Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res 1096, a resolution introduced by my colleague, Representative Silvestre Reyes, which encourages individuals across the country to participate in the 2010 census to ensure an accurate and complete count beginning April 1, 2010.

Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the enumeration of every individual residing in the United States, is taken every ten years. This month, every household across the nation will have received a 10-question census form known as the Decennial Census.

The importance of correctly filling out and returning this form cannot be overstated. First, data from the Census directly affects how more than $400 billion in federal funds are spent, at all levels of government, and thus, helps determine how and what resources are allocated to a community. Put another way, if our community members don't fill out the census, they will find they are not getting funding to support their needs. Census data is used to determine which schools receive funding for improvements, where new hospitals and roads are built, what new maps are needed for first responders, and where economic investment should be made.

Second, the data from the Census dictates how the U.S. House of Representatives is reapportioned, how each state is redistricted, and how the Electoral College is distributed. I don't need to remind all of my constituents of the importance of ensuring they are properly represented on the federal, state, and local levels.

Filling out the Census is fast (taking most just 10 minutes to complete), safe (the information is treated by law as confidential) and easy to complete (there are just 10, simple questions).

I hope that elected officials at all levels of government, across the country and in Michigan's 15th Congressional District will educate their constituents about the importance of completing the 2010 Census, and, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the distinguished majority leader, for yielding, and I am delighted to join him and my other colleagues in this tribute to a great citizen of the State of Michigan.

He is our friend, our distinguished colleague from Michigan's Fifth District, Dale Kildee, who has just cast his 19,999th vote, and his next vote will be 20,000. He is in his 34th year in this institution. And after he replaced our friend Don Riegle--who made the curious career choice of running for the Senate--he has been a matter of good fortune to all of us in Michigan and to this body because he's been a rock-solid member of this institution. In his whole 34 years, he's only missed 27 votes. That's a 99.9 percent voting record. He once made 8,141 consecutive votes. I have to say, a fellow should avoid that; the pressure of that situation is very bad.

But we all agree, his accomplishments are not just about numbers. He's been an important figure on legislation that has bettered the life of our families, particularly our youngest citizens. No one here can find anyone who has done more to protect American children than has our friend, Dale Kildee. From his place on the House Education and Labor Committee, he's been a leader on Head Start, school modernization, school safety, college access and affordability. He's been a great champion of our Great Lakes which he loves and which he has protected.

He's also a hero to our citizens of Michigan who consider the lakes a treasure. He has protected jobs and

workers' rights, and to do so, he started the Auto Caucus together with our other good friend from Michigan.

As founder of the House Native American caucus, he has helped give a voice on the Hill to the concerns of our Native American constituents across the country.

Flint, from where he comes, loves this man, and all of us are proud to call him our friend. He is the iron man of the House. And I know, if my good friend would yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan, she would like to have a word to say, too.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have the right to revise and extend their remarks to make such comments as they might deem appropriate on our colleague, Mr. Kildee.

Madam Speaker, it is not long since a bunch of avaricious, grasping New York bankers caused a replay of 1929 and a major collapse of the American economy. They were too big to fail, and as a result, this Nation has spent hundreds of billions of dollars bailing them out for their wrongdoing. This is intolerable. If we cannot regulate these people, the least we can do is see that they are properly sized.

I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring the Financial Services Industry Stability Act of 2010, which I am introducing today. As Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, said, the institutions too big to fail would be that they would ``be sheltered by access to a Federal safety net in time of crisis.'' Another former Fed Chair, my dear friend Alan Greenspan, said, ``If they're too big to fail, they're too big.'' Similarly, Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, opines, ``If some banks are thought to be too big to fail, then, in the words of a distinguished economist, they are too big.'' I urge my colleagues to help me cut down these avaricious scoundrels to proper size.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my unequivocal support for H.R. 2847, the Jobs for Main Street Act. As a federal representative from the state of Michigan, I can attest to the hardship facing my constituents, and others across the state, as a direct result of unemployment. This legislation will build off the progress made by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and create jobs quickly through projects needed by the community such as new roads, water facilities, and by protecting the jobs we have in the fields of education and law enforcement.

H.R. 2847 is legislation that will greatly help the 15th District in Michigan. There is no question that Michigan has been hit the hardest and the earliest by this economic recession, leading unemployment across the country for months, which is now almost 15 percent. Yet this does not tell the full story. Since 2000, Michigan has lost over 800,000 jobs, roughly one in every six, and in Detroit alone 45 percent of working-age adults are unemployed. Combine this with the fact that for every job opening about six people are applying, and you can see why the workers in Michigan are facing a perfect storm.

This legislation will help to calm this storm by investing in public works projects that will create new jobs, setting aside $48 billion for rebuilding our roads and bridges, modernizing public buildings, constructing new water facilities, and building and preserving affordable rental houses. We will also help to save or create jobs in our public schools, our police and fire departments, while training workers in growing fields such as health care and alternative energy or ``green'' fields.

Further, this legislation will extend emergency unemployment benefits through June 2010, and extend and expand the COBRA subsidy through June and expand the months of help from 9 months to 15 months. These changes will help the nearly one million workers exhausting their unemployment benefits by January and the hundreds of thousands of workers who have already begun rolling off the COBRA subsidy program.

It is imperative that both the House and the Senate pass H.R. 2847 quickly. This legislation is not a hand-out; rather it is an immediate injection into local economies across the country. It is funding America families will use to keep their heat on this Christmas, to pay their mortgage for the next few months, and keep their health insurance through the summer. Quite frankly this funding is a crutch until these workers can find their next job, or complete the training they need for a second career.

Madam Speaker, after spending this summer bailing out Wall Street, it is time that we help Main Street. I urge my colleagues to reiterate their support to the American families in need and vote in favor of

Mr. Speaker, although I intend to vote in favor of H.R. 3288, the ``Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010,'' I do so with regret. This legislation contains a provision that affords the right of binding third-party arbitration to terminated automobile dealership franchises with Chrysler and General Motors (GM). Moreover, this provision governs the very nature of that arbitration, in effect dictating the criteria arbiters must take into account when deciding whether to cause an auto manufacturer to reinstate a particular dealer franchise. While I lament the painful cuts to dealerships both Chrysler and GM had to make in order to protect their viability and moreover disagree with the manner in which both companies pursued dealership rationalization, particularly with regard to Chrysler, I continue to maintain that statutorily mandated arbitration is at best a mistake and, rather frankly, unconstitutional. Chrysler's and GM's respective dealership cuts were approved in bankruptcy court, and undoing them ex post facto is tantamount to violation of due process, the spending and commerce clauses, and the bankruptcy clause's uniformity requirement.

From an economic perspective, effectively causing Chrysler and GM to engage in thousands of arbitrations at significant legal cost will impede each company's ability to complete its restructuring plans. To add uncertainty to these companies' futures after taxpayers have invested $60 billion to finance their restructuring is quite simply irresponsible and, more broadly, potentially harmful to the country's overall economic recovery.

I recognize the sincere efforts of my friend, Majority Leader Hoyer, to broker a compromise between dealers and automakers but cannot in good conscience remain silent on this matter, given the grave constitutional and economic defects of the arbitration provision in H.R. 3288. It remains my strong preference that disputes of this nature be resolved outside of statute.

Mr. Speaker, I begin by expressing great respect and affection to my dear friend from Texas. Unfortunately, he's wrong. Here, the Democrats came in and found that the Republicans had left them two wars, a depression, and $1.3 trillion deficit. And we found that when Mr. Bush came in, he converted a $2 trillion surplus in virtually no time to a $7 trillion deficit.

Now, I was a young boy when my dad was here and we passed Glass- Steagall. And I want to say that this legislation does not reinstitute Glass-Steagall. It does much that had to be done by the Democrats when they were dealing with the Hoover depression, which was very much like this one and was caused by the same good-hearted folks up in New York, gambling with depositors' money guaranteed by the Federal Government. And when they repealed the Glass-Steagall Act with the Graham-Leach- Bliley Act, the result was that all of a sudden we had to rush in and bail out corporations too big to fail--insurance companies and God knows what else--in order to save the American economy.

Yes, we are having to spend money, and we're having to spend money because of misgovernment, mismanagement, and because of outright rascality up in New York and conniving by a number of people to see to it that they had the powers that we took away from them to engage in that kind of rascality.

We here have a chance to begin again to protect the American people from the rascality that goes on when a bunch of sharpshooting MBAs are interested only in grubbing money and not caring about the free financial system which we have here.

The American economic system is too precious to trust unattended to New York and to the big banks and to the other wheelers and dealers up there. What we are doing today is seeing to it that that system is protected.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4173, the ``Wall Street Reform and Consumer

Protection Act of 2009.'' I applaud my friends, Chairman Barney Frank of the Committee on Financial Services and Chairman Henry Waxman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for their fine work on this legislation, particularly related to augmenting the powers of the Federal Trade Commission and preserving the ability of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to regulate utilities.

Nevertheless, I posit a decision by the Congress 10 years ago not to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act would have obviated the need for the legislation pending our consideration today. Glass-Steagall, enacted in 1933 as an appropriate response to the findings of the Pecora Commission concerning the causes of the Great Depression, successfully governed the financial services industry for over 60 years. My father wisely voted in favor of that legislation, and I fought to defend it until this body mistakenly decided to overturn it in 1999. I gave full- throated opposition to the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed Glass-Steagall, based in no small part on my belief that it would permit the creation of financial institutions that would be too big to fail and free to gamble with depositor's money guaranteed by the Federal Government. My opposition had the merit of being correct ten years ago and, at the very least, prophetic today. Indeed, Graham- Leach-Bliley gave rise to the creation of financial juggernauts, whose underhanded actions, gone unregulated by design of that Act, have driven this great country over an economic precipice of proportions not last seen since the Great Depression, in which regulatory and statutory action of that time made those unfortunate events possible to happen.

With this in mind, it is incumbent upon the Congress to re-impose a regulatory environment upon the financial services industry that will ensure that the abuses that gave rise to the present and aptly-named ``Great Recession'' never again occur. I again insist H.R. 4173 would be strengthened immeasurably by including an amendment to re-instate the Glass-Steagall Act but, in its absence, can find some solace in the sage words of my dear friend, John Moss, who maintained the perfect good is the enemy of the good. In brief, I offer my support for H.R. 4173 and urge my colleagues to recognize and support it as a laudable effort by which to counter the deregulation of the financial services industry and the chaos that ensued from it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4154, the ``Permanent Estate Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009.'' This bill will extend permanently the 2009 estate tax rules, which are estimated to affect only 1 in 500 estates. By allowing the estate tax to expire next year, we will be depriving the Federal Government of critically needed funds to finance, among other things, economic stabilization programs. Moreover, at a time when many working Americans are losing their jobs and finding it difficult to make ends meet, particularly in southeast Michigan, it strikes me as wholly unconscionable that the Congress should approve a tax cut for the wealthiest of the country's citizens. Furthermore, while I am ever cognizant of the effect of Federal policy on small businesses, I would remind my colleagues that, according to the Tax Policy Center, only 100 small business and farm estates in the entire Nation would owe any estate tax in 2010 if the 2009 rules were extended, and virtually none of them would have to be sold to pay the tax.

Thus, in my view, the bluster about the purported effect of this bill on farms and small businesses is unfounded. As such, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, as I will.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate NSF International and thank them for the great work they have done over the last 65 years. Since 1944, when it was established at the University of Michigan's School of Public Health, in Ann Arbor, NSF International has gone on to reach innumerable achievements.

NSF International has established itself as a leader in the field of drinking water safety, food safety, indoor air, organic certification, toy safety, and many other areas of public health and safety. In 1984 NSF International opened its first office abroad in Brussels, Belgium. Just over 20 years later NSF International now maintains offices and laboratories across North America and Europe, as well as in South America, Africa, and Asia. I believe their selection as a Collaborating Centre on Food and Water Safety as well as Indoor Environment by the World Health Organization speaks to their outstanding international reputation in the field.

Most importantly, NSF International has protected an untold number of consumers over the last 65 years through their testing, certification, education, and other services. Consumer safety is critically important and is an issue I have worked diligently on during my career in the United States House of Representatives. Protecting consumers from dangerous products would not be possible without the role that independent, not-for-profit organizations, such as NSF International, play.

This role is particularly important with our increasingly global marketplace. As more and more products come to the United States from abroad, extra steps must be taken to ensure American consumers are receiving the safest products possible. NSF International has played a key role in certifying products worldwide as well as writing internationally recognized standards. I thank them for the very important work they do.

I am proud to say that an organization with such an outstanding reputation domestically and internationally, and an organization with so many years of experience and achievement, was founded and is still headquartered in the great city of Ann Arbor, Michigan. It is organizations such as NSF International that make Michigan, and Michigan's 15th District, such a wonderful place and make me so proud to represent the area. I ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating and thanking NSF International.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Inkster Alumnae Chapter of the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. On December 19, 2009, the Inkster Chapter will gather to celebrate their 50th anniversary.

The Delta Sigma Theta Sorority has a remarkable history of service since its creation in 1913. As the largest Greek letter organization for African American women in the country, the Deltas do remarkable work to serve their communities and their nation. Several of our current and former colleagues were proud Delta women. They brought their passion, their vision and their leadership to the House of Representatives and helped make this institution a far better place.

The Inkster Alumnae Chapter has a proud tradition of service and community involvement. They have worked to tutor students and provide them with scholarships, as well as implement innovative service learning programs for middle and high school girls. In addition to these efforts, the Inkster Deltas have held health fairs and greatly enhanced the civic participation of their community. These are all great accomplishments, but the Inkster Deltas have much more in store for the future as they seek to build on and expand their great works.

Once again, I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Inkster Alumnae Chapter of the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority as they gather in celebration of 50 wonderful years of service and accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a proud supporter of H.R. 3961, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. H.R. 3961 fulfills a promise to our doctors that they're going to be appropriately paid for their services, and it assures that Medicare will continue to be available to provide services for our seniors.

In my home State of Michigan, this bill will prevent a loss of $610 million next year for the care of elderly and disabled patients. On average, H.R. 3961 will prevent cuts of $23,000 to each Michigan physician next year. Our Republican colleagues would have us think that this is a gimmick. What this legislation does is do away with a gimmick. I would remind my colleagues that H.R. 3961 solves a problem that's plagued the Congress since 2002 and actually ends a budget gimmick that artificially reduces the deficit by assuming that physician payments will be cut by 40 percent over the next several years, even though the Congress consistently intervenes to prevent those cuts from occurring.

Due to our failure to fix this problem permanently, the price tag has grown each year and will continue to do so. In 2005, the cost of fixing the problem was $48 billion. Today, just 4 years later, the cost has skyrocketed to $210 billion. We can no longer kick the can down the road. That is fiscally responsible. So today the choice is clear: Either we're going to be serious about protecting our seniors and protecting Medicare by providing a fiscally responsible, permanent fix to our perennial problems or we're going to play political games.

I urge my colleagues to choose the former. Vote in favor of H.R. 3961. Vote for fair treatment for our doctors. Vote to make Medicare payments available for doctors and for seniors. And make sure by so voting that you will have a situation where our doctors will be available to provide service for our senior citizens.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to support H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act. This act reauthorizes the Assistance to Firefighters Grant, AFG, program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, SAFER, grant program. These two successful programs provide critical support for our Nation's fire departments and Emergency Medical Services, EMS, organizations, thus enabling our firefighters and emergency personnel to adequately respond to fire emergencies in our communities.

H.R. 3791 authorizes $1 billion per year for the AFG program for fiscal years, FY, 2010 through 2014 and $1.2 billion per year for the SAFER program for FY 2010 through FY 2014. The AFG program, created in 2000, provides grants to local fire departments and related EMS organizations to provide them needed equipment, training, vehicles and other resources. The SAFER, created in 2004, program provides grants to local fire departments to increase their staffing and deployment capabilities.

Both programs have proven highly successful. In 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Leadership Development Academy Execptive Potential Program independent assessment of the AFG program concluded it was ``highly effective in improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across the nation.'' Since that time, the program has received high marks from Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Inspector General as well as the Bush Administration's budgetary program evaluation tool. And since 2004, the SAFER program has been ensuring that our local fire departments can provide 24-hour staffing to so that they can respond to our communities during emergencies.

Unfortunately, during times of economic hardship, public safety budgets are often hard hit. Thus, the importance of continued Federal support for these programs cannot be underestimated. That is why this legislation lowers

the matching requirement from 20 percent to 10 percent for the AFG program and allows the DHS to waive cost share requirements for the SAFER program in times of economic hardship.

In addition, H.R. 3791 ensures that funding to our career and volunteer fire departments is equitable by requiring that AFG funds are apportioned in the following way: 25 percent to career fire departments, 25 percent to combination fire departments, and 25 percent to volunteer fire departments, 10 percent for open competition among all types of fire departments, and the remaining 15 percent for certain other important functions, including ire prevention and safety grants.

Mr. Chair, the fire grants program has directly benefited the 15th Congressional District of Michigan, including Frenchtown Township, Ypsilanti, Monroe, Woodhaven, Flat Rock, Romulus, and many other communities I have the honor of representing. Clearly, these programs are a boon to other communities across our country. That is why I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 3791.

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican substitute and for the bill reported by three committees after long and hard work.

I want to tell the House--all Members--how proud I am of the discussion that has taken place today. I want to commend the three committees and their chairmen, including my good friend, the chairman of our committee, Mr. Waxman, for the work they have done.

You, Madam Speaker and the leadership, we thank you for the extraordinary leadership which you have given us in bringing this to the point where we are tonight. Thank you.

I won't begin by spending much time on the bill offered by my Republican colleagues. It is really no substitute for H.R. 3962. According to The New York Times--and I think this sufficiently disposes of the matter--the Republican amendment does ``almost nothing to reduce the scandalously high number of Americans who have no insurance, and it makes only a token stab at slowing the relentlessly rising costs of medical care.''

Interestingly enough, under the Republican amendment, individuals would pay up to $2,821 more, and families would pay up to $8,188 more under the Republican plan when compared with H.R. 3962. It's not in the public interest that we should do that.

Having said that, this is historic legislation. It addresses two of the most terrifying problems we have in this country:

The first is what was the problem when my dad introduced the first legislation in 1943, that there are now some 47 million Americans without health care. This will give many of them adequate health care and a decent choice of what they will have before them at the best possible price through an exchange, which will make it possible for them to choose without having to worry about understanding the language of Philadelphia lawyers and reading fine print that can only be read with a magnifying glass.

The bill does something more. It takes care of an economic problem that will be visited on us in 2080 when the costs of health care will equal the gross domestic product of the United States. That will bring us to a fine economic mess if we permit that to happen. Health care and GDP costs will be equal.

Now, the bill carries out the President's suggestions: deficit neutral. It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of income, age, health status, the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they will have real access to affordable health insurance when they need it.

It does away with preexisting conditions, which the bill offered by my friends in the minority does not; and it sees to it that, when you go to bed at night, you're going to wake up knowing in the morning that you're going to have health insurance. It can't have been dropped by your employer, and it can't have been canceled by your insurance.

There is a practice, on which we just had hearings, that is engaged in by the insurance companies. It is called ``rescission.'' They can cancel your insurance policy by the simple device of rescinding your policy because they say you have some preexisting conditions, and they can do it while you're on the gurney, being rolled into the operating amphitheater.

The bill is going to give choice and honest competition. It is going to bring security to our seniors, and it is going to reduce out-of- control health care costs that are crushing American business.

It costs $4 an hour less to make a car in Canada than it does in Michigan. Why? Because the Canadians have a program of national health insurance which ensures that the manufacturer can compete and out- compete Americans because he doesn't carry that economic burden.

Today, this may be a tough vote, but it was in 1935 when we passed Social Security. I hear my colleagues tell us that the economy, jobs and financial system overhaul, are desperately needed. True. But that was the case in '35 when we passed the Social Security Act.

Now I hear my Republican colleagues tell us this is going to stand between--or permit a government bureaucrat to stand between the insured and the doctor and each other. In point of fact, it is going to permit the government to stand between the insurance bureaucrat and the insured, and it is going to stand between him and the doctor so that the doctor can provide the care he wants.

The problems this historic legislation aims to address are real and worsening for American citizens, business, and governments. When my Dad introduced this legislation sixty some years ago, it was a simple humanitarian problem. Today it is one of impending economic disaster to America.

H.R. 3962 meets the goals President Obama outlined for us earlier this year: it is deficit neutral; it provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans; and it offers everyone, regardless of income, age or health status, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have real access to quality, affordable health insurance when they need it; that preexisting conditions will not bar them from insurance; that loss of job or dropping of coverage by employer will not deny insurance.

This bill will stop discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, and it will stop rescission--the practice in which an insurer searches for problems with patients' policies while they are waiting on a gurney for emergency care.

Additionally, this bill will ensure choice and honest competition; bring security to our seniors; and will reduce the out-of-control health care costs that are crushing American businesses.

Now is the time for health care reform. We can't afford to wait. We must offer big solutions for the big problems that face the American people. We must succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from a number of my colleagues, and I appreciate the fact the vote before us today is a tough vote.

I understand there are numerous competing issues confronting the American people--the economy, jobs, financial system overhaul. That was so in 1935 when we enacted Social Security over just about the same objections.

However, we know that no issue has caused the American people to suffer longer than the issue of inaccessible health care.

History and the American people will ask what we did here this day when presented with a real opportunity to ease the strain of rising health care costs and provide quality, affordable health coverage for all.

Mr. Speaker, the vote for me today will be on behalf of American families who are forced to decide whether they will pay the mortgage or their health insurance premium.

My vote today is for American business--big and small. They are confronted with the real burden of providing quality health care for their workers or fall victim to their foreign competitors.

My vote today is for the federal government, and state and local governments throughout the country which are being stretched to make room for larger and larger health bills.

Mr. Speaker, my vote today is also personal.

It is a vote to fulfill the legacy left by a little, skinny Polack with a broken nose and a mustache who served as a proud Member of this distinguished body.

My father, John D. Dingell, Sr., was a part of the original New Dealers--a brand of big thinking Democrats--who believed that health care is a right, not a privilege and government had a responsibility to protect it people; provide for their basic rights; and ensure opportunity for all.

So, it is in that tradition that I urge my colleagues to act today to pass this bill.

Join with the AMA, the AARP, the Consumers Union, the American Cancer Society, the different medical specialist groups, the Nurses and others who support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today, to do something meaningful for the American people and for American business.

We can take advantage of this opportunity or we can shirk our responsibilites and allow the calamitous situation that faces our people to contine to grow out of hand, overwhelm the federal budget, force more and more families into bankruptcy, and shift more jobs overseas.

Reform is neither easy nor cheap, but the cost of inaction is far greater--in terms of lost lives, quality of life and dollars. If we don't reduce costs we face certain economic disaster.

So, today, we must overcome the naysayers, the loyal opposition, the lies about our plan, the fear that causes us to think the status quo is the safe thing to do.

We must overcome all of these things and we must act boldly, with conviction, and deliberately--not because of our own righteousness--but because there is no other acceptable alternative.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3962 and give the American people the relief they so desperately need.

This is a bad bill. It's a bad resolution. It is unfair. It is unwise. It contributes nothing to peace. It establishes a bad precedent, and it sets up a set of circumstances where we indicate that we're going to just arbitrarily reject a U.N. finding and a U.N. resolution and that we're going to have that as a precedent. This is bad.

What we must do here is to make the United States a fair, honest, respected broker. This does not do this. It leaves the United States in real danger of losing the ability to participate actively in the creation of a lasting peace of benefit to both Israel and to the Palestinians.

If you're a friend of Israel, if you're a friend of world peace, if you're a friend of peace in the Mid East, if you're a friend of the Palestinians, if you want to look to the well-being of the United States, you should reject this resolution. It is a bad proposal. There have been no hearings on it. We do not know what underlies all of the circumstances, and I urge the House to reject it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 867. This resolution, though non-binding, sends a signal to the world that the United States Congress is not serious about pushing the Israelis and the Palestinians toward a peaceful resolution.

It is true that the body that mandated the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, known as the Goldstone Report, has been no friend to Israel. Indeed the United Nations Human Rights Council has consistently passed one- sided biased resolutions against Israel while, at the same time, allowing documented, blatant human rights violators to preside over that body without criticism. It is right for the United States and other friends of Israel to question and call out the why six of ten special sessions of the U.N. General Assembly have been about Israel, while none have been called on Tibet or Darfur.

However, we must ask ourselves, does this resolution bring us closer to peace in the Middle East? Does it spur negotiations between the Israelis, Palestinians, and other parties, or does it marginalize and itself choose sides? We must ask, are we undermining President Obama's, Secretary Clinton's, Special Envoy Mitchell's efforts to serve as an honest broker, bring the two sides together, and achieve peace, by passing this resolution?

Madam Speaker, Israel, unequivocally, has a right to defend itself against those who seek to destroy it. We know that Israel was relentlessly attacked by rockets and mortars leading up to the Gaza war. They made the calculation that they could not allow Hamas to continue this violence and abuse.

However, neither Israel nor Hamas, nor any other country or other non-state political act is exempt from international human rights laws or free of consequence for violations of them. If nothing else, the Goldstone Report should serve as a document from which Israel and Hamas, and the rest of the international community can use to ensure that future human rights violations do not take place in civilian areas and that their militaries and fighters are actively working toward minimizing civilian casualties in the future.

Madam Speaker, time and again we acknowledge the urgency of this conflict. The Obama Administration is working feverishly with both sides toward a peaceful resolution, a two-state solution. Let us not undermine this effort today. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 867. This resolution, though nonbinding, sends a signal to the world that the United States Congress is not serious about pushing the Israelis and the Palestinians toward a peaceful resolution.

It is true that the body that mandated the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, known as the Goldstone Report, has been no friend to Israel. Indeed, the United Nations Human Rights Council has consistently passed one-sided biased resolutions against Israel while, at the same time, allowing documented, blatant human rights violators to preside over that body without criticism. The U.S and other friends of Israel have every right and every reason to be critical of the United Nations' treatment of Israel, when, for example, 6 of 10 special sessions of the U.N. General Assembly have been about Israel, while none has been called on Tibet or Darfur.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves, does this resolution, which opposes further consideration of the Goldstone Report, bring us closer to peace in the Middle East? Does it spur negotiations between the Israelis, Palestinians, and other parties, or does it marginalize and itself choose sides? We must ask, are we undermining President Obama's, Secretary Clinton's, and Special Envoy Mitchell's efforts to serve as an honest broker, bring the two sides together, and achieve peace, by passing this resolution?

Madam Speaker, Israel, unequivocally, has a right to defend itself against those who seek to destroy it. We know that Israel was relentlessly attacked by rockets and mortars leading up to the Gaza war. They made the calculation that they could not allow Hamas to continue this violence and abuse.

However, neither Israel nor Hamas, nor any other country or other nonstate political actor is exempt from international human rights laws or free of consequence for violations of them. If nothing else, the Goldstone Report should serve as a document that Israel, Hamas, and the rest of the international community can use to ensure that future human rights violations do not take place in civilian areas and that their militaries and fighters are actively working toward minimizing civilian casualties in the future.

Madam Speaker, time and again we acknowledge the urgency of this conflict. The Obama administration is working feverishly with both sides toward a peaceful resolution, a two-state solution which will benefit both parties, the United States and the Middle East region as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am sad today. I hear my Republican colleagues just getting up to say ``no.'' I tell my Republican colleagues, we have one of the greatest problems that we have ever confronted in this country. Health care has doubled in the last 8 years, and it will double in the next 8. And by the year 2020, health care costs will be $25,000.

The bankruptcy of the steel industry, the bankruptcies in the auto industry and the small business industries are directly a cause from this.

Listen to Daniel Webster and see what Daniel Webster had to say. He said this--it is on the wall up there, and I urge my Republican colleagues to look at it--Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its power, build up its institutions, promote all of its great interests, and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered.

I urge my colleagues to join us in this. Let us sign together to move forward a bill that offers greatness to our country.

Madam Chair, I rise today to commend Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairman Cummings for their hard work on this legislation. I believe H.R. 3619 will go far towards ensuring that the U.S. Coast Guard has the financial resources and management structure in place to do their job efficiently and effectively.

More importantly I want to thank both gentlemen for helping to address my concerns regarding the bridge permitting process for the Ambassador Bridge Enhancement Project led by the U.S. Coast Guard.

Ultimately the U.S. Coast Guard found that the owner of the Ambassador Bridge had not provided the relevant information necessary to make a decision on a permit at this time; an outcome I commend, as I believe that while the Ambassador Bridge Enhancement Project may ultimately be a worthy undertaking, the owner of the bridge must go through the proper channels of federal permitting, abiding by federal law and regulation, and including all relevant environmental, safety and structural information as requested and as all other public operators do.

However, at the same time the U.S. Coast Guard was conducting their process, Federal Highway Administration was conducting a separate permitting process for a new public span, the Detroit River International Crossing.

The differences in these two processes, as well as differences in the level of community engagement and state government engagement, is of concern to me and many in Southeast Michigan.

The report language makes clear that there is a requirement that the Commandant of the USCG, with the Secretaries of Transportation and Homeland Security have to submit a report to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and other relevant committees regarding the existing coordination protocols for joint infrastructure responsibilities as well as recommended improvements to these protocols.

It is my hope that this will help to guide early coordination on the bridge permitting process and all other infrastructure projects, between the United States Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, as well as the relevant State agencies.

I have long believed that the end result of the legislative process, the NEPA process, or in this instance the bridge permitting process, is drastically improved by working with all relevant stakeholders. Such processes always benefit from thoughtful, careful, informed deliberation in compliance with all relative federal law and regulation.

Again, I thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Cummings for their support and their work on this matter.