr. DINGELL. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), my dear friend.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to legislation on the floor, H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005. Many of my colleagues have renamed this bill ``the Missed College Opportunities Act'' for good reason. Two months ago my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for a budget reconciliation bill that slashed funding for student aid programs by $12.7 billion--the single largest cut to the Federal student aid program in its 40-year history. This ``raid on student aid'' could not have come at a worse time for American families, as the cost of a college education today continues to rise while more and more working families fall into poverty. At a time when our government should be increasing access to higher education, this bill is taking away this opportunity for many young students. The ultimate goal behind the Higher Education Act has always been to improve access to college education for those in greatest need. Today's students are increasingly taking on higher loan debts, working longer hours or, in some cases, forgoing college altogether. Increasing access to higher education is critical to the development of a highly skilled workforce, which will ensure that America remains competitive in the global marketplace. Today's economy demands that workers are better educated and this bill does little to make college more affordable. As it is now, the average student owes $17,500 when he or she graduates. Not only is this legislation troublesome for our students, it is also troublesome for our colleges and universities. The bill in its current form includes provisions that undermine the autonomy of colleges and universities by creating intrusive new reporting requirements. In particular H.R. 609 imposes price controls on colleges through the new ``College Affordability Index'' which would compare tuition increases to the Consumer Price Index without taking into consideration what individual institutions have done to offset tuition increases. Cost increases can be attributed to a combination of different factors, all of which vary between different institutions, making the College Affordability Index a poor measure of the affordability of an individual college or university. Furthermore, a proposed amendment to this legislation would create an unnecessary burden on our universities' admission policies by requiring institutions that receive any Federal funding, including grants and scholarships, to submit to the Department of Education an annual report stating whether race, color, or national origin is considered in the student admissions process. This amendment is unnecessary and redundant because universities already publicly disclose their admission policies, as required by the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. The amendment will only burden university staff members with unnecessary and extensive paperwork. Additionally, the amendment jeopardizes individual applicants' privacy and confidentiality in violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, FERPA, which generally prohibits educational institutions from disclosing personally identifiable information from students' education records without consent. The proposed amendment, by contrast, would require universities to submit to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, OCR--and from OCR to the public--``all raw admissions data for applicants'' on each quantifiable factor considered in admissions except for the name of the applicant. Publication of raw data in this form--without any corresponding safeguards on use of the raw data--will almost certainly permit OCR and others to ascertain the identities of individual applicants. In so doing, it will be possible to determine individual applicants' test scores, high school grades, and so forth-- all in violation of FERPA. Mr. Chairman, I strongly agree that more should be done so that all deserving students have the opportunity to receive a higher education, which is why I support the Miller-Kildee-Scott-Davis-Grijalva alternative. The Democratic alternative would cut interest rates in half for the borrowers in most need--lowering the cost of college by $2.4 billion for students and their families. It would also create a pilot program for year round Pell grants to allow students to accelerate their degree. We must never let a student's economic situation hinder his or her ability to obtain access to a college or postgraduate degree. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues join me in reversing the Republican raid on student aid by opposing H.R. 609 and supporting the Democratic alternative.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to deny further awards of contracts to contractors that have been found by the Defense auditors to have billed the government for more than $100 million in unreasonable costs. From the moment Representative Waxman and I learned about secret no- bid contracts given to large companies like Halliburton in 2003, for activities in Iraq, we have tried to get the facts on the matter. And it has not been easy to get those facts. In the course of our investigation, with the help of the Government Accountability Office, we have learned of some pretty terrible things. First, we found that Halliburton was importing oil into Iraq at extremely high prices. We were particularly concerned about the company's decision to import gasoline from Kuwait at a price far above market levels. Eventually, Defense auditors agreed and found that there were $263 million in unsupported and questioned costs in these contracts. Yet last month, the Corps of Engineers ignored their auditors and reimbursed Halliburton for $254 million--all but $9 million of the questioned costs. This follows a pattern with Halliburton. The Defense auditors had previously questioned $200 million in costs for meal services provided by the company, which again was overruled by the Army, which gave the company $145 million. This amendment to deny new contracts to companies that have a history of billing the government for questionable costs is hardly novel. In January, 2004, the Defense Contract Audit Agency itself recommended that the Corps not enter into new contracts with Halliburton, but 3 three days later the Army awarded Halliburton a new $1.2 billion contract. The amendment before us will ensure that taxpayer money will go to support the troops and help rebuild infrastructure and not fatten the pockets of contractors that have a history of questionable billing practices. I emphasize this amendment will not take any funds away from troop support, but will help support the troops. It is an embarrassment that there have been virtually no Congressional hearings on the matter. Instead, we must act legislatively. The best course of action to ensure that our money is going where it is needed in support of the troops is to put an end to future contracts with companies that are serial overchargers. Vote for this amendment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which moves funds appropriated to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, from Fiscal Year 2007 to Fiscal Year 2006. This legislation passed the Senate last week, so its passage in this Chamber will send the bill on to the President. The legislation would move $1 billion in funding to this fiscal year. Half of the funds would be allocated to the States pursuant to the statutory formula. The other half, however, would be considered contingent funding, and subject to the discretion of the Administration. It is important that all of these funds reach those in need. The recently passed Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized $5 billion for this fiscal year. But even if all of the funds in this bill are sent to those in need, the total funding for the program will only total a little over $3 billion. In other words, we are still going to be $2 billion below the program authorization. People in the Midwest and Northeast are in desperate need of these funds. According to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, since the winter of 2001-2002, yearly natural gas bills have soared from $465 to $1000, while annual heating oil bills have gone from $465 to $1000. In my home state of Michigan, these national trends have translated to an average energy cost increase of nearly 37 percent. As a result, the state has anticipated a 6 percent increase in LIHEAP applications. Without additional funding, our state could experience as much as a $60 million shortfall in LIHEAP money. This bill, while falling far short of providing the money necessary or authorized by EPACT, provide at least a few million dollars more to help my state address this projected shortfall. Of course, much of the new funds will also go to warmer climates, where families will be facing unprecedented cooling bills this summer, so this is not just a regional bill. It is unfortunate that funding for LIHEAP has remained constant over the years while heating costs have soared. Even with these new funds, many families will have a hard time paying their heating bills this winter. Many of us would like to see LIHEAP funded at its authorized level of $5 billion, but certainly this bill will be of immediate assistance and I urge its passage.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4167 is being considered today without benefit of hearings and with no Subcommittee markup. As a result, Members have not had a full opportunity to learn about and debate the provisions of this legislation. This is no minor bill--it would bar States from adopting food safety, labeling, and warning standards that are not identical to Federal standards. State food and drug officials are very concerned about the impact this bill could have on public health. They have expressed their opinion that this legislation would harm homeland security. The State food and drug officials are certainly a credible group and their concerns are not new. Almost two years ago, the Association of Food and Drug Officials told us that a bill virtually identical to the one before us today, ``threatens to eviscerate this system. The ramifications of this bill, intended or not, will dissolve our Nation's biodefense capabilities.'' They went on to say that this legislation ``undermines our Nation's whole biosurveillance system by preempting and invalidating many of the State and Local food safety laws and regulations that provide the necessary authority for State and Local agencies to operate food safety and security programs. The pre-9/11 concept embodied in this bill is very much out of line with current threats that confront our food safety and security system.'' They also said that preemption and invalidation of State and local food safety and security activities will ``severely hamper'' the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ability to detect and respond to acts of terrorism. They added, ``Our current food safety and security system will be significantly disrupted . . . and our inability to track suspected acts of intentional adulteration will be exploited by those who seek to do harm to our Nation.'' The Association of Food and Drug Officials has recently restated these concerns with respect to H.R. 4167. On September 23, 2004, I wrote a letter to Secretary Thompson asking whether or not he agreed with these assertions. I never received a reply to my letter, so here we are today, voting on this bill and we do not know whether or not the Administration believes it poses a threat to homeland security. Indeed, we do not have the benefit of the Administration's views on any aspect of this bill. Does the Administration support this bill, or not? This bill affects public health and the American public deserves more than stony silence from this Administration. What is wrong with having a hearing to explore what the language in this bill means? Why was the report on this bill filed less than 24 hours before amendments were due at the Rules Committee? Why did the Rules Committee deny important amendments such as an amendment by Representative DeGette to ensure that FDA has the necessary funds to implement the law, or an amendment by Representative Stupak to allow States to warn consumers when their meat has been injected with carbon monoxide? This process will ultimately hurt the ability to get legislation to the President's desk. I am sympathetic to the need for national uniformity, however, I cannot support this bill without more careful consideration. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 2271, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments. I am deeply concerned that such an important piece of legislation has been placed on the suspension calendar. We should take a deliberate and considered look at the Senate changes and not just be a rubber stamp. Considering this bill was originally conceived with little to no debate in the House and Senate, we should take a second look at what these changes will mean for our Nation. Unfortunately, it appears these changes do little to address the serious concerns that I and many of my colleagues have had with the law since its inception. I will mention two such issues. First, under this bill, the library record issue remains. While there have been some small cosmetic changes regarding the library provision, the government can still gain access to library, medical, financial, firearms sales, and other private records under Section 215. More importantly, the government can do so without any evidence that a person is a terrorist, conspiring with a terrorist organization, knows a terrorist, or has been seen in the vicinity of a terrorist. In fact, a person does not have to do anything illegal at all. We must ensure that proper civil liberties protections are in place. Next, the gag order that was in the original PATRIOT Act remains in place. As we all know, the PATRIOT Act prohibits someone from talking about or challenging an order under Section 215. This legislation would supposedly allow the recipient to challenge a gag order after 1 year. Yet, this same bill would conclusively presume any government expression of national security concerns is valid, therefore letting the gag order stand. A conclusive presumption by one's accuser in a court of law offers no protection to the accused. As a former prosecutor, I understand this type of legal presumption can and will be used to the benefit of the government's case. The deck is stacked in the government's favor. Madam Speaker, we must work to protect civil liberties and ensure that we protect our Nation from terrorism. This bill does not strike the right tone and may do more harm than good. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Robert Easterbrook for his contributions to wildlife conservation and protecting the freedom to hunt. As a member of the Safari Club for over 20 years and as founding member of the Detroit Chapter of Safari Club International (SCI), Robert's passion for conservation education has been an invaluable resource to the state of Michigan. Mr. Easterbrook's nature study outdoor center and camp hosts over 4,200 underprivileged children every year. His work with troubled teenagers has been credited with changing many of their lives for the better. He also founded the ``Great Lakes Bowfishing Championship,'' a fundraising event benefiting the children's camp that has been recognized as one of the largest of its kind. Robert is also well-known for his commitment and dedication to sportsmens' issues. He has been honored by both the Michigan House and Senate for his input on bipartisan legislation. His Sportsmen Against Hunger program encourages hunters to donate their meat to the hungry and has been adopted by 4 other states. Over the past 30 years Robert Easterbrook has been awarded Special Conservationist of the Year Award by the Michigan United Conservation Club, the Ted Nugent World Bowhunters Lifetime Representative Award and the Outstanding SCI member, among other awards. He has also served on various committees dedicated to conservation efforts, including the World Wildlife Foundation, the American Archery Council and the Michigan Involvement Committee. Mr. Easterbrook's many accomplishments serve as a lasting example of excellence in conservationism. Michigan has been well-served by Robert Easterbook. The residents of Michigan will appreciate Mr. Easterbrook's work to protect our great state for generations to come. I would like to thank Robert for his dedicated service both to Safari Club International and to the State of Michigan.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to my dear friend, George Weeks, on the occasion of his retirement from the Detroit News after 22 years of distinguished service. A long-time Michigan resident, George graduated from Traverse City High School in 1950. He then earned a bachelor's degree from Michigan State University in 1954. In 1981, George returned to the academic world at the Harvard University Institute of Politics as a Kennedy Fellow. George began his journalism career at United Press International in 1954. During his 15 years there his duties included Lansing staff correspondent, Detroit Bureau radio and news editor, Lansing Bureau Chief, diplomatic correspondent and Washington foreign editor. In 1969 George began his career in the staff of Governor William G. Milliken as press secretary and later became Milliken's chief of staff. After 14 years in public service, George resumed his journalism career, becoming a political columnist for The Detroit News. Over the span of his career, George has covered the White House, State Department and Pentagon, was a panelist on ``Meet the Press,'' and was a member of the White House Correspondents Association, the State Department Correspondents Association and Overseas Writers. He is also a recipient of the Outstanding Alumni Award of MSU's College of Communications Arts and an inductee into the Michigan Journalism Hall of Fame. A noted author, George has published ``Stewards of the State: The Governors of Michigan,'' ``Sleeping Bear: Its Lore, Legends and First People,'' ``Sleeping Bear: Yesterday and Today,'' and co-authored ``Michigan: Visions of Our Past.'' His many accomplishments serve as a lasting example of excellence in journalism. Michigan has been well-served by George Weeks, his insight and knowledge of Michigan politics will be deeply missed. I would like to thank George for his dedicated service both to the Detroit News and the Michigan community. As he enters his retirement years, I would ask that my colleagues join with Deborah and I to wish him and his wife, Mollie, a very happy, healthy and relaxing future.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to my dear friend, Richard (Dick) Ryan, on the occasion of his retirement from the Detroit News after 40 years of distinguished service. A Michigan native, Dick graduated from Wayne State University in 1963 with a major in journalism. Prior to joining the Detroit News in 1966, he worked at the Muskegon Chronicle and the Toledo Blade. Over the span of his career, Dick has been an eyewitness to four decades of national politics, covering the White House, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. He has covered seven presidents, reporting on such historical events as the Watergate scandal, Anwar Sadat's visit to Israel and President Reagan's famous ``tear down this wall'' speech in Berlin. Because of Dick's reporting skills, Detroiters were always well-informed on some of the most important events in the world. Currently, Dick is president of the Gridiron Club, an organization of 65 Washington-based journalists. He was also the 2001 president of the National Press Club. For all that Dick has done in Washington, he has never forgotten about where he is from and who is reading his stories. While he has become a familiar face here in Washington, he has stayed committed to the people of Detroit and southeastern Michigan. His many accomplishments serve as a lasting example of excellence in journalism. Michigan has been well-served by Dick Ryan, his insight and knowledge of Michigan politics will be deeply missed. I would like to thank Dick for his dedicated service both to the Detroit News and the Michigan Community. As he enters his retirement years, I would ask that my colleagues join with Deborah and I to wish him and his wife, Dorothy, a very happy, healthy and relaxing future.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation--the Patients Before Profits Act of 2006--that will right some of the many wrongs in the budget reconciliation bill passed by Congress last week and signed by the President today. This legislation, which is also being introduced today in the Senate by Senator Clinton, will realign our priorities to protect the healthcare coverage of working families rather than the profiteering of HMOs and private insurance companies. The Patients Before Profits Act eliminates Government overpayments to Medicare HMOs through removal of a ``slush fund'' provision and ensuring these HMOs are only paid what is appropriate for the consumers they serve. This bill would then use these savings to restore protections against excessive out-of-pocket costs for necessary medical visits, prescription drugs, and emergency room care. It will also restore the benefit protections that provide medically necessary treatments under Medicaid and ensure families have adequate benefit coverage, not bare-bone packages. The Patients Before Profits Act is needed because of the recently passed so-called Deficit Reduction Act, which the Republicans designed and the President is signing into law today. In the dark of the night, the Republicans removed provisions that transferred $32 billion in taxpayer overpayments to Medicare HMOs and insurance plans. The Senate bill had cut $36 billion in overpayments to the HMOs in Medicare. That included $26 billion in savings by more accurately calculating their payments. But the negotiators rewrote the provision to save just $4 billion, providing a $22 billion windfall to the HMOs. The Senate bill also eliminated a $10 billion slush fund designed to entice HMOs to participate in the prescription drug program. The Republican conferees dropped this provision, providing another $10 billion gift to the HMOs for a total of $32 billion. This bill takes back the money given to Republican-favored companies and restores to our most vulnerable citizens the needed healthcare that was cut. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, of the $28 billion in savings from Medicaid over 10 years, about 75 percent of that amount is due to provisions that reduce the number of people who can afford to participate. It will increase the number of uninsured and under-insured by raising the copayments that people will have to pay to see their doctors, increasing premiums, cutting medically necessary treatments, and tightening access to long-term care. By 2015, 4.5 million children will be affected by higher cost-sharing charges for healthcare services such as doctor visits. A total of 13 million people will face higher charges to access their healthcare services. Twenty million people will face higher charges to obtain needed prescription drugs. One-third of those individuals affected by the drug cost-sharing (6.6 million) will be children and half (10 million) will have incomes below the Federal poverty level (monthly incomes of less than $1,380 for a family of three). All this because of a Republican unwillingness to take back overpayments to HMOs. Congressional Budget Office analysis also concludes that the Republican legislation assumes that the number of uninsured will increase. Twenty percent of the savings from new premium charges under this law will derive from families who are no longer able to maintain their Medicaid coverage due to increased costs. Sixty percent of those who will lose coverage due to new premium charges will be children. Again, all of this because of a Republican unwillingness to take back overpayments to HMOs. The Patients Before Profits Act of 2006 is a good start to right some of the wrongs that the Republican-led Congress and the President have inflicted on working families, individuals with disabilities, the elderly, pregnant women, and children. I urge my colleagues to join me in this fight.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend Harry Lester on the occasion of his retirement from the United Steel Workers of America, USWA. Harry and I have fought and won many battles together over the past 50 years on behalf of working men and women. He is an honorable, decent, and hard-working man and I am proud to call him my friend. As Director of District 2, representing steel workers in Michigan and Wisconsin since its establishment in 1995, Harry has shown commendable leadership and commitment to the community and to our nation's working families. Harry first became active in the Steel Workers at Local 2659 at McLouth Steel in Trenton, Michigan in 1954. In 1969, he was appointed to USWA staff where he later negotiated one of the first cooperative partnerships in the country between Dow Chemical, National Standard, Quanex, and the Detroit Steel Company. Harry was promoted to serve as the director of USWA District 29 from 1981 to 1995 before ascending to the position of Director of the newly formed District 2. Harry has been very active in the local community throughout his career and currently serves on the board of several education, labor, political and civic organizations. His activities include participation in organizations such as the AFL-CIO, United Foundation, United Way of Michigan, National Kidney Foundation of Michigan, Economic Alliance of Michigan, Greater Detroit Area Health Council and the Michigan Economic and Environmental Roundtable. Harry has proven to be an effective leader in efforts to protect our environment and protecting the rights of working men and women across America. As Harry enters his retirement years, I would like to extend my best wishes for a relaxing and enjoyable journey. I would like to thank him for all of his hard work and dedication to the United Steel Workers of America and to labor efforts over the years. His commitment to improving the quality of life for working families has been an inspiration to me and to everyone that he has touched in his many years of service. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in thanking Harry Lester for his many years of dedicated public service on behalf of both the United Steel Workers of America and the community at large. His heartfelt dedication to the workers of this Nation will not be forgotten.