Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, before I call up the next speaker, I would like to point out that this bill will save 12 million kids from losing their health insurance and that it will prevent New Jersey from having a $200 billion shortfall in their SCHIP program.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I will defer to my good friend from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

I yield myself 15 seconds to point out to my dear friend from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) that it is the administration which gives waivers to cover parents and adults. The States do not have the authority to do so, and they must get the authority from the Federal Government, and it is from the Department of HHS that these kinds of waivers come, not elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), I would like to point out, in spite of what has been said by some of my Republican colleagues, this is not an entitlement bill. It does, however, protect 11 million kids.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to an extremely valuable and respected member of the Commerce Committee, my good friend from Utah (Mr. Matheson) 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to my good friend and colleague from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) and to note that he provided extraordinary leadership in the creation of a program of this type in Georgia. He is entitled to speak, I think, with real wisdom. We thank you.

Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time remains to the different Members?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I believe here we have two remaining speakers. As I understand the practices of the House, it is, of course, the right of the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction to close.

I am the only speaker other than our Speaker who wishes to speak and from whom we wish to hear. I would ask first my colleagues on the minority side how many more speakers they have.

I would ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak but that our Speaker be able to close for this side.

If the gentleman from Michigan so desires, I would defer to him and allow him to speak now, then I will have my remarks, and then the Speaker will close.

That is my unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that every Member have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the legislation now before us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes, and I yield the balance of the time to our distinguished Speaker for purposes of closing.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate. I believe the Members have become understanding of not only the situation but of the legislation before us.

I want to particularly commend the staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee: Amy Hall, Yvette Fonteno, Christie Houlihan, Heather Foster, Jessica McNiece and Bridgett Taylor, who all did a superb job on behalf of the Congress.

I also want to thank Cybele Bjorklund, Deb Mizeur, Jennifer Friedman, Chad Shearer, Brian Biles, Bobby Clark, Debbie Curtis, Ed Grossman and Jessica Shapiro from the Ways and Means Committee staff. Their really valuable contribution did much to make this possible.

I want to commend my colleagues on the minority side, Mr. Camp and Mr. McCrery and Mr. Barton, and my special friend, Mr. Stark, and the distinguished Chairman Rangel for the superb job they have done. I also thank the subcommittee chairman in the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Pallone, for his outstanding job.

The legislation before us is really very simple. The issues before us are not procedure. Rather, they are: Are we going to take care of our kids?

For this Congress, this is perhaps the greatest opportunity we will have. We have three responsibilities to the country and to our kids: See that they are properly nourished, see that they are properly educated, and see to it that they have the health that they need so they can be meaningful contributors to the future of this country. It is not only a humanitarian and compassionate concern of this country, it is the future of the country.

I know the President has indicated that he thinks that this is bad legislation. I grieve that he has come to that conclusion. He has no reason to do so.

First of all, we have the pay-fors. We have taken care of the cost of this. We are seeing to it that, first of all, a modest tax on tobacco comes into play.

Second, we are seeing to it that HMOs that are getting as much as 30 percent more than other HMOs are going to get 100 percent of what other HMOs get, no more, no less. We are not taking anything away from senior citizens. I think we are just taking it out of the pocket of a few people who have too much in the HMO business.

Having said that, let's look to see who supports this legislation. I think that tells us as much or more as anything we can get. The NAACP, the AMA, the different health organizations, the hospital associations, the National Rural Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the March of Dimes, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Governor's Association whose meeting I attended last weekend in Traverse City where a major concern was how are we going to provide them the means that they desperately need to provide for the health care for the children under CHIP? That was on the lips, the mind, and in the heart of every one of the governors who spoke there.

I would observe that the Catholic Health Association also speaks to this because they have a concern that this is the best way we can take care of the children and we can see to it that we give a decent right to life to every American.

I would offer to my colleagues, any or all of them, a list of those who do, the organizations who are supportive of this legislation; and I point out that you will find almost every organization that cares about kids or health or the well-being of our young people as supporters of this bill, including the great American labor organizations, the AFL- CIO and the UAW. That should speak clearly to us of the needs.

I would point out that there are a number of misunderstandings that have been stated here. It has been said this is going to raise costs and it is going to raise the amount that is paid to individual recipients. Not so. This is a program which is going to be governed by the costs which were fixed when the legislation was first offered and first introduced and first put into law under the leadership of, for example, Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. So it is not fiscally irresponsible.

The legislation is going to do something else. It is not going to take care of illegals, nor is it going to engage in any weird practices. If there are waivers given, and they can be given, they will be given in the same fashion as they were given before, and that is by this administration saying this is something that is justified, justifiable and proper and which will help kids. I will note that they have not been overly generous in giving those particular waivers.

So what we have a chance to do today, Mr. Speaker, and my friends and colleagues, is to take care of the kids, to support those who are least able to look to their own well-being and who are most defenseless and to suit them best for a healthy, growing adult life so they may contribute to a better, richer, stronger and safer America.

We are doing something else. We are seeing to it that we are compassionate, and we may best be judged by that because, in doing that, we are best looked at by being those who really care for those who have the least.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the CHAMP legislation. It is good. It is in the public interest.

I now yield to the distinguished Speaker. Madam Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order. After the motion is read, I will know whether to insist on the point of order or not.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise with considerable regret, and I want to speak with affection and respect for my good friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Barton), the senior member of the Republicans on the Committee on Energy and Commerce. He complained about the process in the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I would like the House and this committee to know that he was afforded, first of all, every bit of notice that is required by the rules of the House, that the proceedings which were conducted in that committee were conducted in an eminently fair and proper way in full accord with the rules and the proprieties of the House.

I would also like him to know that I am sure he can recall that we sought his counsel as to how it was we could put something together which, in fact, would give him a process which would enable us to address the problem of SCHIP.

I would like to remind him and this committee that SCHIP is going to expire on the 30th of September. That is an important date because at which time we are going to find that all of

the kids, 6 million of them, who have coverage under SCHIP will lose that coverage if something is not done by the Congress of the United States. It is our purpose, given the fact that there will be a recess in this body during the month of August, to see to it that we have this measure ready for the floor in time that the business can be dealt with and that we can handle the matter in a way which will take care of these kids.

The legislation was made available to my good friend and to my Republican colleagues on the committee as soon as it could be done after the necessary discussions were held to try to frame a proper piece of legislation and to address something that responsibility of a fiscal and financial character requires, and that is to deal with the pay-fors and how we will pay for the cost of this program. We have done so, and we have arranged that the payments will be a little different than the Senate bill, but they will be sensible.

First of all, we will require that the Medicare Advantage plans pay their fair share but that they are not overpaid for the services which they are providing. Some of the less fortunate are getting 11 percent more than they are entitled to, some of the more fortunate are getting 19 percent more than they are entitled to, and some of the most fortunate are getting 30 percent more than they are entitled to. It seemed like good sense to put them in a position where they could compete honestly with the other Medicare providers, and that is what we have done. We also have a modest increase in the tobacco tax.

These are all issues which will be considered; and we offered my good friend and my Republican colleagues a chance to amend, debate, and to discuss this legislation.

I would note for the benefit of my good friend from Texas that the rules do not require hearings and that on a number of occasions on important legislation in prior Congresses during his chairmanship and that of others of my very dear friends on the Republican side, the situation was conducted in a way in which there were no hearings and which legislation was brought directly to the committee and shot to the House floor in considerable haste. We protested this, but I have to say that, given the exigencies of the situation, the needs and the circumstances and the fact that the kids are very liable to lose their health care benefits and their insurance under SCHIP, we saw fit to bring the matter up.

The House will, I hope and I think and I am informed, have this measure before us in the next little bit. We will do so with a full opportunity of everybody to debate it, to discuss where the money is coming from, what the benefits will be, and whether or not the legislation should be passed.

It is my personal feeling that we have a chance here to not only save some 6 million kids who would lose all benefits, but under the legislation which has come out of the Ways and Means Committee and which was considered in the Committee on Energy and Commerce to cover not 6 million but 11 million kids that desperately need this, which will be important.

I conclude with an expression of affection for my friend and colleague from Texas.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I certainly am happy to do that with my dear friend, and I express again my respect and affection for the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend Chairman Peterson and the members of the Agriculture Committee for completing the difficult task of bringing this bill to the floor in a bipartisan fashion.

I supported the 2002 farm bill, which has served Michigan farmers well. The agricultural sector in this country is strong, and it is a good time to take a look at our farm support system and figure out how we can make it better for small farmers and specialty crop farmers.

We must recognize that farming is an inherently risky enterprise; producers are exposed to both production and price risks. Therefore, it is incumbent upon our government to be there for farmers when markets fail. We cannot afford to turn our back on America's farmers and our farm policy should be structured so that those who produce the safest and most abundant food supply in the world have an adequate safety net. We should also promote research to find new uses for the agricultural products grown in our fields and to promote these products in the global marketplace. However, it is not our responsibility to give cash payouts to millionaires, dead farmers or suburbanites who have no involvement in farming but just happened to purchase a house located on farmland.

In 2005, 92 percent of the total farm payments last year went to just five crops. Michigan has the second-most diverse agriculture base in the Nation and I am glad to see that for the first time, the farm legislation before us today guarantees a historic $1.5 billion in funding for fruit and vegetable programs, including the school fresh fruit and vegetable program, the farmer's market promotion program, specialty crop block grants and research and organic food programs--all of which provide valuable support for the fresh fruit and vegetable growers in Michigan.

The legislation before us today strengthens incentives for farmers to conserve valuable natural resources and protect the environment. Currently, three out of four farmers are turned away from conservation programs due to lack of funding. It is unacceptable for farmers who are trying to do the right thing for the environment to be rejected because we have not allocated enough resources to help them. H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, adds $4.3 billion more to preserve farm and ranchland, improve water quality and quantity, and enhance soil conservation, air quality, and wildlife habitat on working lands.

I support the Fairness amendment offered by my colleague Ron Kind not because I am dissatisfied with H.R. 2419 but because I believe that it goes one step farther towards curbing taxpayer subsidies by reforming our farm payment system to direct aid to those who need assistance. Make no mistake, the Fairness amendment does not dismantle the

safety net--it just modernizes the program so that it works better for family farms and 348 Congressional Districts, including Michigan's 15th District, which would gain $6 million under the Kind proposal.

The Fairness amendment does not weaken any of the commendable nutrition or conservation provisions in H.R. 2419--rather, it makes them better by adding $2 billion for nutrition programs and $3 billion for conservation programs. Moreover, it does all of this without requiring spending offsets or new taxes.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2419 contains no legislative text expressing a view on whether manure should be deemed a hazardous substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, CERCLA, or the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, EPCRA. The absence of any such text is proper both for parliamentary and policy reasons.

The report that accompanies this legislation, however, references a ``sense of the committee'' amendment that farm animal manure should not be deemed a hazardous substance pursuant to CERCLA and EPCRA.

I strongly disagree with these sentiments, which would create a blanket exemption from important environmental laws for those large concentrated animal feeding operations that pollute public drinking water supplies with phosphorous and emit more than 100 pounds per day of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide into the air.

Manure is not at risk of being deemed a ``hazardous substance'' or ``hazardous waste.'' That is misinformation put forth by some. Phosphorous, however, is a ``hazardous substance'' under CERCLA and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has determined that both ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are ``extremely hazardous substances'' for the ``reportable quantity'' reporting requirements of EPCRA.

Congress clearly intended that the Superfund program deal with the improper and excessive application of fertilizer that pollutes drinking water supplies or damages natural resources. This is manifestly clear because Section 101 (22) of the Superfund statute creates an exemption from the definition of release for ``the normal application of fertilizer.'' If substances such as phosphorous that emanate from the excessive application of manure fertilizer are exempted, the only people being protected are the bad actors.

These large concentrated animal feeding operations produce huge amounts of animal waste. For example, an animal feeding operation with 2 million hogs produces a volume of manure equal to the solid waste stream of a U.S. city of about 2.7 million--a city similar in size to Chicago's 2.8 million population.

The Environmental Protection Agency has found that large-scale concentrated animal feeding operations present significant human health and environmental risks. Let me quote EPA's findings:

``Significant human health and environmental risks are generally associated with large-scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, CAFOs. Improper handling of manure from feedlots, lagoons and improper land application can result in excessive nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous); pathogens (i.e., fecal coli form); and other pollutants in the water. This pollution can kill fish, cause excessive algae growth, and contaminate drinking water. In addition, emissions of air pollutants from very large CAFOs may result in significant health effects for nearby residents.''

A blanket exemption from CERCLA for excessive application of manure fertilizer would also shift the costs onto community water systems and their ratepayers for additional treatment to make water potable. I attach the July 23, 2007, letter from the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies that highlights the serious consequences that any such an exemption would have for the quality our Nation's drinking water supplies.

Mr. Chairman, the Farm Bill Extension Act also makes changes to the Rural Utilities Service broadband loan and loan guarantee program. While this program is in dire need of reform, I am concerned about several provisions in the measure as drafted.

The measure wisely limits loans and loan guarantees in areas where consumers already have broadband service available to them. I am deeply concerned, however, that it describes those areas where broadband is available too broadly, so that applications to provide broadband to large areas of a community that currently have no broadband service at all would be denied.

The bill also prohibits support in areas where more than 75 percent of households have access to broadband. National satellite broadband providers can in theory reach close to 100 percent of households. However, while satellite-delivered broadband is a rapidly-improving and valuable service, particularly in remote areas, today it is often not comparable to terrestrially-delivered broadband. It typically cannot reach the same speeds and is more expensive and subject to outages in heavy rainstorms and other severe weather. While I appreciate the bill's commitment to technological neutrality, if satellite-delivered broadband is not excluded from the 75-percent requirement, there may be few areas that would be eligible for loans.

When it comes to broadband service, speed is critical, and the measure could also be improved by giving priority to applications that, other things being equal, propose to offer higher broadband speeds to consumers.

I also strongly disagree with creating within the Department of Agriculture a National Center for Rural Telecommunications Assessment to increase broadband penetration and develop assessments of broadband availability in rural areas. These are matters that fall squarely within the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and should be left to that agency's expertise. Likewise, any report describing a comprehensive rural broadband strategy should be developed by the FCC rather than by the Department of Agriculture. I applaud the goal of working toward universal broadband availability and urge my colleagues to ensure that we attain that goal by allowing the FCC, the agency with the most expertise, to spearhead that effort.

Association of

Metropolitan Water Agencies,

Washington, DC, July 23, 2007.

Subject: Oppose CERCLA Animal Waste Exemption in Farm Bill.

Dear Representatives: As the House of Representatives

prepares this week to consider legislation to reauthorize the

Farm Bill, we urge you to reject language that would exempt

components of animal waste from designation as a hazardous

substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Enactment

of such an exemption would bring about serious consequences

for the quality of America's drinking water supplies.

During last week's markup of the legislation, the

Agriculture Committee adopted an amendment expressing the

``sense of the committee that farm animal manure should not

be considered as hazardous substance'' under CERCLA. This

follows the introduction earlier this year of legislation in

the House and Senate that would specifically exempt animal

waste and its components from the law.

As representatives of community drinking water systems, we

believe it is important to note that animal manure itself is

not currently considered a hazardous substance, pollutant or

contaminant under CERCLA. Moreover, the law already contains

an exemption for the normal application of fertilizer that

includes manure.

However, phosphorus and other CERCLA-regulated hazardous

substances that are known to compromise the quality of

drinking water are commonly present in animal manure. If

Congress were to provide a blanket CERCLA exemption for

animal waste, consolidated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)

would be free to discharge manure containing such hazardous

substances into the environment without regard to its impact

or liability for its damages. As a result, the costs of

additional treatment to make water potable would be forced

upon community water systems and their ratepayers, unfairly

shifting the burden of cleanup away from polluters.

Later this year, Congress will celebrate the 35th

anniversary ofthe Clean Water Act, landmark legislation

modeled on the belief that all Americans must share the

responsibility of maintaining the health of our nation's

water supply. Exempting CAFOs from their fair share of this

duty not only threatens to reverse the water quality gains

that have been realized over the recent decades, but would

also set a dangerous precedent encouraging other polluters to

seek waivers from our environmental laws.

Again, we urge you to oppose a blanket exemption for animal

waste and its components from the important requirements of

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, the 9/11 Commission made a series of recommendations to Congress and the administration designed to ensure the safety of Americans while protecting the liberties that form the core of our democracy. This important legislation addresses issues that reach across all aspects of the lives of Americans.

The 9/11 Commission recommended that Congress ensure that first responders be able to communicate with each other across jurisdictions--firefighters with police officers, emergency medical professionals with State officials, local with State and Federal personnel. Title III, Ensuring Communications Interoperability for First Responders, establishes a grant program designed to achieve this important goal. As structured in this legislation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant program will complement the interoperability program already underway at the Department of Commerce.

Under statute, DHS's expert on all matters relating to emergency communications is the Director of Emergency Communications. Title III of this Conference Report recognizes this statutory directive by ensuring that the Director of Emergency Communications will design and implement the grant programs' policies and guidelines. The Director will be in charge of ensuring that grant program funds are used to establish a forward-looking, nationwide, interoperable system to ensure the safety and efficient functioning of all of our first responders as they respond to natural disasters and other calamities. The Committee on Energy and Commerce looks forward to overseeing this program and receiving continual updates from the Director on the progress of DHS towards achieving nationwide interoperability through this program.

I am also especially pleased that the legislation ensures that the overwhelming majority of the interoperability grant funds will be passed through to localities, because it is at the local level that our first responders are working to ensure our safety and well-being. Importantly, the legislation ties the grant funds to the implementation of statewide plans and a national plan that will act as a road map towards statewide and national interoperability. As we have learned, natural disasters and incidents do not recognize international borders. To help our first responders address trans-border incidents, Title III also establishes border interoperability pilot projects to help us ensure that our first responders are able to communicate with our neighbors to the north and south.

Title IV addresses credentialing workers involved in ensuring America's safety. The Conference Report states that the DHS shall consult with the Secretary of Health and Human Services when developing credentialing standards for healthcare personnel. It is imperative that the Secretary of Health and Human Services not only be involved but also have a leadership role in developing standards for credentialing of healthcare professionals. Failing to utilize the public health expertise of the Department of Health and Human Services to its fullest extent could jeopardize efficient care and support for Americans who have been exposed to a terrorist attack or natural disaster. I look forward to working with Chairman Thompson to ensure that the required consultation is to the degree and of the depth merited by the importance of the public health of all of America's people.

I want to thank the gentleman for some important clarifications that have been added to Title IX of the bill, which addresses voluntary national private sector preparedness standards. When we voted on this bill in January, I noted that Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act establishes a mandatory regulatory program regarding the accidental releases of hazardous chemicals. As part of that program, the owner or operator of a covered facility must prepare and implement a risk management plan to detect and prevent or minimize accidental releases and to provide a prompt emergency response to any such releases. I asked for clarification at that time that the bill's voluntary program was not intended to interfere with this mandatory Clean Air Act program. The conference report before us today provides that clarification. Rules of Construction, as well as requirements for consideration and coordination with other Federal agencies' preparedness programs or standards, have been included in the two new sections of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that address private sector preparedness. These provisions clarify that the private sector must continue to meet the Clean Air Act Section 112(r) requirements, and that the voluntary preparedness standards are not intended to supersede or interfere with the mandatory Clean Air Act program.

Another important area of concern addressed by this legislation is cargo screening. One of the major security vulnerabilities facing this Nation is the threat from the detonation of a nuclear device smuggled into a port through a cargo container loaded on a ship. It is a nightmare we must prevent. Section 1701 establishes a 5-year goal of 100 percent screening for radiological devices or material in cargo containers leaving foreign ports before they ever enter the waters of the United States. This is a worthy priority, and to ensure adequate flexibility, the DHS Secretary is given authority for 2-year waivers should there be major impediments to its implementation.

Section 1701 also authorizes the DHS Secretary to ``establish technological and operational standards for systems to scan containers; to ensure that the standards are consistent with the global nuclear detection architecture developed under the Homeland Security Act of 2002; and to coordinate with other Federal agencies that administer scanning or detection programs.''

The need for coordination between agencies is essential, particularly given the advanced work carried out by the Department of Energy (DOE) in setting up radiation portal monitors at ports, airports, and rail stations around the world. The DOE's ``Megaports'' program provides radiation detection equipment to key international seaports to screen cargo containers for radioactive materials, including Greece, Bahamas, Sri Lanka, Spain, Singapore, and the Netherlands. Approximately 70 ports worldwide are targeted for implementation, and installation efforts are underway at ports within Belgium, China, Dubai, Honduras, Israel, Oman, the Philippines, Thailand, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, and Taiwan. Additionally, the Megaports program is teaming with the ``Container Security Initiative'' to implement the ``Secure Freight Initiative'' pilot program at ports in the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Honduras. The DOE's ``Second Line of Defense'' program installs radiation detection equipment at borders, airports, and feeder ports in Russia, former Soviet Union states, and other key countries. Approximately 350 sites have been identified to receive detection equipment installations.

Even though this legislation authorizes the DHS Secretary to set minimum container scanning technology standards, the Conference Report properly notes that DOE has inherent capabilities to assess, through its cooperative agreements with numerous countries and port authorities, the adequacy of technical and operating procedures for cargo container scanning.

To ensure the smooth continuation of DOE's cooperative relationships with numerous countries and the further expansion of the Megaports program, the Conference Report makes clear that these two agencies shall closely coordinate their activities, and requires that DHS shall consult with DOE prior to the establishment of technological or operational standards that would affect screening activities in foreign ports. As part of the coordination requirement in this section, the Conference Report directs that where the scanning technology standards affect the DOE's Megaports and SLD programs, the Secretary shall invite the DOE to participate in the development and final review of such standards, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall seek the concurrence of the Secretary of Energy. Should differences arise, I would expect that DOE and DHS would notify the relevant committees of jurisdiction in Congress. The American people are counting on the agencies carrying out cargo screening at our ports and borders to ensure that there are technically sound decisions in setting standards and selecting equipment, and that there is seamless coordination between agencies with responsibility and expertise.

Title XXII makes an important modification to the Department of Commerce's interoperability grant program by including strategic technology reserves as eligible for funding. This modification recognizes the importance of a resilient and redundant network of emergency communications. In Title XXII, Congress also recognizes the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with regard to the Nation's communications and information infrastructure and directs the FCC to conduct a vulnerability assessment. This title also establishes a joint committee and a pilot project to improve communications for emergency medical and public healthcare committee. Title XXII also requires an important report on the progress of the re- banding efforts in the 800 megahertz band. As such, this title recognizes Congress's clear intent that this process proceed as expeditiously as possible so that our first responders in border areas may effectively utilize the spectrum to which they are moving. I also support the changes in Title XXIII because I believe that it will enhance and expedite the ability of our Nation's 911 centers to be able to automatically locate callers whether they are using traditional land line or mobile phones.

I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to work with me, the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and our staff as we have used our expertise to improve the legislation in this Conference Report.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate Stephanie Hunt of Pittsfield Township, Michigan. Mrs. Hunt was recently crowned Mrs. United States 2007.

Though winning the title of Mrs. United States is an intrinsically praiseworthy event, Mrs. Hunt's coronation is especially significant for two reasons. Not only is she the first woman from Michigan to win in the pageant's 2l-year history, but she is also the first African American to ever win the title. It is for these reasons that I want to call attention to this woman's remarkable accomplishments.

As a spokesperson for and executive committee member of the National Organization for Rare Diseases, Mrs. Hunt has been a tireless advocate for patients suffering from rare diseases. She is especially interested in raising awareness of Rubenstein-Taybi syndrome, a rare developmental disorder that afflicts her four-year-old son, Donnie. Winning the title of Mrs. United States has given Mrs. Hunt the opportunity to bring this and other diseases to national prominence.

Madam Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in commending Mrs. Hunt not only for winning Mrs. United States, but also for her advocacy on behalf of the 25 million Americans suffering from rare disorders. She serves as a role model for married women across the nation, ``encouraging them to strive for their dreams throughout each season of life.''

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution before us. Recently, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management granted BP's Whiting refinery in Indiana broad exceptions under the Clean Water Act. These exemptions will allow BP to increase the amount of discharge of ammonia by 54 percent and its discharge of total suspended solids by 35 percent. This means that an additional 1,584 pounds of ammonia and 4,925 pounds of total suspended solids could be dumped into Lake Michigan.

This is simply unacceptable and I thank my colleagues from Illinois and Michigan for bringing the resolution to the floor with the utmost speed. I am dismayed, Madam Speaker. Dismayed that the State of Indiana issued the permits and further dismayed EPA allowed the State to do so.

Algae blooms, Madam Speaker, are serious business. Algae blooms, which can be caused by ammonia and total suspended solids, overtake native ecosystems by taking nutrients away from the surrounding plant life and also feed harmful bacteria which remove oxygen, killing aquatic life. This leads to poor water quality and beach closings. Instead of taking action to increase algae blooms, we should be taking action to decease them.

According to BP, the company intends to install a diffuser to create a ``mixing zone''--mixing zones are areas where clean water gets mixed with polluted water to further dilute the concentration of pollutants. In 2000, EPA instituted a rule requiring the elimination of existing mixing zones for persistent and bioaccumulative pollution in all the Great Lakes States. The rule required the phase-out of current mixing zones by 2010 and does not allow any new zones to be created. The expansion of the BP facility is not scheduled to be finished until 2011. The exemptions essentially roll back the clock for sound environmental policy.

Madam Speaker, those of us from the region have a unique appreciation for the Great Lakes, as we are quite literally surrounded by them. The lakes are a blessing to us. We owe our tourism industry to the Great Lakes--where people come from around the country to recreate, hunt, fish and relax. The lakes as a transportation system provided Michigan and the surrounding States with the means to turn our region into a manufacturing powerhouse.

At a time when Congress is finally taking a long-overdue look into a broad restoration and conservation plan for the Great Lakes, the State of Indiana is allowing more pollution into the lakes. And EPA--the lead Agency in Great Lakes Regional Collaboration--is allowing it. This, Madam Speaker, is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. Instead, restoring and protecting the Great Lakes must be a priority.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the resolution and again thank my friends, the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Michigan, for bringing it up.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2798, the ``Overseas Private Investment Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2007''. Since its establishment in 1971, OPIC has offered investment financing and political risk insurance to American businesses and lenders, which are willing to direct private capital to developing countries.

While OPIC has proven to be a valuable tool for U.S. foreign and commercial policy, it is in need of some improvement. I am pleased that H.R. 2798 establishes requirements that projects be approved only in countries that are making progress toward adopting international labor and environmental standards. H.R. 2798 also embraces the necessity of promoting peace and stability in the international system by prohibiting OPIC from participating in projects in countries that are sponsors of terrorism, possess or have programs to develop nuclear weapons, or commit genocide.

I would object, however, to one provision in this bill. H.R. 2798 requires OPIC to implement a climate change mitigation action plan, which would include increased support for projects that use and develop clean energy technologies. The bill further stipulates that OPIC submit a report on this plan, as well as annual environmental impact assessments of the projects that it supports, to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. I respectfully suggest that these reports also be submitted to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, not only because of the committee's jurisdiction and expertise in policy matters related to energy and foreign commerce, but also because this would augment Congressional oversight of OPIC in order to ensure that its plans for environmentally responsible development receive careful and thorough consideration. It is my sincere hope that the Committee on Foreign Affairs will work with the Committee on Energy and Commerce to address this concern when H.R. 2798 is considered again during conference.

I would urge that the House approve H.R. 2798 and thank my colleagues on the Committee on Foreign Affairs for their work on this bill.

Madam Chairman, I have always said that the working men and women of Michigan are my top priority. I believe that every working family deserves access to a quality education, strong healthcare, jobs that are safe for its workers and secure retirement plans. Today the House will consider the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill, H.R. 3043, which will fund programs families need and rely on. I rise in support of this legislation because I believe it will provide our families with healthy and secure environment in which to raise their children.

By 2014, nearly half of nation's growing occupations will require higher education. If we want to help families succeed and help children prepare for work in the global marketplace, then we must help them earn a college degree. H.R. 3043 will provide the Department of Education with $61.7 billion, which is $4.2 billion or 7.4 percent above 2007 funding. In addition, this legislation will provide $2 billion, a 14.6 percent increase above 2007, in funding for Pell Grants to raise the maximum Pell grant by $390 to $4,700, benefiting over 5.5 million students.

This legislation will also help prepare our students for college by providing $2 billion for No Child Left Behind, an 8.4 percent increase above 2007. Specifically, $1.9 billion will go towards Title I grants, which benefit nearly 55,000 disadvantaged students in preschool, elementary and secondary levels. This funding will also provide reading and math instruction for 161,000 low-income students. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grants will receive $174.5 million, ending the previous Congress's habit of declining Federal contributions for special education.

We also must focus on preparing workers, many of whom who have been displaced due to layoffs or company closings, for second career opportunities. H.R. 3043 will increase funding for the Department of Labor, including a $227.4 million increase for employment, training and worker protection programs. This funding will greatly help our great state of Michigan because $1.2 billion will be used to provide state grants that training and supportive services, such as rapid-response assistance to help workers affected by mass layoffs and plant closures.

H.R. 3043 will also provide for the health and well-being of our families. Currently over 44 million Americans do not have health insurance; by 2013, the number of uninsured Americans will grow by 11 million. Universal health care has always been one of my top priorities, and I believe this legislation reflects a strong commitment to improving health care in our country.

Democrats took the first step towards helping the uninsured by passing a $207 million increase in funding for community health centers in the FY2007 Continuing Resolution, benefiting an additional 1.2 million people. The legislation before us today will provide an additional $200 million for community health centers. This bill also includes $50 million to assist states in providing affordable insurance for almost 200,000 people who are considered medically high risk and are not able to obtain health insurance in the commercial market. Lastly, H.R. 3043 will provide $45 million for health insurance counseling to assist 45 million Medicare beneficiaries to understand and fully utilize the benefits to which they are entitled.

This legislation will go farther than just providing health care to the uninsured; it will also provide much needed funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and emergency responders who served during 9/11. While the administration proposed reducing funding for the Federal government's public health activities by $159 million, this bill will provide a $255 million increase for a total of $6.5 billion. This funding will be dedicated to programs that focus on childhood immunization, state and local public health emergency

preparedness, and efforts to combat chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease and emerging infectious diseases. In the aftermath of 9/11, many first responders were exposed to dust and other harmful debris at the World Trade Center site. H.R. 3043 provides $50 million to improve the health monitoring and treatment of the World Trade Center emergency responders. It will also require that the Administration develop a comprehensive plan for how they will address the current health needs of these first responders.

The Labor-HHS Appropriations bill will also help families keep warm. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) has helped over 500,000 families in Michigan heat their homes during Michigan's tough winters. This year it will see a critical increase of $500 million, 23.2 percent above 2008, to provide energy assistance to nearly 1 million more low-income seniors and families. The Community Services Block Grant, which provides funding to States to expand services such as housing, home weatherization, parenting education, adult literacy classes, and emergency food assistance will see a $30 million increase to $660 million. In order to help improve processing time for Social Security disability claims and hearings, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will receive $9.7 billion, $401 million above 2007. Over the years, disability claims and hearings have increased, creating a backlog in casework. This funding will help to reduce the backlog and allow the SSA to continue providing monthly cash benefits to nearly 55 million Americans each year.

Our Founding Fathers trusted Congress with the task of funding the Federal government through the annual appropriations process. While this process is never easy, it is one of the most important duties we have to the American people. Not only has President Bush threatened to veto this legislation, but he also proposed cutting funding for these programs $7.6 billion below last year. This bill invests in families and their health, the workforce and their job training, and students and their education. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and show the American people Congress is dedicated to improving their quality of life.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, at what page and what section is the amendment offered by my good friend from California?

I thank the Chair.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, the amendment is simple. It's about protecting Social Security. It is about the fox guarding the hen roost. The fox is the new appointee who has been made Deputy Commissioner of Social Security, but who is unconfirmed by the United States Senate. The hen roost is Social Security and the care and concern of millions of Americans, retirees, orphans, widows, persons who are disabled. What we want to do is to see to it that those people who are in charge of Social Security and guard Social Security are friends to the system and not enemies.

Social Security is one of the most extraordinary devices in the history of this country. It is one of the cheapest and the best ways of collecting money, and one of the fairest and the best ways of disbursing it and seeing to it that our senior citizens are protected by their government and that their pensions and that their retirement is made dignified and worthwhile.

The President appointed a fellow by the name of Biggs by a recess appointment, and he was made Deputy Commissioner of Social Security. His name is Andrew Biggs. He has had his appointment opposed by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the chairman said this, ``because his support for the failed idea of privatization would reopen a settled debate about the future of Social Security reform.''

The amendment simply says no money may be spent on his salary until he has been confirmed; a simple, sensible, decent and proper protection for our retirees.

Mr. Biggs has written dozens of articles in favor of privatization. He has compared Social Security to Enron and claimed that it was on the verge of imminent bankruptcy. He has argued that private accounts are the only solution to fund Social Security over the long term.

He has worked to promote the agenda of privatization of Social Security time after time. Listen to some of the words

which he has said: ``Social Security reform featuring personal retirement accounts doesn't send just one liberal sacred cow to the slaughterhouse; it sends the whole herd.'' This was a 1999 paper made by Mr. Andrew Biggs in which his thesis is that the dismantling of Social Security would lead to the dismantlement of all New Deal era programs.

What we are doing by adopting this amendment is putting Mr. Biggs before the Senate Finance Committee for hearings to inquire, is he in favor of Social Security? Does he want to privatize it? Does he want to abolish it?

This amendment will protect Social Security. It will protect retirees. It will see to it that we do not have the fox guarding the hen roost. It will see to it that the hopes and the dreams and the expectations of our senior citizens and those who look forward to Social Security as protection in their retirement years can be assured that there will be a protection for them and that their Social Security benefits will be there when they retire. It also is to assure that within the structure of Social Security there would not be an avowed and announced enemy of Social Security, of the program which protects our senior citizens.

This is a fight which has been before the Congress many times. It's been before the Senate. It has been before the House. The American people have made it plain; they want Social Security protected. They have made it equally plain that they don't want people in charge of Social Security who want to destroy the program or who want to send it, as he has said, to the slaughterhouse.

I think that this is an amendment which you can safely vote for, secure in the knowledge that you are protecting the concerns of your Social Security recipients and of others who believe that Social Security is one of the great and wonderful programs in the history of this country. And you can, in so doing, see to it that this individual is inquired of properly of his attitude with regard to Social Security, and that we can address the question of how Social Security should be protected. Certainly not by the insertion into the structure of the organization which runs it by a man who has consistently displayed hostility to it.

I urge the adoption of the amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. In so doing, you are voting to remove an enemy from Social Security from a responsible position where he can do a great hurt. And you are assuring that you are protecting Social Security for our constituents, for our people, and for our Social Security retirees.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend Jerry Fitzgerald, on the occasion of his retirement from Oakwood Healthcare System after 41 dignified years of service.

A Native Detroiter, Jerry received a Bachelor of Science Degree from the University of Detroit and went on to attain a Master's Degree in Hospital Administration from the University of Michigan. He is also an American College of Healthcare Executives, ACHE, Fellow, as well as an adjunct instructor for the University of Michigan's Program in Health Care Administration.

Jerry began his work at Oakwood Hospital & Medical Center as the Assistant Director in 1966. In 1980, he was named the President and CEO and held that position until his sage leadership led to the successful union with the People's Community Hospital Authority to form the doubly large Oakwood Healthcare System. The new system immediately established itself as the premier healthcare provider in southeastern and western Wayne County. Under Jerry's guidance Oakwood has earned the reputation as one of the top 100 cardiac hospitals in the Nation for 7 out of the past 8 years, serving over one million residents.

Jerry's vision for exceptional service and excellent healthcare has fueled a myriad of initiatives and improvements, all of which have established Oakwood's outstanding status. His vision and efforts have been met with extensive gratitude and support from the community, as he is the recipient of the American College of Healthcare Executives Senior Healthcare Leadership Regent's Award, the Sy Gottlieb Award from the Greater Detroit Area Health Council, the Universal Partnership Award from the American Arab Chamber of Commerce and the Lawrence A. Hill Award of Excellence from the University of Michigan.

Although this marks the closing of one chapter in Jerry's career, it does not signal the end of Jerry's commitment to the community, as he currently serves as the chairman of the Michigan Health & Hospital Association, MHA, Board of Trustees and is actively involved in American Hospital Association. He holds several board membership positions throughout the Greater Detroit Area including the Detroit Regional Chamber, the Detroit Economic Club, the Dearborn Community Fund Board, the Downriver Community Advisory Board, Michigan Colleges Foundation Board of Trustees, the University of Detroit Mercy College of Health Professions Advisory, and the Detroit Sacred Heart Major Seminary Foundation.

Jerry's years of service have been essential in shaping the healthcare system of the Greater Detroit Area and southeast Michigan. I ask that my colleagues rise and join me in wishing Jerry all the best in a happy, long and active retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I have always believed students must have the opportunity to earn degrees based on their academic accomplishments rather than on their economic situation. Today's economy demands a highly educated work force, which is why Congress must ensure we are providing educational access to every qualified student that wants to attend college. H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, will do just that by making the single largest investment in college financial aid since the 1944 GI Bill.

I have heard from many of my constituents that the daunting costs of a college education are preventing them from achieving a college degree. They are not alone. Nearly 200,000 students are holding off on going to college or forgoing college completely because they can't afford it. In the last 5 years tuition at 4-year public colleges has grown by 35 percent, forcing both students and their families to take on increasing amounts of debt to pay for college. At a time when Michigan's economy and workforce is struggling, a college education should not be a luxury that is unreachable for middle-class families.

When the Democrats took the majority this year, we committed to making college more affordable and accessible. H.R. 2669 will do this by cutting the interest rate from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over the next 5 years. Each year 6.8 million students take out need-based loans and accrue thousands of dollars of debt while completing their college degree. This legislation will cut in half the interest rates on their loans, saving the average student--with $13,800 in need-based student loan debt--$4,400 over the life of the loan.

H.R. 2669 will also increase the maximum value of the Pell Grant scholarship by $500 over the next 5 years, ultimately reaching a maximum scholarship level of $5,200. As the Federal Government's single largest source of grant aid for college students, this proposed increase will directly benefit over 5 million low- and moderate-income students.

More importantly, this legislation will prevent student borrowers from facing unmanageable levels of Federal student debt by guaranteeing borrowers will never have to spend more than 15 percent of their yearly discretionary income on loan repayments and by allowing borrowers who enter public service to have their loans forgiven after 10 years. This is critically important because students today are graduating from college with more debt than ever before.

Many people may be asking how this will help those who are struggling in Michigan. In our great State of Michigan, over 143,000 students take out need-based loans each year. The average student has $13,256 in need-based student loan debt. H.R. 2669 will provide interest rate cuts that win save each Michigan student $4,240 over the life of their student loan. This legislation will also provide $513 million in increased loan and Pell Grant aid to students and families in Michigan over the next five years--benefiting over 200,000 students.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation not only because it will increase college affordability, but because it will help our workforce. Our economy depends on aggressive investment in our workforce if we want to continue to be competitive in a global economy. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation, showing American families that Congress is committed to investing in higher education.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2900) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise and extend the user-fee programs for prescription drugs and for medical devices, to enhance the postmarket authorities of the Food and Drug Administration with respect to the safety of drugs, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 2900, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007.

This is significant legislation, and in the best traditions of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, it is bipartisan. I want to thank and commend my Republican colleagues for their assistance in bringing this bill to the floor, and I want to commend all of the members of the committee for their hard work, which was done in an extraordinarily friendly and proper fashion on the legislation.

I rise to inform my colleagues that the bill text before the House today contains three useful changes in the bill that was reported by the committee.

There is a section on citizen petitions that is designed to prevent or minimize delays to the introduction of generic drugs. In addition to good public policy, it also reduces Federal expenditures and completely offsets the costs of H.R. 2900 so that the bill we consider today meets applicable budget pay-as-you-go standards.

The other changes are two clarifications. One, that the Secretary is not authorized to order changes in the marketing plans or product sponsors; and two, that PDUFA fees can be used to carry out the bill's postmarket safety activities under the risk evaluation and mitigation strategies authorized by the bill, known as REMS.

H.R. 2900 has nine distinct titles. Title I reauthorizes the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, a very successful piece of legislation. It significantly boosts resources to have new drugs or biological products reviewed through a thorough yet timely and careful manner, and gives greater attention and resources to postmarket drug safety activities.

Title II reauthorizes the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act, providing increased user fee resources for review of medical devices. The fee structure is broadened to both stabilize revenue and decrease the cost of application fees.

Title III is the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act of 2007. This will foster development of medical devices for use by children. It fills an important gap in therapies for one of our most vulnerable and important patient groups who are, after all, the future of the country. I commend my colleagues, Mr. Markey and Mr. Rogers, for their fine efforts in this title.

Titles IV and V address the need for drugs that are tested and labeled for use by children.

Title IV reauthorizes the Pediatric Research Equity Act. This title will provide FDA permanent authority to test and label drugs for pediatric patients.

Title V reauthorizes the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, providing incentive for testing and labeling drugs for pediatric patients. Together, these two pediatric drug programs provide for the method to achieve an important common purpose, better therapies for our children.

I want to recognize the efforts of our dear friend, Representative Eshoo, on both of these titles.

Titles VI, VII, VIII and IX represent the drug safety component of the bill.

Title VI establishes the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration. This will foster public-private partnerships for the purposes of advancing FDA's mission to modernize product development, accelerate innovation, and enhance product safety. Our good friends and colleagues, Mr. Engel and Ms. Giffords, are to be commended for their work on this title.

Title VII addresses concerns about conflicts of interest amongst those who serve on the expert advisory panels that play a crucial role in FDA's work. Title VII establishes a clinical trials registry and database. This title will expand the amount of information available to patients, scientists and other stakeholders regarding clinical tests.

Finally, title IX represents a major enhancement of the safety in the drug program of this country through an active postmarket surveillance program with the goal of reducing the likelihood of another Vioxx situation and the reported aftereffects which went unheard. Congressmen Markey and Waxman made important contributions in this matter.

I wish also to thank my friend, the committee's ranking member, Mr. Barton, and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Mr. Deal. They worked with us throughout this process and brought forth good suggestions that make this a better bill. For that I commend them, and for their hard work I thank them.

Finally, I wish to recognize the outstanding work of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Mr. Pallone. His firm and steady hand and hard work brought forth a strong bill out of the subcommittee, and the House should applaud his extraordinary leadership.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation strikes proper balance between new drug safety regulations and measures and ensuring consumers have the access to innovative prescription pharmaceuticals without undue delay.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2900 and ask for a favorable vote on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield the remainder of my time on this matter to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the subcommittee chairman, and that he be permitted to control the time. He will do a splendid job.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 556, the ``Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007''. As our Nation pursues the laudable dual goals of free and fair flows of capital and trade in the global economy, it must remain ever vigilant of its own security. Understanding this, H.R. 556 amends existing law to strengthen the process by which the Federal Government performs national security-related reviews of foreign investments in the United States.

First and foremost, this bill establishes in statute the membership of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS. H.R. 556 broadens the factors that CFIUS must consider during reviews of proposed foreign investments in the United States. This includes the bill's express intent that critical energy infrastructure-related aspects of national security not be ignored in the CFIUS review process. I am particularly pleased with this provision, as well as the establishment in the bill of adding both the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Commerce as permanent members of CFIUS. In short, the Committee on Energy and Commerce appreciates the emphasis laid by the bill on issues that fall squarely within our jurisdiction.

Lastly, I note my support for the bill's requirement that the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury investigate why that Department has not complied with reporting requirements related to potential industrial espionage or coordinated strategies by foreign parties with respect to U.S. critical technology, as is required under current law. This underscores my strong belief that Congressional oversight is a necessary component in assuring that the laws are properly and thoroughly carried out by the Federal Government.

I do have concerns regarding what I believe are several shortcomings in H.R. 556, when compared to the bill originally passed by the House in February of this year. I am troubled that there is no provision to designate vice chairmen of CFIUS--which, in the bill originally passed by the House, would have been comprised of the Secretaries of Commerce and Homeland Security--and instead replaces it with ``lead agencies,'' to which the responsibility for performing national security reviews would now mainly be delegated. This has the lamentable consequence of hindering the thorough participation of the Department of Commerce in the CFIUS review process, something for which my colleagues on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Energy and Commerce advocated during their hearing on CFIUS reform in July 2006.

Additionally, H.R. 556 now contains weaker provisions related to the collection of evidence in national security reviews, the approval of such reviews, as well as reporting requirements to the Congress about them. For example, while H.R. 556 originally directed CFIUS to submit reports to the Congress on all actions related to covered transactions, the bill now only provides for reports to be submitted to the Congress upon request. Also, I am alarmed that H.R. 556 no longer protects the Federal Government from liability for losses incurred by parties during CFIUS reviews. Such an omission may dissuade the Government from prosecuting thorough reviews for fear of being sued for remuneration by parties to CFIUS-covered transactions.

Although I have chided the bill for what I perceive to be its most apparent weaknesses, I have always maintained that the desire for perfect legislation should not impede the progress of good legislation. I believe H.R. 556 is good legislation that will contribute to the improvement of the CFIUS. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 556.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana concerning the fairness doctrine.

I am opposed to this amendment. The amendment concerns an important communications policy issue that is properly addressed in the authorizing committee. This is a classic example, of which I have seen many, of an attempt to legislate on a spending bill.

The fairness doctrine is an important, complex issue. It concerns many of the core policy values that Congress assigns to local broadcasters. It concerns the First Amendment, and localism in the media. It is, in short, an issue that should first be considered by the authorizing committee. For that reason alone, I oppose the amendment.

Even if the amendment were not procedurally defective, the amendment is entirely unnecessary. I understand from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman's office that the FCC has no plans to even debate the issue, much less take action. In other words, there will be no action at the FCC on the fairness doctrine.

It is therefore unclear why the gentleman--who must know this fact-- is even offering the amendment. I hope my colleagues consider that question as they vote on the amendment. I will vote against it.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the legislation. I want to commend and congratulate and thank my two good friends, Chairman Dicks and Obey for their extraordinary leadership. They have produced the finest Interior Appropriations bill I have seen in years, and we owe our two colleagues a great debt of gratitude.

First of all, there is a large increase in the Fish and Wildlife Service to address problems like staffing of refuges of which 221 of the 547 have no staff whatsoever. It will provide $56 million which will give our refuges the staff necessary to keep this wonderful system the national treasure it is.

It is also a wonderful piece of legislation by giving $223 million more to the Park Service, a desperately needed situation. The Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund is funded at $1.1 billion over the President's request, desperately needed in a time when our Nation is seeing our waters get dirtier and less safe and less enjoyable for our people.

The bill reverses years of budget neglect, and provides much-needed increases for public health programs administered by EPA. It increases funding for Superfund toxic waste cleanups, something which is a massive problem to our people, both in terms of safety and the environment. It brings forward brownfield revitalization efforts and addresses the problem of leaking underground storage tanks and will protect the health and environment of the American people.

I want to tell my good friend how grateful we are and thank him for what he has done. I would also like to express my support for Eddie Bernice Johnson's amendment to prevent EPA from finalizing a proposed change in existing rules limiting toxic air pollution.

This is a great bill and I salute the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for his extraordinary ability, remarkable hard work, and great service.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the gentleman for his kind words.

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

I thank the gentleman for those kinds words, and I want to utter in return the great respect and affection I have for the distinguished gentleman and for the outstanding work he does here. I am proud he is my friend.