Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6064, the Community Protection Act of 2006. The Nation has been calling for comprehensive immigration reform. By focusing only on enforcement, the majority would have us ignore our Nation's economic dependence on immigrant labor and does nothing to address the millions of undocumented individuals already living and working in the country today.

H.R. 6064 will have the effect of restricting the rights of immigrants to due process protections, like judicial review and immigration hearings, and could have serious, possibly life-endangering consequences for immigrants and asylum-seekers. Permitting the indefinite detention of an individual, even a non-citizen, is a practice one would associate with oppressive regimes. Applying that decision retroactively is a direct violation of due process; due process is essential when you consider the number of documented failures in custody review procedures and administrative delays.

The measure grants Department of Homeland Security officials, rather than immigration officials or other courts, the authority to determine whether expedited removal of individuals is admissible. The language does not specify that an individual be convicted of any crime; it instead allows low-level officers to play judge and jury deciding whether an individual poses a threat to public safety. In doing so it denies individuals the rights to safeguards provided by judicial review, which has been so important to protecting civil liberties in our Nation.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject this measure and instead move forward with negotiations for comprehensive immigration reform that responsibly addresses all aspects of this critical issue.

Mr. Speaker, the world is in total crisis. The conflict and the devastation in the Darfur region of Sudan is abominable. I call on the President of the United States, who named Andrew Natsios at the U.N. to be the Special Envoy, that we put the full might and credibility of what we have left in our country behind the genocide that is taking place in Darfur.

You have heard the numbers. Atrocities, government-sponsored terrorism, where the President of Sudan does not even acknowledge not only the U.N. forces, not only the African coalition that is there to help secure his people, but that genocide and the killings really exist.

I was on one of the delegations that went to Sudan earlier this year in a bipartisan, bicameral visit. It was outrageous what we saw. Yet, today, as the heightened conflict, killings, this government in Khartoum is now dropping bombs on the civilian population in the refugee camps. Just think about it. They have run them out of their villages. They have burned their villages. They have raped the women. They killed the men and had the children in total chaos and asking for help.

We are the most powerful Nation in the world today. We say that all the time. We must rise up to save the young children, the women, and the men for the sake of their own country.

President al-Bashir has turned his head on it. The Janjaweed, men on horses who ride herd on those villages, kill people, innocent civilians, it could be you, but you are living in another country.

I am asking tonight that we recognize the genocide, the horrific conditions that are going on in Darfur, which is in the southwest region of Sudan. Sudan is the largest country geographically in Africa. It has black Africans, African Arabs and others in the country.

Khartoum in the northern part of the country is where the seat of government is. They just recently signed a

southwest agreement in Darfur that they might be better, and better take care of their people, which they are not doing.

The security is deteriorating. There is a credible threat of famine that exists. More and more people are going hungry and starving, and the world relief food efforts are not able to get to the people who have been run off of their land.

The cease-fire is in shambles. The U.N. peacekeeping authority must keep in, and President al-Bashir is not letting them in.

Rise up. We need the Nations that surround the Sudan to speak up.

Egypt President Mubarak, I have been a strong supporter of Egypt, and I still will be, but you must speak up. You must do more. You and I have talked about this. You must do more.

Jordan, King Abdullah, you have got to get involved. You have got to get involved. People are dying as we speak.

The region must rise up. How can you let this happen one more time in any part of the world? These are people who cultivate and live and grow food before this atrocity which now has outlasted any other, including Rwanda, in terms of its devastation and loss of life.

The Chad-Sudan border that I visited on another occasion is overwhelmed by the people who are fleeing Sudan. Do we want to keep the chaos going? Do we not really have to sign up as God's people, one Nation under God and treat all of His people the same?

We have the authority, we have the power, and we have the partnerships to bring this to a conclusion. So I join my CBC colleagues this evening and ask that America rise up, that the Middle East region speak out to help people who cannot help themselves.

I want to thank Congressman Donald Payne who is the author of a resolution that we sponsored and passed, H.R. 3127. We passed it in April. We sent it to the Senate, where they sat on it. Now, I understand a Senator does not want to pass it because it was too strong. How can a resolution be strong, too strong when it is about the very subsistence of life for a people?

So I call on all good men and women of the world, Darfur needs us to step up, the people, the children, the women, the men, the villages. We can do better.

I ask that we stand and fight and speak and work, that the people in Darfur can have life and have it more abundantly.

Mr. Speaker, today the African Union agreed to extend its mandate of peacekeeping forces in Darfur through the end of the year ensuring that international troops will remain in the Sudanese province for now. I rise today to support H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. Current circumstances dictate that we develop tangible solutions, in order to provide hope to the people of Darfur. Darfurians are suffering extreme hardships. Every day is a struggle to survive for the Internally Displaced Persons, IDPs, in camps in Chad.

The Sudanese conflict in Darfur is the longest running civil war in Africa, and there are no clear signs of a negotiated resolution. President Bashir has said time and time again that he will not approve U.N. forces to come in to his country.

There are at least 2.61 million people affected by the conflict. Children no longer attend school, women face the prospects of rape, violence and death each day as they exist in refugee camps and venture outside the confines of camp for water and firewood. 70,000 people have already lost their lives. The number of displaced persons continues to expand and is estimated now at 1.9 million people.

When I say the situation is worsening, the facts reinforce the reality. Even as I stand before you, the Sudanese government is engaged in aerial bombings directed at the refugees. The Janjaweed are directing increasing bold and violent attacks, massacres of refugees. The African Union has affirmed its intention to fulfill its mandate, but it is imperative that the transition to a United Nations force be made consistent with Security Council Resolution 1706.

The world is watching as genocide engulfs victims in an African country. It appears that we did not learn the lessons that resulted from the genocide efforts that occurred in Rwanda. We vowed never to forget; yet, we are not doing enough to ensure the safety and security of innocent victims in Darfur.

It is critical to place the matter of Darfur in context. The porous border between Sudan and Chad is expected to see a massive influx of about 20,000 refugees at the expiration of the AU mandate. A number of estimates suggest that this number will be closer to 50,000 people. The World Food Program has stated unequivocally that they are incapable of providing food and assistance whenever the current crisis deteriorates. The fact of the matter is the current conflict presents a moral imperative for the world and for people of conscience. If nothing is done, there will be negative impact in neighboring countries. Many of the neighboring countries will be overextended as their limited resources are stretched to cope with the needs of the refugees.

It cannot be overemphasized that more leadership must occur in order to end the crimes against humanity occurring in Darfur. It is clear that the government of Khartoum thinks that the world, the U.N. and African and Muslim countries lack the moral resolve to tackle this issue. The countries of Egypt and Nigeria must exert their considerable influence to tackle this ever-widening problem. God and history will judge all of us harshly if we do not rescue the current victims of Janjaweed atrocities.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that genocide was occurring in Darfur, Sudan. Even with a declaration of genocide, the suffering continues.

We in the Congress have told the people of Darfur that help is on the way. The FY 07 request includes $108 million for refugee assistance, $60 million for conflict management in Sudan, $170 million for Peacekeeping Operations, PKO, which is $30 million less than the request, and approximately $70 million for Contributions to International Peacekeeping, CIPA. But these resources are far from enough.

What is required is a moral imperative and clear, decisive mandates emanating from the UN that provide blue helmet soldiers on the ground with the authority to uphold peace.

I have traveled to Darfur, and I am pained to say that the genocide occurring in Darfur is tantamount to ethnic cleansing by Arab Muslims against indigenous African Muslims. There is no escaping this reality.

In closing, it is crucial that the following occur. We must support the Special Envoy for Sudan, Andrew Natsios, former USAID Administrator appointed by President Bush. Nonetheless, there is still a strong need for passage of the Special Envoy Resolution, H. Res. 992. This resolution not only calls for the appointment of a Special Envoy but also for that individual to have a strong mandate, staff and backing of senior administration officials. Passage of this bill will show Congressional support for the Envoy. All 4 Co-chairs of the Sudan Caucus are co-sponsors.

Finally, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, H.R. 3127, passed the House last spring. Another version of this bill, S. 1462, also passed the Senate. House and Senate staff met in April to agree on a compromise. The Senate had agreed to take up H.R. 3127. For months the bill languished. Last Monday, Senator Lugar introduced a new version of H.R. 3127. Procedurally and time-wise this presents several problems. It is crucial that Congress pass a bill that will address the plight of the victims of Sudan before we adjourn, and that, in turn, the president sign the legislation.

We must send a clear and strong message to our suffering brothers and sisters in Darfur to hold strong.

Mr. Speaker, the Detroit Shock were crowned 2006 WNBA Champions after their 80-75 victory in Game 5 against the Sacramento Monarchs. This is the Shock's second WNBA title in franchise history. The Shock also won in 2003.

The Shock proved they have ``got game'' by becoming one of three teams to win two championships. Houston and Los Angeles are the others. The Shock's two titles in four seasons rank them among best in league history.

Flint native Deanna Nolan was named Most Valuable Player, MVP of the 2006 WNBA Finals.

Former Detroit Piston Bill Laimbeer is the Head Coach; former Detroit Pistons Rick Mahorn is an assistant coach. Cheryl Reeve is the other assistant coach.

The Shock's regular season record was 23-11.

This is the WNBA's 10th anniversary. Women's basketball announced ``We Got Next!'' when the NBA Board of Governors approved the WNBA concept in 1996.

The Detroit Shock serve as examples to young women everywhere. Their accomplishments encourage others to make HERstory. They demonstrate how you can achieve success by setting goals, doing your best, and practicing teamwork.

Shock Players include Jackie Batteast, Kara Braxton, Swin Cash*, Cheryl Ford*, Kedra Holland-Corn*, Deanna Nolan*, Sabrina Palie, Plenette Pierson, Elaine Powell*, Ruth Riley*, Katie Smith, and Angelina Williams.

*Members of the 2003 and 2006 teams.

Mr. Speaker, I stand to congratulate the Detroit Shock, the Women's National Basketball Association's champions for 2006, the second time they have won the title in 3 years; 12 outstanding women, who have come forth and persevered and won the championship one more time. Six of those women were on the world championship team of 2003.

Congratulations to Coach Bill Laimbeer, Assistant Coach Rick Mahorn, as well as Cheryl Reeve. Most valuable player Deanna Nolan, congratulations for those jump shots and tenacity.

You stand in history in the Women's National Basketball Association, as well as the National Basketball Association, as winners. Let women all over the world know that you can persevere in whatever you choose to be.

Congratulations, Detroit Shock, 2006 Women's National Basketball Association winners. We love you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6061, the Secure Fences Act of 2006. We need a comprehensive solution for our immigration policy. This measure irresponsibly attempts to gloss over the problem of securing our nation's borders rather than working to finalize negotiations on a all-encompassing solution. It is a transparent political attempt by the majority to coerce voters into believing something is being done, when in fact this measure does not even outline a funding mechanism to put these provisions into action.

According the Department of Homeland Security, we need a varied approach to the border security problem combining personnel, equipment, technology, and infrastructure improvements. For the estimated cost of the fence proposed in H.R. 6061, we could instead spend $2 billion to purchase the 35,000 detention beds authorized in the 9/11 Act of 2004 and end the ``catch and release'' practice. For $360 million we could hire, train, and equip 2,000 new border control agents also outlined in the 9/11 Act. For $400 million we could hire 250 port-of-entry inspectors or acquire 1,000 radiation monitors to screen 100 percent of the cargo entering U.S. ports for nuclear material. Spending what will likely be over $7 billion to build a fence instead of providing the enhanced manpower and technology the Department of Homeland Security has identified as necessary is a misuse of taxpayers' money.

American citizens deserve real solutions. The problem of securing our Nation's borders is not one exclusive to the southern border. The lack of adequate border control enforcement at the northern border presents a serious threat to our national security, particularly in respect to the war on terror. A border security measure calling for nothing more than a study on the northern border is grossly underestimating the threat an unsecured northern border presents to our national security.

My colleague, Representative Bennie Thompson, ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, presented a responsible alternative to this measure with realistic and possible solutions. His substitute amendment would have provided the funding authorization for the personnel and technology

needed to realistically secure the entire border, not just the Mexican border. Unfortunately, the majority did not allow the substitute bill to be considered and receive an up or down vote on the House floor.

It is for these reasons I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject this measure and devote our time and effort to developing a responsible, comprehensive solution to secure our borders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a person who has been a fixture of this institution for more than 30 years and who has been a mainstay of our Democratic Cloakroom, and indeed, our Democratic Party. I have always said that Members of Congress are only as good as the staff that helps us because they are the ones who make this Chamber run.

Tim Friedman is one of those few people who works behind the scenes to make sure we do our job properly, that floor operations run smoothly and our personal staffs are kept abreast of current legislative activity and the legislative schedule. We thank Tim for making our jobs easier and for being a trusted resource for Members and our offices.

Tim is from Lackawanna, NY, just outside of Buffalo. He is part of that group known as the ``Buffalo Gang,'' the leader of whom is our own former Doorkeeper of the House, Jim Molloy. In 1976, Tim came to Washington and started to work for then-Representative Dan Rostenkowski. Tim's first days on the job were not promising. His first 2 assignments were to drive the Illinois Congressman to different events in Washington, and he got lost both times. After awhile, he learned how to get around the city, and ever since, he has been steering Members on the right course. Members have taken Tim's advice on when to schedule their return home following legislative business, when to take dinner breaks during late night sessions, and basically how to plan their lives around the activity on the floor.

It is with mixed feelings that I pay tribute to Tim. I am saddened by the fact we are losing his institutional knowledge, wizened guidance, and a beloved friend. At the same time, I am happy for him as he and his wife Colleen tee-off on a second career in their new home of Wallace, NC. All of us on both sides of the aisle wish Tim and Colleen well in their new adventure, and we hope that their move will exceed their best expectations. One thing for sure is the golfing weather is much better in North Carolina than here in Washington or certainly in Buffalo. This is an important feature because both Tim and Colleen are excellent and avid golfers, and their new home is surrounded by 2 golf courses.

We are proud to know Tim, and we hope that he and Colleen will come back and visit their friends from time to time, particularly during the golf tournament season, to let us know how their lives are progressing. We appreciate all the services you have rendered to this institution and to the Members with whom you have worked. As you look to new horizons, I would like to send you and Colleen off with these wishes:

May you always find good lies in the fairways;

May your shots sail clear over still waters; and

May nothing but eagles and birdies follow you for the all the

rounds of your life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with very strong and mixed feelings on H. Res, 921, This resolution condemns the recent attacks against the State of Israel. The State of Israel has two intractable enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Presently, Israel is engaged in military operations in Gaza and Lebanon. I cannot over-emphasize that I am vehemently and unalterably opposed to the attacks undertaken by Hezbollah against Israel. At the same time, I cannot and will not support other language in the resolution which I consider to be harmful to the interests of peace, diplomacy, security, and the protection of civilians in Lebanon and Israel.

Let me say at the outset, I support the right of Israel to exist and to defend itself from attack. I cannot support the level of retaliation it is using against the civilian population that did not provoke the attack. Hezbollah is the guilty party, and their attacks were egregious, without merit, and provocative. Israel must direct its campaign against confirmed Hezbollah strongholds. Given the sophistication of current surveillance technology and intelligence- gathering, I am convinced those strongholds can be effectively eradicated, without the current and ongoing loss of life and casualties to innocent civilians.

This resolution on first glance would appear to be easy to support, but on further review, it poses serious philosophical problems for me. Hezbollah provoked the attacks by capturing and killing Israeli soldiers. Indeed, in some instances, Hezbollah is using Lebanese civilians as shields.

The resolution declares that the House affirms its support for Israel. I believe that offering unconditional support to Israel's response sends the signal that the House supports the continuing and increasing carnage that is taking place in Lebanon. I fully recognize that lives have been lost in Israel too. All of these deaths are tragic and deplorable. This resolution does not even offer counsel to Israel to aggressively pursue the course of minimizing civilian loss of life. Furthermore, the resolution recognizes Israel's commitment to minimizing civilian loss of life. To date, Israeli military operations have resulted in excess of 300 civilians killed, with an estimated one- third of them being children. I do not see Israel's actions being consistent with a commitment to minimizing the loss of life.

The resolution also cites Israel's right to take appropriate action to defend itself, including conducting operations in both Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it. At the present time, Israeli military bombing operations are completely dismantling the infrastructure of Lebanon. Bridges, roads and buildings are being destroyed. Once the campaign wanes, the country will consist of rubble.

I am also concerned by the language that commends the President for fully supporting Israel. The language and the message state explicitly that the House supports the way he has handled the current crisis. I strongly disagree with this premise and statement.

I want to state that I am mindful that although the focus of our current attention is on the plight of the citizens affected in Israel and Lebanon, we must not forget the other component of the equation-- the situation in Gaza involving the Palestinians.

In Gaza, a cordon has been set up by the Israelis, and Palestinians are suffering under unbearable conditions. My concern rests with the humanitarian plight of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon that are pawns in a struggle by terrorist organizations. Both organizations, Hamas-- Sunni--and Hezbollah--Shia--provide vital social services such as education and medical care to civilian populations, while simultaneously engaging in terrorist activities. In fact, their efforts and ideologies have created desperate political and military scenarios. In the case of Hezbollah, their efforts are contributing to instability in the region.

I fully recognize the gravity of the situation that is presented by the unconscionable and provocative behavior of Hezbollah. I also have grave reservations about the level of the response by Israel to Hezbollah's actions. The competing complexities and mixed messages presented by the language in the resolution preclude me from offering my support to H. Res. 921. Therefore, I will cast a vote of ``nay'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the veto override of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This bipartisan legislation would expand Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

The House approved this bill last year and it won U.S. Senate approval yesterday. However, despite the measure passing both Chambers of Congress, the President has vetoed the legislation, the first of his presidency. I am disappointed the President chose this bill to be his first veto.

The American Medical Association and 92 other organizations, including scientists and researchers support H.R. 810. Federal funding would enable further research to examine many new lines of stem cells-- increasing the potential for cures. Each year 8,000 to 10,000 embryos created for in-vitro fertilization are destroyed. H.R. 810 would allow federally funded research of stem cells, which scientists believe can yield cures for diseases and injuries, to be harvested from surplus frozen embryos that are stored at fertility clinics and slated for destruction.

Human embryonic stem cells are prized because they can replicate themselves and become almost any type of human tissue. We all know someone who can benefit from the research. Science should prevail over politics.

President Bush's veto is standing in the way of hope and progress in curing many diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, some cancers, and spinal cord injuries. This veto has ignored our country's healthcare needs and has slowed the potential to eradicate life threatening and chronic diseases.

The President did not make the right choice. This critical life- saving bill is greatly needed. I urge my colleagues to support the veto override and reaffirm Congress' support of life-saving medical research.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the veto override of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This bipartisan legislation would expand Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

The House approved this bill last year and it won U.S. Senate approval yesterday. However, despite the measure passing both chambers of Congress, the President has vetoed the legislation, the first of his presidency. I am disappointed the President chose this bill to be his first veto.

The American Medical Association and 92 other organizations, including scientists and researchers support H.R. 810. Federal funding would enable further research to examine many new lines of stem cells-- increasing the potential for cures. Each year 8,000 to 10,000 embryos created for in-vitro fertilization are destroyed. H.R. 810 would allow Federally funded research of stem cells, which scientists believe can yield cures for diseases and injuries, to be harvested from surplus frozen embryos that are stored at fertility clinics and slated for destruction.

Human embryonic stem cells are prized because they can replicate themselves and become almost any type of human tissue. We all know someone who can benefit from the research. Science should prevail over politics.

President Bush's veto is standing in the way of hope and progress in curing many diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, some cancers, and spinal cord injuries. This veto has ignored our country's healthcare needs and has slowed the potential to eradicate life threatening and chronic diseases.

The President did not make the right choice. This critical life saving bill is greatly needed. I urge my colleagues to support the veto override and reaffirm Congress's support of life saving medical research.

Mr. Speaker, last week when we voted on H. Res. 895, a

resolution condemning the disclosure of classified information, and more specifically, the information about our government's monitoring of international financial transactions, I voted in opposition to the measure, and I would like to take this opportunity to explain my position.

I join my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, and others in supporting an alternative resolution, H. Res. 900, which also condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, but does so in a way that is less partisan and more ingenuous. H. Res. 895 contains a number of statements that are passed off as fact but whose veracity is dubious and not substantiated through congressional inquiry.

I regret that the majority saw fit to bring a resolution to the floor which deprived Democrats from providing any input into the framing of the measure. I do think that it was possible to produce a bin behind which both parties could unite, if the majority were interested in reaching a consensus. Obviously, it was not interested in forging a consensus statement, so we debated a political document instead of substantive initiative.

H. Res. 895, as written, states facts, which frankly, are either in substantial dispute or subject to question. For example, did the news media inappropriately and illegally disclose information regarding the SWIFT financial monitoring program, or was this information in the public domain? There are credible people ``in the know'' who claim the information was publicly available if anyone cared to conduct a little research.

According to one former State Department diplomat and U.N. monitor, the information on the SWIFT financial transaction monitoring program was incorporated in a report to the U.N. Security Council in 2002 and is available on the U.N. website. The SWIFT program has been in the public domain for quite some time.

Additionally, the resolution contains a clause that the appropriate committees in Congress were notified of the program. As we heard during the debate on the bill, that is another fact in dispute by Democrats who serve on the Select Committee on Intelligence.

I, therefore, voted against H. Res. 895 and announce my support for the alternative introduced by Mr. Frank, which the majority has seen fit to deny us the opportunity to consider.

Mr. Speaker, over 51 years ago this month, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act. America is a better country because of the Voting Rights Act.

The right to vote is the most fundamental thing our American citizens have to participate fully in American democracy. The Voting Rights Act is our Nation's most crucial and critical civil rights victory. The law commemorates the lives of those who marched, died and participated that we all might be better Americans and live and vote in the democracy that we love.

It is important today, as we debate the Voting Rights Act, that America pay particular attention. This law was good then, this law is good now, and it is needed for our future so that Americans might rise up and live in God's best interest.

Remember, today, urge your colleagues, call your Congressperson, tell them to vote to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act for 25 more years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers, from my great State of Michigan, for your leadership, sir, thank you very much, and to thank the Speaker and Nancy Pelosi for bringing this legislation to the floor.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, 41 years ago, has made America a stronger nation. Today, I rise in support of the rule that brings it to the floor and allows us to have this debate.

The preclearance portion of the amendments that we will be debating today allows the courts to go into jurisdictions that have a history of discrimination of voter irregularity, of violations. We must preserve that preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act.

It is important today, it was important 41 years ago, and it allows our voting systems and all Americans to have access to clean, fair voting procedures so that the process and America's greatness can continue.

So I rise in support of the Voting Rights Act itself. It must be renewed, the provisions that we will be talking about today; and I ask that all America call your congressman or congresswoman and tell them today to vote ``yes'' in reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Chairman, the right to vote--to participate fully and fairly in the political process--is the foundation of our democracy. For years after the Civil War, many Americans were denied this fundamental right of citizenship. Horrible acts of violence and discrimination, including poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, were used to deny African-American citizens the right to vote, especially in the South.

During the 1960s, many brave men and women fought against bigotry and injustice to secure this most basic right for all Americans. The Voting Rights Act, VRA, the ``crown jewel'' of our civil rights statutes, was born out of their courage, struggle, and sacrifice.

President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law on August 6, 1965. It provided protection to minority communities, and prohibited any voting practice that would abridge the right to vote on the basis of race. Any ``test or device'' for registering or voting was forbidden, thereby abolishing poll taxes and literacy tests.

Although the Voting Rights Act is a permanent Federal law, it contains some temporary provisions, including the ``pre-clearance'' and the bilingual provisions.

The ``pre-clearance'' provisions were enacted as temporary legislation in 1965. Sections four and five address ``pre-clearance'' and are only applicable in certain parts of the country. These provisions were originally added to help bolster the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. The VRA required State and local political jurisdictions with a documented history of discrimination to submit any proposed changes to their voting laws to the U.S. Attorney General or to Federal judges for ``pre-clearance'' before the changes could take effect. This process ensured that the Federal Government had the ability to prevent discriminatory voting laws before they were implemented. For example, States must receive approval before changing the closing time of polling places. Congress renewed these provisions in 1970, 1975, and 1982. The process of ``pre-clearance'' provision continues to protect voters today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. I believe the measure deceptively undermines States' rights to protect their coastlines, compromises fragile coastal environments, and ultimately would cost taxpayers billions in lost revenue, adding to the already record-setting national deficit.

H.R. 4761 presents the illusion of granting States more control over drilling, when in actuality it makes it more cumbersome for States choosing to continue protecting their coastlines. States desiring to opt-out of drilling would be required to pass legislation every 5 years, subject to approval by their governor, and present it to the Federal Government. If State legislatures and their governors are unable to come to agreement on drilling policy within one year of this bill's enactment, they would lose their right to decide as the Federal Government would then have authority to begin granting leases within 50 to 100 miles off their coastlines.

This bill attempts to bait States, already suffering fiscal restraints due to the Majority's consistent practice of cutting States funding for vital services like Medicaid/Medicare and public education, with a greater share of revenue if they are willing to sacrifice their coastal protections. It would take the second largest funding source of the Federal Government, after income taxes, and redistribute those funds only to the coastal States that will allow drilling. This comes as a sacrifice to all other States as the Interior Department has estimated the alteration of current Federal-State revenue sharing provisions on royalty payments will result in a loss of approximately

$70 billion in revenues over the next 15 years; adding to the public debt burden.

It is important to note that 80 percent of known oil and natural gas reserves are in areas where drilling is already permitted. The Department of the Interior has already offered leases for 267 million acres of the outer-continental shelf; however, energy companies have only taken the initiative to explore 24 million of those acres already available to them. It would be insensible to risk these coastal environments before companies have even exhausted the exploration of areas they are already permitted to drill.

America's families need real relief from high-energy costs. Even if this measure had addressed this issue in the most optimal manner, offshore exploration remains an expensive, slow, and risky way of addressing the nation's energy crisis. The Federal Government should be investing resources to advance energy efficiency, conservation, and the development of alternative fuels, which can provide immediate relief to American citizens, not reinforcing our nation's gluttonous appetite for oil.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4761.

Mr. Speaker, personal business requires me to be in the

district, and I am therefore unable to be present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, July 10, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 2563, a bill to authorize Idaho Water Studies, (Rollcall No. 358); and ``yea'' on H.R. 5061, the Paint Bank and Wytheville National Fish Hatcheries Conveyance Act, (Rollcall No. 359).