John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of my friend Tommy Maggio, who, after 32 years of service to this institution, will be retiring at the end of the month. Thomas P. Maggio was born April 28, 1929 and raised in Washington, DC. Tommy served our Nation in the Navy, from 1951 to 1955. Serving in Norfolk, VA and Green Coast Springs, FL, Tommy was stationed on the USS Whitley, and was part of a marching band. Tommy married his wife Anita in 1963; she too will be retiring, after many years of service in my colleague Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's office. For many of us, Tommy provides a warm greeting in the morning, as well as wonderful conversation. Every morning when I see him, I call out to Tommy, ``Bonjeourno Thomaso,'' to which he replies ``Bonjeourno, bonjeourno.'' I cannot help but enjoy this warm Italian greeting. Tommy is loved by all of the members he serves. We wish Tommy well and we all deeply appreciate his dedicated and decent service. I will certainly miss him. I wish Tommy and his dear Anita many good years, filled with family, friends and good health. On behalf of my staff, myself and the lovely Deborah, and all my colleagues: Thank you, Tommy.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in vigorous opposition to this so- called ``free trade'' agreement. It is a bad agreement- bad for US workers, bad for Central American workers, bad for small farmers, bad for the environment, and bad for our economy. The proponents of this deal point not to facts, but to predictions. They talk about projected growth and theorize that our Central American neighbors will enjoy increased living standards and a better future. We don't have to consult a crystal ball to see what effect CAFTA will have on the lives of American and Central American citizens. We have an example before us, it is called NAFTA. CAFTA is a junior version of NAFTA; it is quite literally the ``Son of NAFTA''. Ask the people of Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Oklahoma, or any other State that saw factories shuttered if they have benefited from NAFTA. Ask the people of Mexico who have dirtier air, dirtier water, little collective bargaining rights, and are now watching their new factories close and move across the Pacific if they have benefited from NAFTA. If you can look at the results of NAFTA and think our quality of life has improved; if you think there are more and better jobs post-NAFTA than before; if you think Mexico is on the verge of joining the ranks of the G-8, then CAFTA is the trade agreement for you. Evaluate carefully the claims which will be made about CAFTA. For example, we have heard that CAFTA will open important markets for U.S. goods. Sound familiar? As we learned from NAFTA, if labor standards are not improved as part of these Agreements, few workers in these markets will be able to afford our goods. We make cars and trucks in my home State of Michigan. American auto manufacturers are currently putting over $1,400 of health care costs into each American-made car. Yet the average Nicaraguan worker earns only about $2,300 a year. Yes, that's for an entire year. While the rising health care burden on American manufacturing is an important issue for another day, it illustrates the absurdity of the claims that new markets will be flooded with American products. How many cars or computers can we reasonably expect to sell in these new markets? Instead of raising the living standards of people in Central America, CAFTA will accelerate a race to the bottom. Instead of creating new, high value jobs in the United States, CAFTA will only replace good jobs with unemployment checks. I urge all my colleagues not only to read the details of this deal, but also to look around. Look at the closed factories, talk to unemployed manufacturing workers, and remember the promise of NAFTA. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I can think of no better distillation of my vote against CAFTA than the old saying, ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' I urge my colleagues not to be fooled again.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3199. This bill does very little other than to make permanent, onerous sections of an onerous law. Four years ago, Congress passed and the President signed into law the USA PATRIOT Act. Substituted in the dark of night, the Administration's bill was inserted as the final bill and became law with very little Congressional deliberation or consideration. I was appalled by the process we used then and am only slightly more comforted now. We are considering making 14 of the 16 provisions in the PATRIOT Act permanent, and making the other 2 provisions semi-permanent. Are we going to yield more of our institutional power by granting the permanency of these provisions? We must remain vigilant against terrorism, but we must also remain vigilant against abuses of power that curtail Americans' civil liberties in a time of war. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot during the last four years that we will not yield to the terrorists. That we will fight tyranny with freedom and democracy, and the power of our ideas will prevail. I agree. Yet, today, we are considering limiting American freedoms by extending these sections of the PATRIOT Act permanently. As a former prosecutor, I understand the need for tools to prosecute those who would do us harm. However, the law that was passed four years ago and the bill we consider today go too far. We must provide commonsense tools to prosecutors, but we must weigh the important needs to safeguard liberty. We must not make these temporary provisions permanent while we remain at war. What will generations to come think when they have seen we have permanently lowered the bar in protecting their civil liberties? Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of a very wise saying by one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin. He said ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' I will vote against this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 25th anniversary of the Workers' Strikes in Poland. In commemorating these strikes, we are remembering the birth of a movement which led to the fall of communism in Poland and, later, Europe. The strikes began as workers across Poland protested the nearly 80% rise in meat prices. In the northern city of Gdansk, workers protested in response to the dismissal of two workers on the grounds of political agitation. The Lenin Shipyard workers staged a sit-in and demanded the reinstatement of electrician Lech Walesa and crane operator Anna Walentynowich. The workers realized the power of their unity and chose to name their strike bulletin Solidarnosc or Solidarity. Soon after, the first independent trade-union faction emerged and the Solidarity movement was born. In cooperation with intellectuals, the Gdansk Shipyard strikers created the famed list of 21 demands. The Solidarity Movement boasted members from almost all groups and social classes--all of whom opposed the Moscow-backed regime. This unity was a first in the history of Poland. In December of 1981 the Communist government of Poland implemented martial law in hopes of combating the Solidarity Movement's vast popularity. Despite the best efforts of the communist government, another strike wave occurred in 1988. The regime decided it must try to share its power with the opposition. The elections of June of 1989 brought the Solidarity Movement to power and Poland was able to set up a non- communist government. The victory of the Poles served as an example to the rest of Europe and is credited with leading to the historic fall of the Berlin wall five months later. When the Solidarity Party took power in 1989, the basic political transition and the implementation of a market economy posed many challenges. Furthermore, they faced the daunting task of overcoming the social mind-set resulting from years of communist rule. Nonetheless, in January of 1990, the government sought to realize substantial reform goals. The conversion was not easy and the market-economy caused an economic crisis in 1992. However, true to their history, the Poles overcame this obstacle. We should all look to our great ally as a model of determination, resilience and loyalty. Over 11 million Americans claim Polish ancestry, nearly 900,000 of whom live in my home state of Michigan. Polish-Americans, like me, are proud of our heritage and Poland has shown itself to be a true ally of the U.S., most recently in Iraq. They have supported us in our struggle against global terrorism, in Afghanistan and assumed a leading role in Iraq. Two-hundred Polish troops are currently serving in Bagram, Afghanistan and our alliance with Poland remains one of our vital relationships. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my colleagues join me in recognizing the 25th anniversary of a momentous event in the history of one of our strongest allies and greatest friends. The strikes in Poland will always be remembered for their important role in Polish democratization and, consequently, the end of the Cold War.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment before us for consideration. Although the Gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Rogers, is a capable Member whom I am pleased to call my friend, I believe that this approach to the very serious issue of Great Lakes water diversion is misguided. Mr. Chairman, the language is this amendment is overly broad, governing more than just water diversion. In fact, it urges that ``management authority'' over the Great Lakes should ``remain vested'' with the eight Great Lakes States and Canada. This put Congress, for the very first time, on record as providing full and broad management to the states. Now, I have the deepest respect and admiration for the Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm. I have the utmost confidence in her ability to protect Michigan greatest natural resources, the Great Lakes. However, there is so much more are issue here. For example, this amendment gives our neighbors to the north, Canada, broad authority over all of the Great Lakes, including Lake Michigan, which lies completely within the United States. Second, this language puts at risk any national protection and restoration strategy that many of us from the Great Lakes states have been working on for several years now. One of the biggest issues facing the Great Lakes right now is invasion species. How can we deal with this issue if eight states and another Nation all have different policies, Mr. Chairman? Unfortunately, these pesky little critter do not now to stop at the border between Illinois and Michigan. What about sewage blending or oil and gas drilling? Should we have eight different standard for those also? This also brings into questions who would be responsible for negotiating treaties and international agreements regarding the Great Lakes if not the federal government. Are we now designating that authority to individuals states? Mr. Chairman, this hardly seems wise or reasonable. Mr. Chairman, we are in Michigan are blessed with the Great Lakes. We owe our tourism industry largely to the Great Lakes, where people come from around the country to recreate, hunt, fish and relax. This Lakes as a transportation system provided Michigan with the means to turn our great State into a manufacturing powerhouse. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to ensure that we do our utmost to protect this national treasure. The best way we can do this is by defeating this unwise amendment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Kolman Krishan, who passed away on July 2, 2005, at the age of 85. Mr. Krishan was a Veteran of World War II, serving from January 1943 until September 1945, primarily in the Panama Canal Zone. Mr. Krishan was born March 3, 1920 in Union Town, Pennsylvania. He moved to Lincoln Park, Michigan in the late 1930s and finally settled in Newport, Michigan with his wife Lois. Mr. Krishan worked for Detroit Edison and leaves behind three children and three grandchildren. His life serves as a prime example of his generation, with commitment to the values of hard work, sacrifice and duty.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is necessary because my friends on the other side know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I rise in strong support of the amendment to restore funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This is money already authorized by the Congress. Now my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to take it away. Today's debate is laced with irony because to millions of Americans there is simply no debate over how important public broadcasting is to them and their children. It is an educational and cultural enrichment to our whole society, and it is a success story of which we can be proud. I urge that we adopt the amendment which actually should be $200 million, instead of $100 million, because that is the amount that has been cut over here. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment. I commend the authors, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for their amendment. The amendment should not have been needed. But the House can cure the mistakes of the Appropriations Committee by adopting the amendment by an overwhelming vote. Public broadcasting is a highly valued national investment. It generates extraordinary returns for local communities across our Nation. It preserves the highest quality programming and commitment to public service. Public broadcasting must remain not only fully funded but insulated from political pressures which are now being placed upon it. Every Democratic Member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce recently signed a letter in support of restoring full funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, including funding for the digital conversion and an upgraded satellite interconnection system. Some of these vital items remain zeroed out. But I hope we can rectify those matters later. Mr. Chairman, this important amendment values our children, and the in-depth journalism and life-long learning that sustains our democracy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. If we do not, we will be sorry and the Nation will disapprove of our decision.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor to pay tribute to former judiciary chairman Peter Rodino, he was a champion of civil rights and a beacon of justice during his 40 year tenure in Congress and his 16 years as a Seton Hall Professor of Law. Mr. Rodino was most famous for his handling of the Watergate crisis. All sides--including Democrats, Republicans, and even the national press--hailed Rodino for the fair and just hand he used to guide the impeachment hearings. During this period of crisis, his courage and wisdom provided the foundation of strong leadership that gave Members the confidence to do what was right, even if it meant crossing party lines. The issue became one of preserving the sanctity of the system, rather than preserving the reputation of an individual. Throughout the process, Rodino's commitment to the system never wavered. The son of Italian immigrants, Peter Rodino came of age in Newark, New Jersey. After leaving high school, Congressman Rodino endured 10 years of menial jobs while studying late into the night for a law degree at New Jersey Law School. In 1938 his patience and dedication was rewarded when he joined a local law firm. He put his newly found career on hiatus when he chose to defend his Nation against injustice in World War II. Mr. Rodino's strong character and determination earned him not only a Bronze star, but also a Knight of Order of Crown from Italy--a token of national gratitude for a soldier's accomplishments. Upon return he decided to run for Congress. Although his first attempt failed, his perseverance and strong work ethic served him well, and he was elected to Congress in 1948. A strong advocate of racial equality, he was a driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Another accomplishment in the long list of Mr. Rodino's notable achievements was sponsoring the bill that made Columbus Day a national holiday to commemorate the contribution of Italian Americans in the founding of our great Nation. Mr. Rodino also contributed to the legislation that made Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday. Though Mr. Rodino will be remembered for so much more than the Watergate crisis, it was undoubtedly his greatest moment. Rodino allowed a moderate central group of both Democrats and Republicans to develop the case for impeachment, preventing it from turning it into any type of political ploy. Just last year, Mr. Rodino gave an interview stating that there are lessons to be learned from Watergate, namely the extent of Government corruption. Mr. Rodino understood that it was the duty of Congress to rein in any administration or individual that was not adhering to the principles of justice. It is with great respect and admiration that I offer my condolences to Mr. Rodino's wife, Joy, and their family. Mr. Rodino is survived by two children, Margaret Stanziale and Peter W. Rodino III, three grandchildren, Carla Prunty, Maria Stanziale and Talia Rodino, and twin great-grandchildren, Annabel and Charlotte Prunty. When asked about her husband, Joy says, ``He was so ahead of his time. He lived civil rights. He lived equality. In his life, he didn't see color, he didn't see sex. He just went for the equality of the person.'' Former Representative Rodino was a man that I was proud to have worked with and honored to call friend. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my colleagues to join me in honoring the late Peter Rodino. He was a pioneer for justice in our country and he will be greatly missed by all who knew him.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1812, the Patient Navigator, Outreach, and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 2005. This legislation establishes a five-year, $25 million demonstration grant program to evaluate the use of ``patient navigators,'' who are individuals trained to assist persons who are at risk for or who have cancer or other chronic diseases. Assistance provided by patient navigators would include coordinating health care services for patients such as enrollment in clinical trials, facilitating community involvement, and coordinating health insurance ombudsman programs to improve health care options. Simply put, this bill reduces barriers to access and improves health care outcomes. H.R. 1812 ensures year-round outreach to target communities and funds culturally and linguistically competent patient navigators to conduct outreach, build relationships, and educate the public, while encouraging prevention screenings and follow-up treatment. It also ensures that navigators are available to help patients make their way through the health care system--offering a wide variety of services including translating technical medical terminology, making sense of their insurance, making appointments for referral screenings, following-up to make sure the patient keeps that appointment, or even accompanying a patient to a referral appointment. This bill will support the placement of patient navigators in a variety of health care settings. Eligible entities for patient navigators include community health centers, cancer centers, rural health clinics, academic health centers, and facilities operated by the Indian Health Service. This bill is supported by many patient advocate organizations, health care providers, and others, including the American Diabetes Association, the American Cancer Society, the National Hispanic Medical Association, the National Rural Health Association, and the National Association of Community Health Centers. I know that the bipartisan support for this bill involved the work of many of my colleagues. I would especially like to thank Representatives Menendez and Solis for their hard work on this legislation. I will support H.R. 1812 and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the University of Michigan women's softball team on Winning the Women's College World Series (WCWS), bringing home the first national championship in the softball program's history. Displaying the hard work and tenacity they acquired through a grueling 72 game season, this team dug deep and rose to victory, defeating the two-time defending champion UCLA Bruins 4-1 in extra innings. This season Michigan advanced to its eighth WCWS, earned its first No.1 national ranking and won its 10th Big Ten Conference championship and seventh Big Ten Tournament title. Head coach Carol Hutchins earned the 900th victory of her career in 2005, while junior Jennie Ritter earned the honor of Big Ten Pitcher of the Year and was one of three finalists for USA Softball Collegiate Player of the Year. Michigan was the first team east of the Mississippi to reach the championship game of the Women's College World Series and the first non-West Coast school to be ranked No.1 midseason. Proving they are more than just athletes, these inspiring young women balanced classwork and community service with practice and over 15 games per month--all while maintaining strong academic records with six team members earning Academic All Big Ten honors. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and all of my colleagues join me in sending our heartfelt congratulations to coach Carol Hutchins for her coaching and leadership, and to the Women's College World Series Champions, the remarkable Wolverine women: Lorilyn Wilson, Jennifer Kreinbrink, Lauren Talbot, Tiffany Worthy, Stephanie Bercaw, Michelle Teschler, Stephanie Winter, Grace Leutele, Lauren Holland, Jennie Ritter, Samantha Findlay, Alessandra Giampaolo, Nicole Motycka, Rebekah Milian, Tiffany Haas, Michelle Weatherdon, Jessica Merchant, Becky Marx, and Angie Danis.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, although not opposed, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 15 minutes in opposition.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), for introducing a very important amendment to support the Boy Scouts of America and their jamborees. I also would like to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), for their hard work on this issue. Mr. Chairman, in 1937, the first jamboree was held at the base of the Washington Monument on the National Mall. Interestingly enough, as a young boy, I attended, not as a Scout, but as an observer, that wonderful event. Since then, there have been 15 national scout jamborees, with the last six being held at Fort A.P. Hill. These jamborees have given better than 600,000 young Americans the opportunity to celebrate the skills and lessons they have learned in scouting. They have had the opportunity to learn to hike, camp, learn about citizenship, leadership, and service to their community. In short, the Scouts teach our young people important skills and values that will help them throughout their lives and make them more productive and more valuable citizens. I recently introduced H.R. 1301, which, if passed, would restore the ability of our Armed Forces to directly support Scout troops and to ensure that Scouts will continue to have the use of Fort A.P. Hill and the assistance of our Armed Forces for its jamborees as they have for so many years. I believe this amendment furthers that objective, and I support it strongly for that reason. I grew up, Mr. Chairman, as a Boy Scout. I became a scoutmaster and I watched proudly as both of my sons became Scouts and my two daughters became Girl Scouts. It is important for Scouts to continue to be able to hold their national jamborees at A.P. Hill and for us to remove impediments to proper contributions by this government to the citizenship of our young people. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Davis amendment, and I urge the adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, with great pleasure, I yield 2 minutes to my dear friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time at this time, so I reserve the balance of my time. If the gentlewoman wants to terminate the debate, I will be supportive of that.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time on this side. If the gentlewoman would like, then, we could yield back time and conclude the debate and have a vote.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the language of this bill, which appropriates $310 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund ``to carry out the purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982'' does not on its face present policy concerns. While the Yucca Mountain repository program faces funding problems, this is not the bill in which to address those issues and this appropriation more than meets the Administration's FY 2006 request. The language of the committee report, however, is an altogether different matter and strays across the line from appropriating into authorizing. It does so by directing the Department of Energy (DOE) to undertake actions inconsistent with its authority under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Specifically, the report directs DOE to ``begin the movement of spent fuel to centralized interim storage at one or more DOE sites within fiscal year 2006.'' Now, it is elementary that report language does not constitute a statutory mandate. As the U.S. Supreme court ruled in its 1993 opinion, Lincoln v. Vigil, ``It is a fundamental principle of appropriations law that where Congress merely appropriates lump-sum amounts without statutory restriction, a clear inference may be drawn that it does not intend to impose legally funding restrictions, and indicia in committee reports and other legislative history as to how the funds should, or are expected to, be spent do not establish any legal requirements on the agency.'' Nonetheless, report language that conflicts with an agency's statutory responsibilities warrants a response. The committee report directs DOE to do something the Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not permit--to establish one or more centralized interim storage facilities for commercial spent fuel, to take title to ``some'' commercial spent fuel, and to consider altering the order in which utility fuel is scheduled to be removed from utility sites. What would adoption of this ``interim storage'' proposal mean? First, it would mean that some State other than Nevada, which Congress ratified as the sole candidate for licensing a permanent repository, would ``win'' the lottery for hosting an interim storage facility that would open in 2006. The report language helpfully notes that three DOE sites in the States of Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington, could be selected. It notes as well, however, that other Federal sites, including closed military bases, could be picked. This would not be permitted under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Second, the proposed interim facility would not be subject to licensing by the NRC. It is not clear that the National Environmental Policy Act would even apply. If you think licensing a repository at Yucca Mountain will be a demanding process, as it should be, the uncertainties surrounding an unlicensed interim storage facility should give pause to potentially affected communities. Third, since the proposal specifies no licensing process and no statutory criteria for site selection, it is likely that pure politics--not seismic conditions, not storage capacity, not even security measures--would guide DOE in its selection of a fast track candidate to begin storing waste in FY 2006. That should send a chill up the spine of any state with a Federally-owned site, since the policy proposed in the report would not provide protections equal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements for storage of spent fuel by utilities. Fourth, ratepayers should be alarmed by the committee report's interim storage proposal. They have paid over $22 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund since 1983 for the purpose of permanent disposal-- not interim storage--of commercial spent fuel. An interim storage facility could add to costs in the long run, increasing ratepayers' total payments to the Fund. Fifth, utilities and the nuclear industry should be alarmed by this interim storage proposal. While a few lucky companies' waste might get moved before Yucca Mountain opens, the vast majority are likely to be stuck holding their waste longer. Interim storage is likely to divert DOE's funds and attention, just when the Department needs to focus on submitting a license to the NRC and on getting Yucca Mountain up and running. I commend Representatives Spratt and Hobson for their colloquy clarifying that the committee report's ``guidance'' to DOE interim storage does not obviate the need for statutory changes to authorize DOE to pursue this misguided policy. Yesterday, I sent DOE Secretary Bodman a letter asking that and other questions, and I believe all Members would be well served to consider the answers before considering such substantial modifications to current law.

Mr DINGELL

Mr DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act of 2005.'' Let us be very clear about why we are here today. We are here to decide whether our Nation will move forward in the search for treatments and therapies that will cure a multitude of dreaded diseases that afflict an estimated 128 million Americans. Today, millions of Americans suffer from Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries or spinal dysfunction, and diabetes. And today, along with the tremendous number of Americans living with cancer, approximately 1.5 million new cases were diagnosed in the United States last year. Today, we can vote for H.R. 810, and in doing so, choose to save lives and help to end the suffering of so many Americans. Stem cells are the foundation cells for every organ, tissue, and cell in the body. Embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, possess a unique ability to develop into any type of cell. Embryonic stem cell research holds the potential for treating a variety of diseases such as Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, autism, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and osteoporosis, as well as spinal cord injuries. H.R. 810 would impose strict ethical guidelines for embryonic stem cell research and would lift the arbitrary restriction limiting funds to only some embryonic stem cell lines created before August 10, 2001. By removing this arbitrary restriction, H.R. 810 will ensure that researchers can not only continue their work to prolong or save lives, but also conduct such research using newer, less contaminated, more diverse, and more numerous embryonic stem cells. H.R. 810 does not allow Federal funding for the creation or destruction of embryos. This bill only allows for research on embryonic stem cell lines retrieved from embryos created for reproductive purposes that would otherwise be discarded. This point is critical: If these embryos are not used for stem cell research, they will be destroyed. Former first lady Nancy Reagan once said, ``Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp. I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this. We have lost so much time already. I just really can't bear to lose any more.'' Let us not turn our backs on this important research and the 128 million Americans who could benefit from it. Let us not lose any more time. Let us pass H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.''

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, identity theft is fast reaching epidemic proportions. Today we will address one aspect of the problem--spyware. Spyware programs sneak into your computer, and allow a third party to harvest your personal information. It is the equivalent of putting a wiretap on your phone and listening to your conversations. Adware tracks your Web surfing or online shopping so that marketers can send you unwanted ads. Spyware can hijack your computer to pornographic or gambling sites, or steal your passwords and credit care information. The rapid proliferation of spyware and adware threatens legitimate Internet commerce. The most common consumer complaints are: hijacked home pages, redirected Web searches, a flood of pop-up ads, and sluggish and crashed computers. This bill is carefully balanced. It prohibits a number of unfair and deceptive acts or practices related to spyware, and provides for strong Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement and enhanced civil fines. It also recognizes that there are legitimate, applications of spyware and, thus, exempts law enforcement, national security, network security and maintenance, and fraud detection from the SPY Act. It contains narrowly prescribed exceptions for benign internal navigation tracking on Web sites, and the ordinary construction of Web pages that do not collect personal information. It preserves legitimate online commerce. Most importantly, this legislation requires companies that distribute spyware and adware to obtain permission from consumers through an easily understood licensing agreement before installing spyware or adware on their computers. The programs, once downloaded, would have to provide a means to identify the spyware or adware and easily uninstall or disable it. Without aggressive enforcement, the goals of this bill will not be met. We are asking the FTC to do a great deal in a very complex area and I trust that the appropriators will provide them with sufficient resources to fulfill these tasks. If not, this bill will be an empty promise, unless the state attorneys general step in forcefully. This legislation is supported by a coalition that includes: the Business Software Alliance, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Council for Marketing and Opinion Research, Dell, eBay Inc., Fidelity, Humana, Inc., Microsoft, 180 Solutions, Recording Industry Association of America, Time Warner/AOL, United States Telecom Association, Webroot Software, Inc., WhenU, and Yahoo!--all of whom have submitted letters of support. The coalition also includes DoubleClick, Inc., and ValueClick, Inc.--two of the leading companies in the rapidly growing online advertising industry. The bill has improved at every stage of its consideration, and I want to commend the leadership and hard work of Chairman Barton, Representatives Stearns and Schakowsky, the Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, and Representatives Bono and Towns, the lead Republican and Democratic sponsors of the bill. I also commend the bipartisan staff team who worked very hard to get this bill to the House floor. I am proud to cosponsor this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on passage of H.R. 29. It is a good bill. It is good for consumers. And it is good for honest commerce on the Internet.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today my House colleagues and I are reintroducing the Patients' Bill of Rights. This bill will protect patients from the unscrupulous activities of HMOs and hold them accountable if their negligent actions harm their patients. Although we have worked on this bill now for seven years, we have been thwarted at every turn by the Republican leadership, the Administration, and the insurance industry. We need to get this bill back on track. President Bush promised his support for such a bill during his 2000 Presidential campaign. But in the end, it was his efforts that killed our bipartisan bill in 2001. In spite of this setback, we remain undeterred. Working families have waited long enough for the rights they deserve that would be protected under this bill. We were optimistic the Supreme Court would clarify the law on the side of patients, allowing state HMO accountability laws to stay in force. But the Supreme Court ruled against patients, leaving a situation where at best HMOs may or may not be held accountable in state court and at worst HMO attorneys will use this ruling to avoid accountability altogether. This court decision only further underscores the need for action. Unfortunately, it appears now that some in Congress not only want to protect the HMO status quo, but go further, under the guise of ``medical liability reform,'' to make it more difficult for patients to get justice. Such reform would not only apply to cases of medical malpractice by physicians, but also severely limit accountability of HMOs and drug manufacturers. We need a Patients' Bill of Rights to protect Americans from crafty HMO attorneys who avoid accountability by keeping victims and their families tied up in court for years. Without this needed legislation, only foreign diplomats, the mentally insane, and HMOs will be exempt from the consequences of their decisions.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the recent speech that my good friend and colleague from Connecticut, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, gave at Georgetown University on April 19, 2005. Representative DeLauro plainly and passionately conveyed her opposition to privatizing Social Security. Moreover, Representative DeLauro clearly lays out how the values instilled in her by both her parents and the Catholic Church led to her opposition to privatizing this vitally important program that has kept millions of seniors out of poverty since it was signed into law in 1935. I applaud the Congresswoman's ability to connect her faith with her public service. I would like to take this opportunity to insert Congresswoman DeLauro's speech into the Record and would encourage all my colleagues to take a few moments to read it. It is always good to be here at Georgetown among friends-- so many good, young Democrats engaged in the process, fighting for change, who understand the stakes of today's political debates and want to take part in them. As the future of the country, no one has more riding on them than you. You know better than anyone that their outcomes will determine the course of this country for decades to come. And as College Democrats, you are committed to the values of our Party. Not only are you working to elect Democratic candidates, perhaps more importantly, you are encouraging involvement and building excitement within the Party, providing your peers with the skills and experiences necessary to reinvigorate the Party from the grassroots. That is something very precious--and so important right now. Tonight, I wanted to discuss the values that not only unite us Democrats but as Americans--particularly as to how they have shaped and informed the Social Security program over the years. Indeed, we hear so much about the importance of values today--but oddly enough, little about what they are, where they come from and what their implications are in government and society. And so tonight, I would like to speak about that nexus between values and public policy, a little about how my values shaped my own views and led me into public life, and how in the Social Security system we find a true reflection of those values in the pursuit of the common good. We can all agree that values encompass so much more than the cultural flashpoints with which they are often associated in the media today. Values should not be reduced to one or two political issues. Rather, they are so much broader than that--the guiding principles on which we conduct our lives. Given to us by our parents and to them by their parents, one's values are what give life meaning. They ground us and provide the ethical framework within which we conduct our lives and raise our families. Mine were given to me by my parents, who came to this country as Italian immigrants. In our household, I was constantly reminded of the value of working hard to get ahead and giving back to a country that had given so much to us. My father, who dropped out of school in the seventh grade, largely because students made fun of his broken English, went on to become a proud veteran of this country--he served his community. He sat on New Haven's City Council, as did my mother, who served there for 35 years--well into her 80's. Working in a sweatshop sewing collars for pennies before going on to a life of public service, my mother was a driving force in my life and career. But to be sure, faith played a large role in shaping my values as well, having attended Catholic school from elementary school to college. It was there that I learned to nourish my mind and my heart--to reach out, to work hard, to fulfill my potential and be whatever I wanted to be. But it also taught me about right and wrong, personal responsibility and how to nourish my community, my neighbors--to give something back to my world, to the people of that world. In a broader sense, it was the church that bound us together as a community in my neighborhood--in our schools, in our hospitals. My father received communion daily--and lived his faith with commitment. Our local parish and our kitchen table were our community center--where people gathered to share their lives and help one another. Every night around my family's kitchen table, I saw how faith could serve as the nexus between family and community. There, I would witness firsthand how my parents helped solve the problems of people in our neighborhood. With my parents' example and my Catholic upbringing, I learned the vital connection between family, faith, responsibility, community, and working for the common good-- that values learned at home and at church effected change at the community level both profound and undeniable. It showed me that government can and must play a critical role in helping people make the most of their own abilities and how to meet their responsibilities to each other and society as a whole. My own story is hardly unique. Many of these values have helped shape America's public policy over the course of our nation's history. Indeed, many of the economic and social achievements of the past century have their roots in this vision of opportunity and responsibility, community, a recognition of our obligations to each other--including Medicaid, Head Start, the child tax credit, and the GI Bill, to name but a few. Perhaps the ultimate legislative expression of our nation's shared values and those I learned growing up is Social Security, which for 7 decades now has tied generation to generation, ensuring that those seniors have a secure retirement after a lifetime of work. Social Security was born in part out of FDR's appreciation for Catholic Social Teaching and Monsignor John Ryan's role in advocating programs based on the social letters of Pope Pius the Eleventh and particularly Pope Leo the Thirteenth's Rerum Novarum, which read, ``Among the several purposes of a society, one should try to arrange for . . . a fund out of which the members may be effectually helped in their needs, not only in the cases of accident, but also in sickness, old age, and distress.'' In that respect, Social Security was the embodiment of those teachings--a declaration that our human rights are realized in community. Such sentiments were reflected in FDR's words to the Congress in 1934, when he said, ``We are compelled to employ the active interest of the Nation as a whole through government in order to encourage a greater security for each individual who composes it.'' For FDR, Social Security was one way we could promote and maintain our shared values by rewarding work and ensuring a decent retirement for those who have worked a lifetime. And by depending on and encouraging younger generations to take responsibility, too, Social Security reinforced the idea that in America, we do not leave every man or woman to fend for himself or herself--that we do not tolerate the impoverishment of our senior population. Those are our nation's values and they are perpetuated by the very construct of our Social Security program. Indeed, with the first Social Security check issued, poverty among the elderly began to drop. In the 1950s, more than 30 percent of elderly Americans lived out their last years in poverty--today that figure is about 10 percent, with 2 out of 3 seniors today relying on Social Security as the prime source of their monthly income, including three- quarters of all elderly women. And Social Security is not just for people like our parents and grandparents--a third of the 47 million people who rely on the program are the disabled, widows and children. All told, that is 47 million people--parents, grandparents, widows and children--who do not have to rely solely on their families for financial support because they have the help of Social Security. For women who on average earn less and spend less time in the workforce, Social Security is a blessing. Women comprise nearly 60 percent of all seniors on Social Security--a majority of whom would be living in poverty without it. More than half of all women receiving benefits do so as the spouse of a retired worker, but for 4 in 10 women living on their own, the program accounts for 90 percent of their retirement income. So essentially, Social Security functions not only as a safety net for older Americans, but in a way, for the rest of us--a kind of family insurance guaranteeing that we can live our own lives and raise our own children, confident that our parents and loved ones have something to rely on and can live independently of us. It is without a doubt the most successful, efficient middle-class retirement program we have--a ``national achievement'' that we can be proud of as individuals and as members of a good and decent society. Yet today, the commitment to opportunity and community out of which Social Security was created has frayed. For sure, a coarseness to our culture today in our politics and in the media has deepened divisions in society. But I think it goes deeper than that. Today, pleas for community and the common good have taken a backseat to appeals to self-interest, sometimes greed, and extreme individualism--policies that make us more unequal and divided. And where government was once seen as a vehicle for our shared values, today it is often viewed with suspicion and mistrust. Indeed, no debate is more symbolic of the forces at play in today's society than the one surrounding the future of Social Security. Despite the program's unqualified success, the president wants to change it. The reason he gives is that in 2018, benefits being paid out begin to exceed what Social Security is taking in in payroll taxes, even though Social Security will be able to pay 100 percent of benefits until 2041. Even after 2041, the Social Security Trust Fund does not go bankrupt, because the program will still be able to pay between 70 and 80 percent of its benefits. Congress must address the funding shortfall in the middle of the century. Yet what President Bush is proposing is that we radically change this successful program--privatizing Social Security by diverting a third of payroll taxes that pay benefits today into private, individual accounts that can be invested in the stock market. I think the Catholic Bishops had it right, when they wrote extensively on this issue at the end of the 1990's as Republicans were advocating for Social Security's privatization. The Bishops said then that Social Security had been established as an insurance program in which, quote, ``society as a whole buffers the individual and collective risks that workers and their families face.'' They went on to say that turning Social Security into an investment vehicle for individuals, quote, ``does not guarantee an adequate or assured retirement program'' for our senior population. But that is precisely what President Bush wants to do. He wants turn Social Security into an investment program--a tool to create personal wealth. And I fail to see how a program benefiting our national community, rooted in values that promote the common good and reinforce the idea that we are all in this together, is improved by private accounts. These values go to the heart of what I believe as a Democrat and as a Catholic. Besides, privatization does nothing to address the expected shortfall in the current Social Security system--the reason President Bush brought up privatization in the first place. In fact, by taking money out of the trust fund to create private accounts, the president's proposal makes the problem worse. Secondly, privatization will balloon our half-trillion dollar deficit by as much as $5 trillion in the next 20 years because we will still have to pay benefits to current retirees at the same time we are taking money out of the system to create private accounts. That means higher interest rates for buying a house, a car or going back to school. Third, we would be eliminating the program's guaranteed benefit and requiring benefit cuts that the Administration itself has estimated will be as steep as 40 percent--all for a plan that does not even address the underlying problem. The amount retirees get from Social Security is already modest-- about $955 per month, $11,500 per year, enough to pay for most basic needs, but hardly enough to get by on alone. And for women, for whom Social Security has been such a success, the effects of privatization would be disastrous, as confirmed by a recent report by the National Women's Law Center. For 29 percent of women, Social Security is the only retirement package available. Privatization would replace the program's progressive benefit structure with private accounts based only on a worker's contributions to the account-- cutting the average widow's benefit in my state of Connecticut to a paltry $518 per month. And privatization is not only a bad deal for our mothers and grandmothers--but for young women as well. For all our gains, women still earn less--77 cents for every dollar men earn--even though we live longer. And the Social Security Administration itself predicts that 65 years from now, 40 percent of married women will still receive benefits based on their husband's higher earnings record. You might be asking--but what about the increased benefits from the stock market? Well, you do not get to keep the full Social Security and the full private account. The average private account would be taxed at 70 percent through monthly deductions from your Social Security check. This privatization tax would come on top of the benefit cuts that will affect all Social Security beneficiaries. It is complicated, but when you retire, you essentially have to pay the money you put into your private account back to the government. So, at the same time that the private accounts would be adding to your income, a large portion of that additional income would be offset dollar for dollar through reductions in your guaranteed Social Security check. And that would be regardless of how well your private account performed. But well beyond the financial implications of privatization--and there are many--are its moral implications. As The National Catholic Reporter editorialized recently, what we risk losing with privatization is so much more than money. We risk losing the agreement that we have maintained for the past half-century that we are all in this together. We risk losing faith with the understanding that all workers--poorest to richest--contribute to something in common and that everyone gets something in return. And we abandon the sense that despite differences in political outlook and social standing, we all believe that is good for society to guarantee a minimum standard of economy security for its oldest, disabled and widowed citizens. That is what privatization risks. As someone who has had the privilege of serving in the Congress of the United States for over a decade-and-a-half, representing more than a half-million people, I believe that government has an obligation to play a role in making opportunity real--a moral obligation. I do not believe in every man or woman for himself or herself. I believe in values like shared responsibility and personal responsibility. I believe in what we can achieve together. Those are the principles at the core of Social Security. They are what drive me--they are what drive you. They are what drive each of us as Democrats and Americans. The fight to preserve Social Security and make it as successful in the 21st Century as it was in the last is a struggle that every American has a stake in--but no one more than the younger generation. This is a defining challenge for us--a statement about the kind of country we want America to be. As Franklin Roosevelt told Congress, Social Security is a ``return to values lost in the course of our economic development and expansion.'' That is our challenge today, as well--to bring change, while affirming our values as Americans and as Democrats. Indeed, in 1983, bankruptcy was only a year off--one year, not 37. Back then, Congress and President Reagan worked together on a bipartisan commission that ensured Social Security would be solvent for generations. And they did it not by changing the fundamental nature of the program but by making minor adjustments to the benefits and financing structures. In my view, that is the example of bipartisanship we should draw upon. With so much at stake for our communities and the country, I believe we need that kind of bipartisanship in this debate--one that achieves consensus, strengthens the program's guaranteed benefit in retirement and reflects our nation's shared values. Because this fight is not only about stopping the bad idea that is privatization-- it is about promoting and maintaining the good idea that was and is Social Security. As students looking forward to lives of your own, raising families and embarking on careers, you have been given a remarkable opportunity--to put the values your parents instilled in you to use in society, in whatever career you choose. My challenge to you today is: how are you going to seize this opportunity--to give back and have a say in this debate which is so important to our shared values? What role will you play in ensuring future generations have the quality of life you and your families have had? I do not pretend to have all the answers. But if my own experiences have taught me anything, it is that bringing our values to the public sphere is not a matter of expediency but of moral and civic obligation--a call I hope each of you choose to answer. Thank you for this honor and this opportunity.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the War Supplemental Appropriations Act but must voice my incredible misgivings for what the Republican majority has attached to legislation that should solely be about how we provide for our brave men and women in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is much in this bill to be proud of. Our military, despite the job of the civilian brass and this Congress, have been performing heroically. They have accomplished much more than we could have ever hoped for, and if any fault needs to be assigned it is to the policy makers, and not to those in uniform. However, I am ashamed that this body has taken something as important as securing our troops, and attached a hastily considered immigration provision that will result in massive unfunded mandates being passed on to our states. I am ashamed that the conference committee removed language that would have created a Truman-style Commission to examine war profiteering, largely to ensure that this administration would not be embarrassed. Finally, I am ashamed that this Congress has turned its back on a promise made by our President to the Palestinian Authority to help improve the situation of the Palestinian people and further the cause of peace for all in the Middle East. I am concerned that the immigration provisions will force our great nation to turn our back on the thousands of political and human rights asylum seekers who look toward America as their last and best hope. The Real ID Act will force the most vulnerable to have their torturers corroborate their tales of persecution. I understand that we must protect our borders, and I understand that changes must be made to keep out those that seek to do us harm. But we should not hastily foreclose the dream and promise of America because of fear. We should not send back asylum seekers back to their torturers. Under these standards, Iraqis seeking to escape the rape rooms of Saddam Hussein would have been sent back to the Ba'athist prisons if they fled Iraq without the proper documentation. I am also dismayed that rather than seeking to be responsible stewards of the public's trust, the Republican majority in charge of Congress once again decided to ignore its oversight responsibilities. It seems that rather than doing our oversight job as a separate and equal branch of government, the GOP leadership would rather save the Bush Administration and corporate CEOs some embarrassment. I am old enough to remember the Truman Commission. I remember that Sen. Truman went against a Democratic administration, and saved our military and our tax payers billions of dollars in waste and fraud. I cannot understand why we do not do the same. My friends on the other side of the aisle should be ashamed of the fact that Mr. Waxman and I have probably done more on this front from the minority, than has anyone with a gavel. Reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan is too important not to get it right, but confronted yet again with evidence of massive fraud and egregious war profiteering, my Republican colleagues are again choosing to bury their heads in the sand, plug their ears, and turn out the lights on our duty. Finally, this bill, by intention or not, has the potential of undoing all the progress that the Middle East Peace process has made since the death of Yasser Arafat. Mr. Speaker, the new president of the Palestinian Authority is in an almost untenable position. In order for Palestinian democracy to succeed over radical terrorism, President Abbas must be provided with the resources to open hospitals, create jobs, arm a police force, build jails, and take the fight to the terrorists. President Bush recognized this. He made a statement asking for $200 million to support a nascent Middle Eastern democracy. Instead of allowing President Abbas to use American aid to build his security forces to take on terror, we instead set him up for failure. My friends, if you want to see Hamas win the upcoming municipal elections; if you want to see the peace process come to an abject halt; if you want to see more dead young Israelis and young Palestinians you should support this language. It surprises me that the only thing that this Congress is capable of bucking and embarrassing this Administration on is the prospect of peace. I hope, for the sake of peace, we can correct this colossal error in judgment and that the President and the State Department speak out against Congress' ill-advised policy making on this most tragic conflict.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, in our great land of opportunity and wealth, there are many Americans who have no access to one of the most basic needs: health care. In our Nation today, nearly 45 million Americans are uninsured. Today I offer a way to begin addressing this problem by introducing the FamilyCare Act of 2005. In conjunction with the Medicare Early Access Act and the Small Business Health Insurance Promotion Act that my colleagues are also introducing today, the enactment of these bills could cut the number of uninsured in half. The FamilyCare Act of 2005 is a family-centered bill that aims to provide coverage for the 7.5 million working families with incomes below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. This act builds upon two programs, Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, that have successfully covered many low-income persons, individuals with disabilities, and children. It would ensure families who move from welfare to work do not lose coverage and makes it easier for low-income working families to obtain health insurance. Improving our Nation's healthcare system continues to be a complex challenge that must be a matter of national priority. By taking these first steps, it is our hope that in the future all Americans will be able to meet their healthcare needs.