Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule as well as the underlying bill. This legislation is absolutely long overdue, and it is time we enact some very pragmatic and useful methods to prevent noncitizens from moving freely back and forth across our borders.

Quite frankly, the American people have lost their sense of humor when it comes to illegal immigration. They are demanding action, and it is no secret that our borders are porous. Every day, countless individuals are entering our country illegally and advantaging themselves of government services at taxpayer expense, and they take the jobs that otherwise could go to American citizens as well as those immigrants who came here legally, who abided by our laws.

It is time that we put these practices to an end. It is time that we as Americans take more responsibility in the fight against illegal immigration.

One of the most important provisions in this bill ends the ludicrous practice of catch and release with detained illegal aliens. Upon passage of this bill, anyone caught in this country illegally will be detained until further judicial action can be taken. It is unfathomable that this has not been the procedure since day one, but I am pleased that we are finally going to put an end to that.

Another key feature of this bill is the increased cooperation between Federal authorities and local law enforcement. This bill will reimburse sheriffs on the southern border for immigration enforcement and treat any individuals in their custody as Federal detainees. I hope this is the beginning and not the end of immigration reform. And let us keep in mind that while we are having this national debate today, that because our laws currently require us to count noncitizens for the purposes of the apportionment of congressional seats, that a number of Members of this House represent districts where fully 30 to 40 percent of their constituents are illegal aliens or noncitizens. So perversely, illegal aliens will be well represented in the U.S. Congress on the vote today to secure our border and to crack down on illegal aliens, and it is my hope that the issue of congressional representation for American citizens can also be dealt with as we move forward in this process so the full voice of the American people can be heard and that American citizens do not continue to have their vote disenfranchised. I support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, when this issue first came to the floor, I was very concerned, certainly, about how it dealt with some of our manufacturing companies and our workers as well. So many people in my district have worked a lifetime to secure a good pension to help them in their retirement years. They perform jobs that are difficult on them, both physically and mentally; and they have earned their pension.

In Michigan we have so many workers in the airline industry, because, of course, Detroit is the hub for Northwest Airlines. But we obviously also have a huge number of auto workers because of the Big Three and the numerous suppliers to the auto industry that reside there.

Northwest Airlines supports this legislation, as does Continental Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Airlines. So you might think, well, it must be bad for the airline workers then, right? But the bill is actually supported by the Airline Pilots Association and the Association of Flight Attendants. So both management and labor do support this bill.

This bill is also supported by General Motors and even the Delphi Corporation. So you might think it might be bad for auto workers, right? Well, it is actually also supported by the United Auto Workers Union. In fact, it is also supported by the Affiliated Unions of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, the Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers, the Transport Workers Union, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

It is also supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. Any bill that acquires the support of business and labor must be doing something right in today's economy and this climate.

I think we have crafted an excellent piece of legislation. It does what needs to be done: It protects workers pensions. Let us pass this legislation. Let us get it into conference with the Senate, and let us get on with the job of ensuring that workers are secure in the knowledge that the pension that they have worked so hard to get will be there when they retire.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has supported a series of three resolutions which praise Palestinian actions while condemning Israeli self-defense. Rather than promoting democracy in the Middle East, the U.N. continually strikes at Israel, even though it is the only true democracy in that region.

Without any consideration of Palestinian aggression, the U.N. has relentlessly gone on the offensive against the Israeli government, despite themselves having established the State of Israel after the Second World War. It is truly shameful that some 30 percent of the U.N.'s total legislative business is anti-Israel, when so many of the U.N.'s member nations have abhorrent human rights records that go unaddressed and unspoken of.

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple request for the United Nations: Please do your job. Stop wasting our time with your anti-Israel political agenda and start doing something useful, might I suggest, like really investigating the Oil-For-Food scandal and holding the responsible parties accountable.

Most importantly, take a fair and balanced approach towards solving the problems that are plaguing the Middle East. If we are honestly trying to bring peace to the Middle East, we must help the Palestinians establish their own independent state, while at the same time showing them they must live in peaceful coexistence with Israel.

Mr. Speaker, the President of Iran recently said that Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the map, yet no one at the U.N. made more than a passing reference to these outrageous comments. The United Nations must realize that all member states deserve respect, and that these kinds of hateful, anti-Semitic remarks offend fair-minded people throughout the entire world.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that many Americans question our membership in the United Nations. Many resent that our dues are being spent on a political agenda that undermines our American ideals; and when such ridiculous actions are taken, no wonder questions arise about our involvement and our membership.

I urge our colleagues to support H. Res. 438 and ask that the United Nations as well take a balanced approach to the problems facing the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the goal of this Nation has been the same, to topple the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and to bring freedom to the Iraqi people.

Our coalition forces were successful in bringing down Saddam, and today he is facing the justice of the Iraqi people in a country that is beginning to understand and to live under the rule of law, not the rule of a barbaric and brutal dictator.

Today the people of Iraq have elected an interim government that drafted a Constitution, subsequently approved by the Iraqi people, and on December 15 they will again go to the polls to elect a permanent Parliament. None of this could have been achieved without the sacrifice of the brave men and women who serve in our armed services.

While we have been working to establish a democratic government, we have also been working to reestablish the Iraqi Army and security forces, and when the Iraqi forces are ready, our troops will come home, their mission accomplished.

The question before the Congress today is shall we pull our troops out now before their mission is complete. Let us examine just for a second the consequences of such action.

If our forces leave now, we would empower terrorists such as Zarqawi to spread violence against innocent civilians, unchecked. Iraq could then devolve into anarchy and become a base of terror operations. That is the question, and that is the risk, and I believe we must fight the terrorists at the heart of their power, not in the streets of America.

Mr. Speaker, many of the same Members who voted in 2002 to support this effort now say that the President misled them. If they actually believe such an outrageous allegation, why did the President not just simply plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq while he was at it? This whole train of thought is absolutely nuts. They just looked at the same intelligence, and they cannot simply rewrite history.

Mr. Speaker, with our assistance Iraq is making remarkable progress, and when our American forces do come home, they will come home as heroes, and our Nation will be more secure. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman sincerely for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, nearly half a million Americans have served in our National Guard since the beginning of the war on terror. A half million fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters, a half million people so dedicated to protecting our Nation, protecting our families that they have sacrificed time with their own families. This is a half million people willing to confront America's enemies face to face.

Mr. Speaker, none of those great patriots would be able to serve our Nation without the incredible support and the sacrifice of those back home. For each man and woman deployed by the Guard, there is an employer who must operate without an employee. There is a company that must do business and meet its challenges without a member of its team. There is a boss who must get by without his full staff, even though he or she is faced with intense competition and unyielding deadlines.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to see our American businesses answering the call and serving their country by supporting our Guard. They are selflessly going about their business with a half million fewer workers, and they are doing so without complaint. They are setting an example for future generations by loyally holding those positions open at the same level of pay and with the same level of benefits for when our proud men and women, our Guardsmen return home. American employers are proving that their relationship with the National Guard is as strong and as important as ever. They are proving that the men and women who serve the United States proudly should be well served by our country.

My hometown of Harrison Township, Michigan, is also very proud to be the hometown of Selfridge Air National Guard Base. I have watched as literally thousands and thousands of National Guard members have deployed from Selfridge in defense of America, and I am proud to say that I have also seen countless Michigan employers ensure that Guard members are taken care of when they return home.

I strongly support House Resolution 302, because it is time we in the Congress, here in the House of Representatives, formally recognize the great work and the great sacrifice of American businesses, those who employ our Guard and Reserve members. Though they serve our Nation quietly and nobly, these companies deserve a profound and enthusiastic thank you from their government.

The men and women who have served and now serve our Nation in the Armed Forces make an incredible sacrifice, and this Veterans' Day week this resolution is especially appropriate in an important recognition that their friends and loved ones and their employers back home are sacrificing, too.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1606) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1606.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the advent of the Internet Age has brought about a host of new ways for citizens to participate in the political arena. Web sites, e-mail, and blogging have provided new avenues for political activists to reach out to potential voters, to raise issue awareness, to solicit contributions, and to mobilize the get-out-the-vote efforts.

The Internet has also generated a more widespread flow of news information through not only mainstream media sources but also independent Web sites and blogs. Most importantly, it has created a completely new opportunity for all citizens to exercise their right to free speech by opining on the most important issues of the day as they see them, as the citizens see them.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, all of this activity is actually under attack today. When Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act in 2002, the law apparently was unclear on what impact it would have on political speech on the Internet. The Federal Election Commission interpreted the law to say that Congress did not intend to regulate the Internet when it passed BCRA. The bill's sponsors disagreed, and they sued the FEC in the courts.

A recent appellate court decision will force the FEC to implement a rule that would cover Internet communications. If the Congress does not act now and make it clear that it does not want the Internet to be regulated, the FEC will adopt a new rule to regulate the Internet; and by passing H.R. 1606, also known as the Online Freedom of Speech Act, Congress can prevent this from happening.

H.R. 1606, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude Internet communications from the definition of ``public communication,'' thus exempting Web sites, blogs, and online advertisements from Federal Elections Commission, FEC, regulation.

This bill has very, very strong bipartisan support. In testimony before the FEC and before the Committee on House Administration, both liberal and conservative bloggers expressed their support for this exemption. Senate minority leader Reid has introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate and written to the FEC to express his belief that the Internet should not be regulated.

The regulations proposed by the FEC could limit the ability of online activists to talk to campaigns, to give discounts on advertisements, to spend money maintaining their site, to link to candidates' sites, to advocate the election of a candidate, or to send political e-mails.

The FEC would potentially grant some bloggers and online publications what is known as the ``media exemption,'' which would allow these bloggers to operate free of FEC regulation like any standard newspaper or news program. However, the rules were very unclear about how the FEC would determine who qualified for the exemption. Potentially, the FEC's rulings could become content-based restrictions on speech and on free speech.

As we consider this legislation, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that the Internet is not like traditional forms of media. Unlike television and radio, activists do not require large sums of money to post their message on the Internet. Also, the number of people reached and the success of communication are not directly linked to the amount of money that is spent.

In addition, the Internet is not an invasive medium. In other words, the recipients of communication are exposed to the communication only after they take deliberate and affirmative steps to find a particular Web site. Further, the Internet has generated a surge in grassroots involvement in the political process.

Mr. Speaker, historically, Congress has regulated political speech only where it has the potential to cause corruption or the appearance of corruption. There has been no demonstration that the growth of the Internet has had a corrupting influence on politics. There is, however, ample evidence that the Internet has had a positive effect on our political system by encouraging young people, a whole new generation of people, to get involved in our political process.

Any Internet regulations would be complicated and difficult for a lay person to understand. Bloggers and other online activists should not have to worry about accidentally running afoul of campaign finance laws when they are expressing their own opinions on the Internet.

Regulatory proponents claim regulations are necessary to reduce the influence of wealthy interests. In fact, Mr. Speaker, these complex regulations, if enacted, would actually increase the influence of big money and politics, because then only the wealthy could afford to hire election attorneys to be certain that they were abiding by these very complicated regulations.

The Committee on House Administration, under Chairman Ney's leadership, had a hearing on this topic back last September; and, at that hearing, several Members of Congress and of the committee, including myself, actually suggested that the Congress needed to step into this process to clarify Congress' intent on this issue instead of leaving it up to Federal agencies and the court system.

Congress began this discussion by passing BCRA. By debating and voting on this bill today, the House will clarify once and for all its intent on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts who referenced three editorial boards.

I think it is important to note that these editorial boards are nothing more than paid scribes. They literally make their living by using the first amendment. But everyone knows that the Internet has negatively affected the cash flow of the institutional print media. It is the height of hypocrisy for the print media to use their right to free speech to opine against their competition on the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, we are actually being accused of abuse of power, as I understand it, for bringing up the Senate minority leader's companion bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), who is a distinguished member of the House Administration Committee that did ask for us to bring this up under suspension.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I spent 8 years of my life as the Michigan Secretary of State. That was a job where I had a principal responsibility as the chief elections officer of that State. During that time, we made constant attempts to increase voter participation and voter turn-out, particularly among young people. And I believe this bill does that.

Mr. Speaker, we must stand up for the right of freedom of speech and for the first amendment. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the debate that we are having today on this issue. I rise in support of the rule.

Mr. Speaker, when drafting the Bill of Rights to our Constitution, our Founding Fathers guaranteed the right of the people to keep and to bear arms in the second amendment, and for 217 years the second amendment has protected our freedom.

But for years we have seen a nonstop onslaught of individuals and groups trying to erode this basic right. Now, unable to accomplish their goals at the ballot box, they are targeting arms makers in the courts for the illegal use of their product.

Their attempt to force U.S. arms producers out of business would have a serious impact not only on our freedoms but on our national security as well. Let us for a moment just look at three of the companies that are targeted by lawsuits by the antigun fanatics.

The Colt Company is a sole provider of the M-16 rifle carried by the men and women of our armed services. Beretta USA supplies the standard sidearm for all branches of the Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies across the country.

The Sig Arms Company manufactures the sidearm carried by the Secret Service and the Navy SEALS. And if these companies are destroyed, where will our military and our law enforcement get the arms that they need to keep our Nation safe? From France, perhaps. Maybe we can buy them from China.

This is why the Pentagon took the extraordinary step in sending a letter to each Member of this House urging the passage of this important legislation. The aim of these lawsuits is to deny law-abiding Americans from exercising their Constitutional rights to keep and to bear arms. This must be stopped.

Instead, we should severely punish criminals, not law-abiding companies or citizens. And if we do not do so, what is next? Are we going to sue the Louisville Slugger Company if a criminal hits somebody with a baseball bat?

Enough is enough. It is time for common sense. It is time to protect the jobs of the workers of American firms. It is time to protect our rights under the second amendment of the Constitution, and it is time to ensure that the men and women of the armed services and our law enforcement have access to the best possible firearms to protect our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to applaud him for maintaining a size 36 over the years; and I will decline to share my dress size with the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 554, also known as the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, and sometimes fondly referred to, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) said, the Cheeseburger Bill.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is a Nation of freedom. Liberty, individuality, and personal choice are all critical ingredients. A recipe for self-reliance, individual responsibility, and choice has been handed down from generation to generation.

That is why it is so distasteful to see a handful of greedy people trying to strike it rich by attacking the American food industry. The blame-obsessed legal system has increasingly tried to poison the restaurant business with frivolous lawsuits.

Our food industry actually employs about 12 million people. It is the Nation's largest single private sector provider. It provides a legal product, and it provides it in a legal way. And now, because of the avarice of a few, it has become a huge target with a huge bull's-eye on its back.

Mr. Speaker, most restaurants are small businesses that contribute to their community in literally countless ways. What is more, many of them are too small to defend themselves against out-of-control, deep- pocketed trial attorneys who want to file lawsuits against them, who see them as just another target, perhaps see them as just another ATM machine.

I am proud to support this rule and proud to support H.R. 554, which prohibits profiteering from groundless claims about weight gain, to protect our vital food and restaurant industry, to help defend our economy and American jobs, and to support the fundamental tenets of our Nation: personal choice, liberty, and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I am obviously a pretty good customer of the restaurant industry, but I also recognize that with democracy comes responsibility, the responsibility of citizens to make the right decisions for themselves and the responsibility of a government to stop those who seek to hurt fine American businesses for a drive-thru, fast windfall. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, the American airline industry is struggling, absolutely struggling in the face of very high fuel prices, of pension costs, and fierce competition. Delta and Northwest Airlines have recently filed for bankruptcy protection under chapter 11. United Airlines also recently got a bankruptcy court to severely discount the value of its employee pensions. Clearly, the airline industry needs some help, and they need some leadership. But an article that I read yesterday forces me to question the leadership of certain executives in the airline industry.

Gary Wilson is the chairman of Northwest Airlines, a role where he is supposed to be providing leadership to his company. Northwest Airlines is currently subject to a work stoppage by mechanics and cleaners over wage concessions and job reductions. And now Northwest has approached their pilots and their flight attendants asking them to take significant wage cuts. Earlier this year, Northwest Airlines stopped funding their defined pension benefit program, only funding their employees' 401(k) program, and I am sure that the 401(k) was also buying plenty of Northwest stock. And what was Chairman Gary Wilson doing during this time with his 4.3 million shares of company stock? He was selling that stock.

Mr. Speaker, today, in the Detroit Free Press, there is an article, and the title is ``Northwest Airline Chief Sold Shares Just Before Bankruptcy.'' The article says: ``Less than a month before Northwest Airlines Corporation filed for bankruptcy, its chairman sold nearly a third of his remaining shares.''

Gary Wilson was not showing faith or confidence in the company that he is charged with leading. Instead, he was dumping his stock before his company went under. And I wonder if the employee 401(k) was selling, or even if it was allowed to sell at the same time. Mr. Wilson sold his shares at an average of $5.45 per share, and just yesterday that stock was trading for 84 cents per share.

Northwest Airlines is a major carrier in the Detroit, Michigan, market; and it serves my district. We have been hearing all summer long that Northwest was in trouble and that it could be forced to file for bankruptcy protection. Well, what took so long? One has to wonder if the bankruptcy filing was delayed simply so executives like Mr. Wilson could sell their stock to make sure they got their money before the company went out. That is not leadership; that is cowardice or worse.

The employees and the customers of Northwest deserve better. And while Northwest has been asking employees to make concessions in their pensions, they have not been asking the same of their executives. In fact, this past July it was reported that the supplemental pension plan that covers the company's CEO was not subject to a pension freeze. That pension was slated to give the CEO nearly $1 million a year if he retired at the age of 65.

That was reported again in the Detroit Free Press on July 16: ``Northwest Airlines to Freeze Pensions for Salaried Staff.'' Not affected by the freeze is the supplemental pension plan that covers CEO Doug Steenland, among others. In its last annual report, Northwest indicated that Steenland was on track to receive an annual pension of $947,417 a year if he retires at age 65.'' And ``The airline has said that such generous pensions are needed to recruit and retain top executives.''

Well, based on those examples, I do not think Northwest has done a very good job of attracting the best executives. Mr. Speaker, we need strong airlines in this country. We also need competition. We need safety and quality customer service in the airline industry. Of course, employees need to know if sacrifice is needed in the face of increasing costs and competitive pressures, but so do executives. They should be setting the tone for the company, and they should lead by example. They should not cut and run in the face of trouble.

What is happening at Northwest Airlines at its very highest levels is disgraceful.

Offered by: Mrs. Miller of Michigan

Amendment No. 1: At the end of title IV add the following:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule, and I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I did serve on the postal panel and the Committee on Government Reform as well. This is really the first real reform of the United States Postal Service since the 1970s.

Mr. Speaker, America succeeds and America prospers because America evolves. Our Nation evolves. We are always striving to leverage our economic, our technological, and our political advancements to improve our entire Nation. Much of what might have been good in the 1970s is clearly not good enough for the 21st century, especially when it comes to communications; and the United States Postal Service, with a uniquely critical means of communicating in our Nation, unfortunately, is laboring under a business model that was built in an era that predates the Internet, that predates e-mail, and even fax machines.

Any private sector business would have been put out of business. But the United States Postal Service today, and these are some staggering numbers, actually delivers 200 billion pieces of mail each and every year, it delivers to 130 million households, and it is the center of a nearly $1 trillion industry.

But the competition is growing, of course. Revenues are at risk; its workforce, unfortunately, is aging, and so is its equipment. Yet these are all the same kinds of challenges that so many businesses today face.

I was very proud to cosponsor and to update and to upgrade this legislation, which does all of that, for our Postal Service. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act modernizes the Postal Service's infrastructure and its financial framework; and at the same time, it also maintains its traditional benefit, the best benefit I think, and that, of course, is 6-day, universal service.

H.R. 22 provides the postal office with firmer financial ground, and it mitigates the needs to constantly raise postal rates. It ensures those that live in America's rural communities that they still have very close access to a full-service postal center. What is more, equally as important, I think, is it preserves the right for collective bargaining for our postal workers.

Our postal employees have a record of achievement of on-time delivery performance, and many of us, I think, were reminded of how much we take them for granted after the anthrax scare. In fact, I remember it was a commercial that was playing that was put out by the Postal Service that had that Carly Simon song in the background, Let the River Run, and it really, I think, was a very powerful ad that reminded us all of how important our postal employees are.

The men and women of the United States Postal Service stood then and they stand now in harm's way sometimes, because they have dedicated themselves to serving all of us. They certainly deserve the right to bargain collectively to protect the financial future of their families.

This bill also serves as the framework that will help the United States Postal Service to become a model, quite frankly, as a governmental agency to be both cost-effective and cost-efficient, to help them to create a business plan, to negotiate the best business practices with its customers, and it allows for them to focus on a term, customer service, that is not exclusively a concept that is exclusively in the private domain, it can also be in the public domain as well.

This bill embraces concepts like work sharing, in which the Postal Service embarks in a partnership with private companies offering postage discounts to businesses who help the Postal Service prepare and move our mail, flexibility that the private sector enjoys and that they employee as part of its competitive business mix.

This bill essentially allows the United States Postal Service to operate like a business, which will clearly benefit all Americans. So I do want to thank everybody who worked so very hard on this piece of legislation. It is a very important piece of legislation. I want to personally recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis), who just made some remarks earlier. I have watched him work tirelessly on this bill, as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who has been a leader in postal reform for a very long time.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a great piece of legislation which also demonstrates very clearly how bipartisanship can work very well on the floor of this House. It certainly has done that. I commend all of the Democratic Members who have worked very hard on this as well, and I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and urge them to support this critical piece of legislation as well.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I certainly appreciate the intentions of my good friend from Texas in his amendment tonight, but this amendment would do absolutely nothing to stop a stamp rate increase for next year. In fact, it seems very clear this amendment would have the opposite impact. In fact, it would trigger large increases in the postal rates.

These rate increases would be caused by denying the Postal Service access to billions of dollars which are set aside in their escrow accounts, because the Postal Service will be forced actually to completely finance the escrow requirement as well as the annual health benefit premium for all of their retirees. This will not stop what we are all trying to stop, and that is a postal rate increase, which is really a tax. I guess you can call it a stamp tax, if you want, on the American people.

This amendment is not fiscally conservative. In fact, if you are an individual who just mails a couple of letters a year, I suppose it does not matter if you have a tax increase, a stamp tax increase, of 1 or 2 cents a letter. However, think if you are a catalogue mailing company or a large user of the Postal Service.

This amendment would also require the Postal Service to spend all of their savings released under H.R. 22 on paying the Postal Service's unfunded health care liability rather than giving the Postal Service some much-needed flexibility to use on other pressing issues.

This underlying bill is based on the premise of making the Postal Service more cost-effective, more cost-efficient, making it run in a more businesslike, user-friendly type of way, and this amendment, I believe, is a step backward. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and also to support the underlying bill, which is a great bipartisan effort and a great bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act. These changes that were enacted in response to the horrific terrorist attacks on our Nation of September 11, 2001 provided critical tools to our law enforcement in bringing the terrorists to justice and to stopping future attacks, and the result of this law cannot be disputed. Worldwide we have captured or killed nearly two-thirds of the al Qaeda's top leadership. We have broken up terrorist cells in Buffalo, in Seattle, in Portland, Northern Virginia and in Detroit, my home State of Michigan.

These tools have been critical in gathering knowledge on the activities and the targets of the terrorists. These tools have assisted in dismantling the terrorist financial network. And as I meet with constituents in my district they are continually saying what are we doing to help fight the terrorists?

However, I have never heard from one man or woman in my district who has said that their constitutional rights have been violated by any aspect of the PATRIOT Act. And while I care deeply about protecting the civil rights of law abiding Americans, I do not care one iota about the civil rights of terrorists bent on destroying our way of life.

Just yesterday over 300 Members of this House voted for an amendment that supported the capture and the detention and the interrogation of international terrorists.

Mr. Chairman, today we face a new type of enemy, an enemy who preys on the innocent, an enemy who lives in the shadows, an enemy whose tactics are the tactics of cowards. And as we saw in London on July 11 and as we are seeing again today, the terrorists are still out there targeting the murder of the innocent. And in fact I will predict that other countries will follow the lead of America and what we are doing on the floor of this House today as they enact similar protections for their citizens against these murderers. And now is not the time to take away tools that law enforcement needs to protect us. Now is the time to send a message to the terrorists that the we are not backing down from the fight.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in America, the road to opportunity is a fast-moving highway. Any American with creativity and simply a desire to work hard can achieve their dreams. Anyone can succeed. Anyone can start a business. Our road to opportunity has been an open road.

But unfortunately, our government, sometimes with very noble intentions, is putting up red lights, stoplights and dead ends on the road to opportunity. The heavy burden of needless governmental regulation is slowing down hard-driving Americans, Americans whose diligence and hard work is needed to secure our Nation's economic future.

Let us consider a few numbers for a moment. The regulatory burden on United States businesses is more than $850 billion each and every year. The Small Business Administration says that complying with all of the government's rules and regulations costs small businesses a staggering $7,000 per employee. American taxpayers spend an estimated $250 billion a year every year just trying to comply with the American Federal income tax code. This crippling over-regulation can destroy the entrepreneurial spirit. It is a hidden tax on our businesses and on our citizens.

Simply put, the cost of doing business in America is quickly rising. And make no mistake, our foreign competitors are capitalizing on it. Our trade deficit is now an unbelievable $670 billion and growing. It is time for America to reopen the road to opportunity, and it is imperative that this Congress and this Nation enact a competitiveness agenda.

It is unacceptable that the cost of frivolous litigation now exceeds $230 billion a year. That interpolates to $2,000 for every American household. Our citizens, business owners and entrepreneurs face enough hurdles as it is. Our government does not need to raise new ones. We need to focus on eliminating some of the ones we have.

We must and will make America more competitive in the global marketplace. I know by working together we can do the right thing for the American people, for American business and for America's future.

Let us remove the red lights, remove the stop signs and the dead ends and reopen the road to opportunity.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend the flag of the United States of America. Throughout the history of our Nation, our flag has stood as the ultimate symbol of our freedom. From Yorktown to Fort McHenry, from Iwo Jima to Baghdad, our troops have fought behind our flag in the defense of liberty. Their dedication and their sacrifice in defense of freedom demands that we take this action today. And who can forget on September 11, 2001, when firefighters in New York pulled our flag out of the rubble of the World Trade Center and hoisted it in defiance of terror? And who can forget the flag that hangs in the American History Museum here in Washington, D.C. that was draped over the scarred Pentagon as a show of our Nation's resolve? We should not, we must not, and we cannot allow the desecration of our national symbol as some form of protest. Some things in this Nation are sacred, and the flag is the most sacred symbol of all. The flag binds our Nation together and must be protected. Let us take this action together today. Honor the service and sacrifice of those who have fought behind the flag in defense of our freedom.

And, Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned, 50 States have already passed resolutions indicating that they want to ratify this resolution we are debating today. Let the majority of Americans ratify their allegiance and pledge their allegiance to our flag.