Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Protecting Consumers Through Proper Forbearance Procedures Act. This legislation, which I also introduced during the 110th Congress, is intended to correct persistent procedural problems created by two words in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this common sense legislation.

Section 10 of the Communications Act permits a telecommunications carrier to file a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) asking the FCC to forbear from applying certain statutory or regulatory requirements to it. In turn, the FCC may grant forbearances if it finds that doing so is in the public interest.

As I have stated in the past, the Congress certainly has the prerogative to create a statutory regime that permits a regulatory agency to forbear from applying a statutory requirement, so long as the agency finds that consumers will continue to be protected and well served. What is problematic about this circumstance is that the Communications Act states that the carrier's petition will be ``deemed granted'' if the FCC does not act within a prescribed timeframe. In simpler terms, if the FCC cannot agree on the merits of a petition, it is automatically granted.

We must act to correct this untenable situation for two reasons. First, in the case of a petition that is ``deemed granted'' without an accompanying written order, it is impossible for the Congress or the courts to ascertain the scope of relief granted or the legal rationale supporting the FCC's action. This makes it difficult for the Congress to conduct proper oversight of the implementation of the Communications Act, as well as oversight of the telecommunications industry.

Second, the ``deemed granted'' language leads to unsound decision- making at the FCC. When faced with contentious and complicated issues, which are often the subject of these petitions, the FCC now routinely waits until the last moment to make a decision. At the same time, the threat of an automatic grant of forbearance hovers over the proceedings. It is unlikely that such a disjointed process results in public policy that benefits consumers.

The Communications Act, as amended by this bill, would still permit carriers to seek forbearance, which the FCC may also still grant. However, by removing the ``deemed granted'' language from statute, we will vastly improve the ability of the Congress and the courts to conduct appropriate oversight, better protect consumers, and restore transparency to the decision-making process. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Congratulations, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bridge loan. Without this bridge, we are going to fall into the deepest calamity this country has seen since the Great Depression. I call on you to note that one in seven jobs in this country is in the auto industry. Put these companies into bankruptcy and you will bankrupt the entire industry, from the dealers to the suppliers to the small businessmen who depend upon this. That is how bad the situation is. All we ask is a chance to save the industry and to save the millions of Americans

who work there and who contribute to the growth of this country.

I saw the Depression. I know what happened: people standing on the corners without hope, somewhere around 33 percent of Americans without jobs. That is where we are going back to if we don't do something about this, and I don't want to hear any of my colleagues say, Dingell, we didn't know what was going to happen. All we thought was if we put them into bankruptcy, everything would be fine.

Well, it won't. Bankruptcy will simply take down every dealer, every supplier and everybody who is in the auto industry, including the three major companies, and it will destroy the industrial base of the United States, what little remains.

I am here to tell you, this is too big a disaster for us to invite. Imagine a nation with double digit unemployment. That is what we are going to be talking about. And I ask you, how can you turn over $1.2 billion to the Wall Streeters who brought about this calamity when you do nothing?

Invest in America. Support this legislation, which has been brilliantly handled by the chairman of committee, to whom I express my praise and my gratitude for his leadership, and I thank our Speaker for what it is she has done in making this possible.

This bill is salvation. Vote against it and look forward to a terrible calamity. Vote for it and give hope to millions of Americans who desperately need it and who are now existing on the edge of both terror, want, deprivation and worry of the most gross sort.

If you want to see other industries collapse, if you want to see what is left of the housing industry die, if you want to see other industries in this country suffer and hurt, vote against this bill. That is what has happened.

I urge my colleagues, vote for this bill. It is hope. It is salvation for this country. It is the future of this country. Yes, it is going to cost more and we are going to have to do it. But, again, I remind you, invest in America. Invest in the future of your people. Invest in the future and the hopes and the dreams and the desires of Americans.

Without that, all I can say to you is a terrible disaster looms. Let us at all costs prevent that. Let us at all costs see to it that we protect the future, the hopes, the dreams of millions of hardworking Americans, without whom there is no hope for this country.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. What is at stake today is nothing less than the livelihoods of millions of American workers. They are counting on us today to pass legislation that will give the domestic automakers the loans they need to survive this financial crisis. If we fail to act we will plunge this nation further into recession, add hundreds of thousands to the employment rolls in a matter of weeks, and deliver a crippling blow to the manufacturing sector from which it may never recover. As it stated on the cover of a special edition of the Detroit Free Press that was delivered to every Member's office, now is the time for us to ``Invest in America.''

The legislation we are voting on has been described as offering a ``bridge loan'' to the domestic automakers. It is important to recognize where this bridge will lead us, and the consequences that will befall our nation if we fail to act. General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have made significant investments into new vehicle technologies, such as plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. If we allow the automakers to continue to operate, and use the oversight authority provided for in this bill to guide them quickly towards the production of more fuel efficient vehicles, we can create the next generation of green manufacturing jobs here in this country. If the Big 3 fail we will have ceded these jobs to our competitors in China, South Korea, and Japan. These loans offer not just a bridge to solvency for the Big 3, but a bridge to a more vibrant and productive economy for all of us.

Protecting the economy was supposed to be the reason we acted to rescue Wall Street and save failing financial institutions. According to statistics released by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, more than $650 billion has been lent to financial institutions since the beginning of this financial crisis, and an additional $350 billion has been used to purchase private assets. This is in addition to the more than $200 billion in TARP funds that the Treasury Department has used to shore up financial institutions. It is unconscionable that approximately $1.2 trillion has now been sent to Wall Street, but there are those who would object to spending $15 billion to save 3 million blue collar jobs.

Before you cast your vote today, I would urge all of you to consider what this country would look like without a domestic automobile industry. Ask yourselves how many automobile dealerships or parts suppliers operate in your District, and how many of them will be forced to follow the Big 3 into bankruptcy. Imagine what a nation with double digit employment rates will look like, and what burden that will place on the states and on Federal Government. Ask yourselves why every other industrialized country is taking steps to provide support for their own automakers, and why they seem to place a higher value on good paying middle class jobs than we do. I urge my colleagues to consider these questions, and to support the legislation before us today.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation and commend the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Frank, and our Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, for taking a bad bill from the Bush administration and turning it into a bill which protects taxpayers, contains important oversight provisions and ensures that there will be proper control of pay and no golden parachutes for executives whose recklessness has contributed to this crisis. Inaction is not an option here.

I wish to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for the extraordinary job he has done, and I would like to engage him in a brief colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, domestic automobile manufacturers face the most difficult conditions they have faced in decades. We need to do something to help unfreeze the credit markets for that industry, as well as all others.

As I read the legislation, the Secretary has authority to purchase from a motor vehicle finance company traditional car loans and mortgage-related papers such as home equity loans used to purchase a car or truck. Is that interpretation correct?

I want to thank the gentleman, and I also want to point out one additional point of clarification, that if the Federal Reserve Board would use the authority it has to address extraordinary circumstances in credit markets, finance companies, particularly motor vehicle finance companies, would have access to capital that would help them to finance dealer floor plans and make consumer loans.

Would the gentleman support a decision by the Federal Reserve to make funds available, as long as the companies face unusual and extraordinary market conditions?

I want to thank the gentleman, and commend him for his extraordinary leadership in this difficult matter. No man could have done a better job.

Madam Speaker, on Monday I urged my colleagues to support economic recovery legislation, and I continue to urge them to do so today. When I voted against the Gramm-Leech-Bliley Act in 1999 I warned my colleagues that the Government would one day be called upon to rescue failing financial institutions. As angry as I am that my prediction was accurate, I know that on this day inaction is not an option. I still have reservations about this legislation. I do not believe it sufficiently addresses the financial services industry deregulation that allowed this crisis to happen, and I do not believe that it does enough for struggling families. However, I know that the people of this country cannot afford to go another day without action.

After our failure to pass this legislation on Monday the stock market suffered the greatest one day decline in its history. The Wall Street executives and investment bankers that got us into this mess surely took a hit, but so too did individual retirement accounts and state pension funds. For example, the State of Michigan estimates that individual investors in the state have lost over $27 billion in the stock market in the last year, and the Michigan Pension Fund lost $2.3 billion on Monday after the House voted down this plan. Should Wall Street decline further and the value of the dollar continue to fall, it will mean greater unemployment, even higher prices for basic commodities, and access to credit for things like college education or home improvements will be even harder to obtain. The impact on the broader economy will be felt by every American.

In fact, the lack of credit in the marketplace is already affecting some parts of the broader economy. Auto sales were down 27 percent in the past year, in part because consumers cannot get access to credit for car loans. The automobile financing companies are not responsible for the current credit crisis, but they will be eligible to participate in this program to obtain the credit they need to keep vehicle sales strong. This week I learned about a financially sound manufacturing company in Michigan that is seeking a mortgage to replace its current building, which it has outgrown, with a new facility that will allow the company to expand its operations and add much needed jobs. This company is struggling to even find a bank willing to loan it money. Small and medium-sized businesses did not cause this crisis, but unless this crisis is addressed and the credit markets are restored they will find themselves unable to do business.

Despite my lingering concerns that this is not the best possible way to address this crisis, we clearly have to act to avert a much larger economic failure. In the months ahead, we can continue to revisit these issues and work together to adopt measures that restore the regulatory structure that is supposed to protect the financial system from this kind of failure, and that provide much needed assistance to the hard- working men and women who are suffering because of the economic climate created by irresponsible parties on Wall Street and here in Washington. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation before us today as a matter of great national urgency.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts for the outstanding job he and the leadership have done on crafting this legislation. They took a bad piece of legislation and they have significantly improved it to make it much better.

I rise to support the legislation. And I would like to engage in a colloquy with my dear friend, Mr. Frank. I would note that the colloquy is an important one.

Madam Speaker, the automobile manufacturers face the most difficult conditions they've faced in decades. We need to do something to help unfreeze the credit markets that are hurting our industry.

As I read the legislation, the Secretary has the authority to purchase from a motor vehicle finance company traditional car loans and mortgage-related paper, such as a home equity loan used to purchase cars or trucks. Is my interpretation correct?

I yield to my good friend.

I have an additional question to my dear friend. If the Federal Reserve Board were to use the authority it has to address extraordinary circumstances in the credit market, motor vehicle companies would have access to capital that would help them to finance dealer floor plans and to make consumer loans. Am I correct in this? And would my good friend support such a decision by the Federal Reserve Bank to make funds available as long as these companies face unusual and extraordinary market conditions?

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the

chairman of the subcommittee. He has worked very hard on an extremely difficult subject, and has perfected a very difficult piece of legislation in a remarkable way. The House and the country owe the gentleman a great debt.

I thank my good friend.

Madam Speaker, in the last few months we have watched the Bush administration negotiate the sale of Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch, nationalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, take an 80 percent stake in A.I.G., and let Lehman Brothers enter bankruptcy. When it became clear that this inconsistent, ad hoc approach was not going to be enough to keep our Nation from economic crisis, the Bush administration presented Congress with a plan that would give the Treasury Secretary unfettered authority to purchase up to $700 billion in troubled assets. In 2 days of hearings, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke were asked by members of the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee to explain why such unprecedented and unfettered authority should be granted to a single individual, and it was clear that there was no answer.

Since the Bush administration's proposal was first introduced, a consensus has emerged that this bailout package is needed but that it needs to be improved through the inclusion of a number of important provisions. I congratulate Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus of the Financial Services Committee and Senators Dodd and Bennett of the Senate Banking Committee for working together to turn an unacceptable proposal into a bipartisan bill that will hopefully help bring us out of this crisis.

I had a number of concerns about what is in the President's proposal: I was concerned about the potential cost, I was concerned about how the Treasury would determine a price for these assets, and I was concerned that there may have been other, more effective ways of giving these institutions access to the capital they need. I am happy to say that thanks to the hard work of the congressional negotiators, many of my concerns have been addressed.

One concern that remains about this legislation is that it does nothing to address the underlying causes of this crisis. When Congress passed the Gramm-Leech-Bliley Act in 1999 and deregulated the financial sector, I warned my colleagues that tearing down the regulatory structure enacted after the Great Depression would lead to huge institutions that would be free to engage in risky behavior and that the failure of those institutions would result in massive government bailouts. I wish that my prediction had been wrong, but today that is exactly the situation we are faced with. The American people need to understand that nothing in this plan will address that issue. The plan does not reduce the amount of risk that these institutions are allowed to take on, it does not create a new agency or empower an existing one to review the actions of currently unregulated financial institutions, and it does not create any new standards to guide them in the future.

Many Americans, who have seen their paycheck shrink over the last 8 years, who have watched some of their neighbors lose their jobs, who are struggling to pay increased costs for things like gas, groceries, or health care services, and who resisted the temptation to take out a risky loan and instead bought a house they were sure they could afford and made every payment, do not understand this bailout. They do not understand what this plan will do, they do not understand why it costs so much, and they do not understand why their tax dollars are going to be spent to bail out the same Wall Street banks whose risky behavior contributed to this mess. Most importantly, they do not understand why the Government is offering so little to help their family.

To all of my constituents who want to know why they are being asked to foot the bill to pay for this bailout, I can tell you only one thing: The cost of inaction to you and your family is greater than the cost of this bailout. Should Wall Street decline further and the value of the dollar continue to fall, it will mean greater unemployment, even higher prices for basic commodities, and access to credit for things like college education or home improvements will be even harder to obtain. The impact on the broader economy will be felt by every American. In fact, the credit crisis is already having an impact on the automobile industry that is so important to my constituents in Michigan and to hundreds of thousands of families around the country. If access to credit continues to dry up, the automobile financing companies will be unable to keep vehicles on dealership lots and help customers obtain financing. The automobile financing companies are not responsible for the current credit crisis, but they will be eligible to participate in this program to obtain the credit they need to keep vehicle sales strong.

Furthermore, the package that we are voting on today is a far cry from the bailout proposal first offered by the President. It contains important provisions assuring greater transparency and oversight and ensures that there will be no golden parachutes for the executives whose recklessness contributed to this crisis. It also includes provisions that will assist families who are struggling to keep their homes by requiring the Federal Government to modify the terms of the mortgages it acquires.

Most importantly, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Frank, and others were able to negotiate into this package important provisions designed to protect taxpayer dollars and ensure our investment is recouped. For example, the Government will have the option to take equity in the companies that participate in the bailout and will create an insurance program for and collect premiums from those holding toxic assets. If after 5 years these provisions have not allowed the Government to recoup 100 percent of the cost of the bailout, the losses will be recaptured directly from the financial industry itself.

I do not, however, want to commit to anyone that this imperfect bill will work. It may not. Scholars of the Great Depression have told us that had the Government addressed the liquidity problem the economic collapse might have been a lot shorter or less forceful in its impact, or both. This bill may not work. But we have to try. Inaction is not an option.

I understand the anger and frustration that exists about this bailout. I pledge to my constituents that this will not be the only congressional response to this situation. This legislation creates a Congressional Oversight Panel, tasked with drafting a special report on regulatory reform that will be ready in time for the 111th Congress. Should the voters in Michigan's 15th Congressional District see fit to return me to Congress next year I will work to see that report turned into legislation that restores the regulatory structure that is supposed to protect the financial system from this kind of failure and that provides much needed assistance to the hard working men and women who are suffering because of the economic climate created by irresponsible parties on Wall Street and here in Washington.

I again want to thank the leadership of both parties in both the House and the Senate, and in particular Chairman Frank for the work that they have done to improve upon the plan sent to us by the Bush administration. I know that many of my colleagues are as skeptical of this plan as I am, and I know that for many of you it may be easier to vote against this plan than it will be to vote for it and have to explain to voters back home why we had to take this difficult step, but we must join together and pass this legislation now for the good of the country. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1492. Title I of S. 1492 is the Broadband Data Improvement Act. This Act puts the country further down the path toward universal broadband deployment, a goal we must achieve. It does so by improving the quality of data that the Federal Communications Commission collects concerning broadband deployment and adoption. It requires annual reports on the state of broadband deployment and also requires the Commission to conduct consumer surveys on broadband use, price, speed, and availability. Importantly, Title I requires a comparison of broadband deployment at home with broadband deployment abroad. Armed with this information, policy makers will be able to make more informed decisions to increase broadband penetration and drive its deployment.

Title I also directs the Secretary of Commerce to develop a grant program to help take stock of broadband availability in States. Unfortunately, Title I does not require the construction of a nationwide map depicting broadband deployment. I am hopeful that we can work toward that goal as this legislation is implemented. And while I am disappointed that Title I does not authorize funding for this crucial grant program, directing the Secretary of Commerce to establish it is a victory for American consumers.

Even though the Broadband Data Improvement Act does not include every provision from the similar bill that passed the House unanimously, it is a solid step in the right direction, and it deserves our full support.

Title II of S. 1492 is largely based on legislation authorized by Rep. Melissa Bean and aims to promote the safety of children on the Internet and protect them from online predators and cybercrimes. It directs the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, the Nation's foremost consumer protection agency, to carry out a nationwide educational campaign on the safe use of the Internet by children. This legislation will ensure that the FTC's educational efforts are both wide-ranging and inclusive of other governmental and private organizations that are dedicated to safe Internet use. It also ensures that the FTC keeps Congress apprised of its activities through submission of annual reports.

Title II also further promotes children's Internet safety by directing the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to establish a working group of government, industry, and public interest. To keep Congress informed, the Assistant Secretary must submit a report 1 year after formation of the working group to the appropriate Committees.

Finally, Title II promotes online safety education in schools. It focuses in particular on appropriate behavior in networking sites and chat rooms and awareness of cyber bullying.

I congratulate Representatives Markey, Bean, and others who worked on this fine bill. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 758, the ``Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act'', would require that insurance companies cover a stay of at least 48 hours in the hospital for women undergoing mastectomy and other procedures when the physician, in consultation with the patient, deem them to be medically necessary.

This section of the bill was largely written to parallel section 2704 of the Public Health Service Act, Standards Relating to Benefits for Mothers and Newborns, which prevents drive through deliveries. Certain superfluous and unnecessary provisions, however, were deleted from H.R. 758 as reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce on September 23, 2008, because the protections already exist in law.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act. Today, we will vote to reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act program for the next 2 years at its current level of $50 million per year rather than the $150 million per year for the next 5 years the House approved last week. I am supporting this Senate-amended version not because I believe the Great Lakes deserve substantially less money than we afforded them in the House, but because this very important clean-up program must be reauthorized before it expires next week.

The Great Lakes Legacy Act has been an incredibly successful program. In fact, the first success story from the Legacy Act is in Trenton, Michigan. Black Lagoon, as it had been named in the 1980s because of the oil and grease that had accumulated between the 1940s and the 1970s, was renamed Ellias Cove just 1 year ago after the area was remediated. Without the Great Lakes Legacy Act, the $9.3 million cleanup would not have been possible.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 6460 to reauthorize this program that will continue to clean up our national treasure. However, I look forward to a time, hopefully after the next election, when a single senator, who is not even from the Great Lakes region, cannot stand in the way of greater progress for our Great Lakes.

Mr. Speaker, I support S. 3560, the ``QI Supplemental Funding Act of 2008''. The Qualified Individuals Program (QI) is a program within Medicaid that helps low-income seniors and individuals with disabilities pay their Medicare Part B premium. The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 extended the funding for the QI program through December 2009.

Projections, however, regarding the amount of funding necessary to ensure continuation of this program through next year were incorrect. Without Congressional action to add an additional $45 million to the QI program, seniors and individuals with disabilities who have an income as low as $12,500 will be in jeopardy of losing this needed assistance.

The cost of this provision is fully offset with a provision that requires States to improve their Medicaid eligibility determinations by using the Public Assistance Reporting Information System (PARIS) interstate match. PARIS helps States share information regarding public assistance programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Food Stamps, and Medicaid, to identify individuals or families who may be receiving benefit payments in more than one State.

Similarly, S. 3560 includes a clarification to ensure that the Medicaid Integrity Program created in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, to operate as intended. The Medicaid Integrity Program performs audits and educates providers, Federal and State employees, and others on payment integrity and quality of care initiatives. The provision would allow for Federal reimbursement of state employees for these program integrity initiatives.

Finally, this package includes a provision which states that any antibiotic that was the subject of an application submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, but was not approved, can get the three-year and/or five-year ``Hatch/Waxman exclusivity'' or a patent term extension.

I urge all my colleagues in the House to vote in favor of S. 3560.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 2638, the Continuing Resolution, or CR, and to thank Chairman Obey and the Democratic leadership for putting together a continuing resolution that includes a full year of funding for our troops, veterans, and first responders, while also guaranteeing continued funding for other essential Government programs.

I am especially pleased that the CR includes a $7.5 billion appropriation to support $25 billion in direct loans to automakers to re-tool their manufacturing facilities to produce the next generation of advanced technology vehicles. The loans will help keep jobs in Michigan and other States, and create new green jobs building new, more fuel efficient vehicles. This package will help us move quickly towards vehicles that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and I have every confidence that just like the loan guarantees to Chrysler in the 1980s these loans will be repaid to taxpayers at a profit. These loans would not be in the CR were it not for the tireless work of the entire Michigan delegation, or the strong leadership of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Senate Leader Reid, Michigan Senators Levin and Stabenow and all the Democratic and Republican Leadership in the House and the Senate.

I am pleased that we have also provided a full year of funding for the Department of Defense. This package includes important increases for training, addresses National Guard and Reserve equipment shortfalls, so that our troops are sent into battle well prepared and well equipped. It also contains increases for military health care, and for programs that support military families.

In addition to providing for our troops overseas, this bill provides for our veterans once they have returned home by continuing to strengthen the Department of Veterans Affairs. The funding provided for the VA in this bill builds upon prior efforts of the 110th Congress to provide our veterans with the health care and other benefits they deserve. In the last 3 years, Congress has increased funding for veterans' health care by $11.8 billion. This year, Congress has provided $47.6 billion for the VA, which is $4.5 billion above the 2008 funding level and $2.8 billion over the President's request. These increases will be used for improvements in veterans' medical care, including mental health treatment for veterans suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. The increases will also be used to hire more claims processors, provide state-of-the-art prosthetics, and make important facility improvements.

This bill also provides critical homeland security funding to protect our country from terrorist attacks and to help respond to devastating natural disasters. The CR contains $4.2 billion in grant funding for port security and first responders, increases in funding to hire 2,200 new border patrol agents, and important new oversight provisions to ensure Department of Homeland Security is spending its money wisely and implementing the findings of the 9/11 Commission. The bill also provides $22.9 billion in emergency disaster response assistance to help the gulf coast rebuild from Hurricane Ike, help communities in the Midwest that suffered from floods, and assist those in the West that were ravaged by wildfires.

Like many of my colleagues, I had hoped that this administration would be willing to

work with Congress as we began our work on the appropriations process. Unfortunately, most other government programs are going to be temporarily funded at last year's levels until March 6, 2009, because we did not receive the kind of bipartisan cooperation required to complete work on all 13 appropriations bills. As the unemployment rate continues to rise and American families are struggling, this administration refuses to recognize that increased funding for programs such as the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, unemployment insurance and employment service operations, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, among others, is desperately needed.

Next year, Congress will have the opportunity to work with a new administration that I imagine will be more favorable to these programs, but until then I am pleased to see that some of these important programs will receive a much-needed increase. For example, this continuing resolution increases funding for student financial assistance programs by $2.5 billion, with $16.8 billion devoted exclusively to Pell grants. With the troubles in the financial markets, this funding is critical for students who rely on aid to finance their education. I strongly believe that higher education is the key to turning our economy around, especially in Michigan, and the fear of student aid being cut is a distraction our students and their families do not need. The increase in the Pell Grant Program will help those that need it the most, at a time when they need the help the most.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation will set an annual funding level of $110 million for State unemployment insurance and employment service operations at the Department of Labor. As the State with the highest unemployment rate of 8.9 percent, families in Michigan know all too well the difficulty unemployed workers are having not only in finding a new job, but also receiving the critical training or assistance they need. Since this President took office Michigan has lost over 400,000 jobs. In the last 6 months alone, Michigan has lost an average of 3,820 jobs per month. Without further funding for unemployment insurance we cannot turn this trend around. We all can agree that finding a job during an economic downturn is extremely difficult. Therefore it is critical that families have the help they need to buy their groceries, pay their mortgages, and fill their gas tank until that next employer is found. I hope that as Congress turns to the economic stimulus package we can go a step further and extend unemployment benefits for States that need it the most.

This legislation also included a critical increase for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, and the Nutrition for Women, Infants and Children, or the WIC program. Without the increase of $23.5 million for this program, 70,000 low-income women, infants, children, and elderly citizens, would risk losing access to food. With over 70,000 citizens relying on CSFP in Michigan, this increase is critical. This is also true of the WIC program which assists over 200,000 families in Michigan each year. This legislation would increase funding for this program by $1 billion, which will greatly help mothers and their children buy the groceries they need at a time when food prices continue to sky rocket. When the price of a gallon of milk is the same price as a gallon of gas, we need to ensure that our families are not forced to choose between the two.

While Michigan families are being forced to pay more for many goods and services, one of the most painful increases has come from rising energy costs. Fortunately, this legislation includes $5.1 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which is $2.5 billion more than 2008 levels and will assist 2 million additional households. LIHEAP, a critical but thinly stretched program, serves nearly 560,000 homes in Michigan. This funding will help the State of Michigan in its efforts to provide as many homes as possible with home energy assistance. The need for this funding is clear. The winter months bring with them rising utility costs, and the State of Michigan has seen an additional 30,000 LIHEAP applicants between June 2007 and June 2008. In addition, this bill provides $250 million for weatherization assistance. Around 3,000 homes in Michigan are served by projects that increase their home energy efficiency. The increased funding will allow for weatherization of approximately 100,000 homes, saving low-income families $400 in energy costs.

One thing that is not included in this bill is an extension of the decades-old moratorium on offshore drilling. This means for the next 5 months drilling is allowed up to 3 miles off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts and parts of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. The citizens of Michigan's 15th Congressional District are no strangers to high gas prices; in fact, average gas prices in Michigan are among the highest in the Nation. Despite the claims of the Bush administration and its Republican Congressional allies that drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf is some sort of panacea, allowing the moratorium to expire will have little effect on rising prices at the pump. I would remind my colleagues across the aisle that the Energy Information Administration reported in 2007 that, ``access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.'' Earlier this year, Republicans obstructed legislation that would require oil companies to start drilling on the 68 million acres of Federal oil reserves which they are warehousing or lose the ability to obtain new leases. If the Republicans were really concerned with bringing down gas prices, they would have voted for a bill that would have taken action now to increase oil production.

Fortunately, under the current plan, leasing in these off-shore areas will not begin until 2012. This most certainly means that the next President and the next Congress will steer the course of our national drilling policy. If I have anything to do with it, this policy will include a framework for leasing and development that complies with environmental laws and insists on proper direction and use of revenues gained from drilling.

This legislation provides funding for critical programs and ensures our government will continue to operate until March 6, 2009. While it is disappointing that partisanship and election year politics stopped us from completing our work on all 13 regular appropriations bills this year, I am hopeful that we will quickly finish our work next March when we have better leadership from the White House and a larger majority to work with. I once again thank Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Chairman Obey for their hard work on this important bill, and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of a second economic stimulus package. This package comes at a time when the number of unemployed continues to rise, gas and fuel prices are continuing to fluctuate, and our financial markets are in crisis.

For many months now, Congress has witnessed our economy continue on its economic downturn. I was happy to join with my colleagues to support rebate checks for 117 million American families in the first stimulus package that Congress passed at the beginning of this year. However, I believe now, as I did then, that a one-time check does little for families who have been struggling paycheck to paycheck for months. Bolder action is needed, and I think Congress is taking an important step today to help our working families and to bolster our economy.

In my home state of Michigan we have been struggling with the highest unemployment rate in the Nation, now at 8.9 percent. Since 2000 wages have fallen in Michigan at a rate of 0.5 percent per year, healthcare premiums have risen over 42 percent, and we have lost thousands of jobs. Despite all of this tragedy, Michigan's economic plight has not received much attention. I am here today to warn my colleagues that without today's stimulus package, many other States may be joining Michigan's struggles.

Today's proposal includes a number of measures that my colleagues in the Michigan delegation have been urging our House and Senate leadership to consider.

First it includes language from my colleague Congressman Jim McDermott's legislation H.R. 6867, which extends unemployment benefits by 7 weeks in all States to a total of 20 weeks and will extend these benefits by an additional 13 weeks for States with high unemployment, like Michigan. I cosponsored this legislation because Michigan workers need these extra benefits now more than ever, and I know that this will provide them with he extra time they need to get back on their feet.

Second, this economic stimulus package provides $15 billion in relief to all States and territories through a temporary increase in Federal Medicaid funding. This money will ensure States can continue to provide healthcare to their low-income populations including children, pregnant women, individuals with disabilities, and the elderly, without cutting important benefits. It will also help prepare Medicaid for the health services it may provide to the additional workers who lose their jobs, access to private health insurance, or both.

In Michigan we have witnessed firsthand how rising healthcare costs have hamstrung our manufacturers and employers. We know now that healthcare costs more than steel in a domestic automobile, and Starbucks spends more on healthcare than coffee beans. Further, as unemployment has increased, more and more families are relying on Medicaid to receive the healthcare they so desperately need. The injection of new Federal dollars through Medicaid has a measurable effect on State economies, including generating new jobs and wages. In fact, $1 million in additional Medicaid dollars creates $3.4 million in new business activity.

As an author of legislation with a similar one-time increase in FMAP, I know very well that an increase of this nature is one of the simplest, fastest, and best ways to provide stimulus to States and I applaud our leadership for including it in today's bill.

Third, this legislation includes a temporary increase in Food Stamp benefits. We know that millions of households rely on these benefits to purchase their groceries, however, when food prices have increased by 7.5 percent, Food Stamps do not stretch as far as they once did. Today's proposal will provide $2.6 billion toward increasing Food Stamp benefits, helping thousands of families put food in the pantry and dinner on the table.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your leadership on this issue and for standing up to this administration once again. I know that putting together today's legislation was no easy task. However, our families desperately need the Federal Government to help provide them with relief and reassurance that we hear and understand their struggles. I am pleased that I will be able to return home to the 15th Congressional District and tell my constituents about the $25 billion in loans to auto makers the Michigan delegation was able to secure and a second economic stimulus package that Congress was hopefully able to pass and the President signed into law. I know that these actions will not go unnoticed, and as their Federal representative it is my duty to do whatever I can to help them through this tough time. I urge my colleagues to rise in support of today's package, a ``no'' vote on this legislation or a veto by the President's pen is no way to help our families in need.

Madam Speaker, I submit two letters for the Record regarding H.R. 3232.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, September 24, 2008.

Hon. John D. Dingell,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you regarding H.R. 3232,

the Travel Promotion Act of 2007, introduced by Mr. Delahunt

on July 31, 2007, which upon introduction was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the

Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security.

H.R. 3232 was marked up and ordered reported by the

Committee on Energy and Commerce on September 23, 2008. I

recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this bill

before the House in an expeditious manner, and, accordingly,

I will waive further consideration of this bill in Committee.

However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill should

not be construed as the Committee on Homeland Security

waiving, altering, or otherwise affecting its jurisdiction

over H.R. 3232.

Further, I request your support for the appointment of

Committee on Homeland Security conferees during any House-

Senate conference convened on this or similar legislation.

Finally, I request that a copy of this letter be included in

the Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R.

3232. I look forward to working with you on this legislation

and other matters of great importance to this nation.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3232, the ``Travel Promotion Act of 2008.'' This legislation is the bipartisan product of negotiations between three committees. I commend several of my colleagues who contributed to this bill's improvement. In particular, my good friend and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Bobby Rush, deserves recognition for his efforts. I also extend my personal thanks to the chairmen and ranking members of the Committees on Homeland Security and the Judiciary, Representatives Thompson, King, Conyers, and Smith, respectively. Lastly, I offer my gratitude and congratulations to my friend from Massachusetts, Representative Delahunt, the distinguished Republican Whip, Representative Blunt, and Representative Lofgren of California.

The amendments made to H.R. 3232 by the Committee on Energy and Commerce in consultation with the other Committees have measurably strengthened the accountability standards to which the Corporation for Travel Promotion, which this bill charters, will be held. I support the goal of encouraging more foreign tourists traveling to the United States, and would urge my colleagues to adopt the ``Travel Promotion Act of 2008.''

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of an excellent and sorely needed piece of legislation, H.R. 3402, the ``Calling Card Consumer Protection Act''. This bill is intended to combat the fraud and deception that is rampant in the marketing of prepaid calling cards. Many of our consumers--especially recent immigrants, the poor, students, and members of the military and their families--are vitally dependent on these prepaid cards to keep in touch with family and friends.

This bill requires providers and distributors of these cards to make full, clear, and honest disclosures on the cards, their packaging, and advertising materials. No more hidden charges. No more cards that do not deliver the minutes they promise. The bill empowers the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the Act. Violators would be subject to injunctive and other equitable relief to stop them from cheating consumers. If a violation is ``knowing'', they would be subject to civil penalties. In this way, the bill ensures that retailers who sell these dirty cards are subject only to injunctive relief, unless it can be shown that retailers knew the cards were fraudulent. Thus, we get the fraudulent cards off the market without punishing innocent retailers.

This bill maximizes protections for consumers and maintains a clear line between the areas of expertise of two agencies--the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The bill provides the FTC with limited jurisdiction over common carriers, but is careful to preserve FCC's jurisdiction over common carriers for all other purposes. The bill also appropriately excludes prepaid wireless services as the record has not demonstrated a need for requiring such disclosures.

Once again, to promote uniform disclosures on cards bought across the United States, it provides a narrow preemption of State prepaid calling card disclosure requirements only. It preserves a strong enforcement role for State

Attorneys General and public utility commissions.

Finally, the bill mandates that the FTC conduct a rulemaking to ensure that all stakeholders--the calling card and telecommunications industry, States, and consumer groups--have a say in the final details of the uniform disclosure requirements that this legislation promotes.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3402 is thoughtful and balanced legislation that is critical to protect some of our most vulnerable consumers. This bill has strong bipartisan support. I want to commend the author of this bill, the gentleman from New York, Eliot Engel, for his fine leadership, and I urge Members to vote yes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 45, Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. As an original cosponsor of the companion legislation reported by the House Judiciary Committee and as co-chair of the Great Lakes Task Force, I am very pleased that Congress is taking this historic and much-needed step forward to enact legislation implementing a framework for overall management of our precious natural resource: the Great Lakes basin.

The Great Lakes make up 20 percent of the world's surface freshwater and 90 percent of the surface freshwater of the United States. The Basin provides its surrounding states with major economic benefits, some of which include tourism, manufacturing jobs, shipping, and clean drinking water. It also provides habitat for millions of breeding mallards, other ducks, and migratory waterfowl, and supports a diversity of species and ecosystems vital to our natural world. We in Congress, as well as state and local policymakers, have attempted to address the potential threat low water levels in the Great Lakes will have in the future on our national treasure. In 2000, the Congress directed the governors of the 8 Great Lakes States to negotiate a water management agreement. In 2005, the governors completed negotiations, which included coordination with the Canadian Premiers in Ontario and Quebec. Since then, the State Legislatures in all 8 states have agreed to the Compact, and the governors have signed the legislation. On August 4, 2008 I proudly took part as Governor Granholm signed the Compact after it was ratified by the Michigan Legislature. In the Senate, our senior Senator, Carl Levin, provided extraordinary leadership to get the bill passed through that body. Today, with the active support of members representing the Great Lakes' states, we will vote on this legislation in the House.

The Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact will mandate a general ban on new diversions of water from the Basin with limited exceptions for communities near the Basin meeting rigorous standards. All of the Great Lakes' states and their communities will have to comply with new standards and all will be subject to consistent decision-making and appeals processes. The Compact also calls on Great Lakes' states to develop regional goals and objectives for water conservation and efficiency. One of the most important aspects of the Compact, it is designed in a way that will ensure the Great Lakes Basin continues to provide a solid economic base for its surrounding states.

Mr. Speaker, as I have recently noted, the Great Lakes Basin deserves much more attention than it has gotten over the past 8 years from the Bush Administration. One of the ways we protect the Great Lakes is by providing its governing agencies with the money they need to do their job. With my support, the House passed last week the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act which, among other things, authorized $150 million a year for 5 years to clean up toxic pollutants contaminating the Lakes. Another way we will serve the best interest of the Great Lakes is by moving forward with the Great Lakes Compact and, with the help of our future President--hopefully one from Illinois who understands the importance of protecting the Great Lakes--put the Basin on a path of sustained water levels over the long-term.

Some have expressed concerns about the Great Lakes Compact, such as whether the Compact will subject Great Lakes waters to international trade agreements, what the legal and practical implications are of exempting diversions of water in containers less than 5.7 gallons, and whether the designation of water as a ``product'' would subject state actions restricting diversions to claims under the World Trade Organization. These considerations and questions were raised as states legislatures were deliberating on approval of the Compact. The acknowledged need for action now--and not some time in the future-- coupled with the reassurances of language already in the Compact prompted all 8 Great Lakes states to ratify the Compact. Today, the House must respond with the same urgency; we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleagues from the Great Lakes' delegation who have worked so hard on the Compact over the years, and urge them to join me in voting ``yes'' on S.J. Res. 45.