Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Reauthorization Act. It was once said that ``a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.'' The amendments offered today by the majority seek to do precisely that; oppress the voting rights of minorities all over America to fairly and freely vote in elections.

While I am pleased to see this important, critical, and bipartisan bill brought to the floor, I am disheartened to see amendments offered that would weaken the core of H.R. 9 and would take a step backward in the fight for equality.

Since the birth of our Nation, no other right has been more important than having the ability to vote. Unfortunately, as history has shown, the denial of this right to minorities is a scar on our system of democracy. The passage of the groundbreaking Voting Rights Act of 1965 broke down barriers that stood in the way of African-Americans and minorities to vote, and we must pass H.R. 9, without the gutting amendments, to ensure that these barriers of discrimination, intimidation, and inequality will never be built again. Just as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave voice to millions of African American and minority men and women, H.R. 9 will ensure that voice for millions more in generations to come.

H.R. 9 would renew provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that protect minority voters in States and districts that have a documented history of voter suppression. It would extend the provisions of this bill for an additional 25 years, require the U.S. Attorney General to send Federal observers to monitor elections to make sure that eligible African-American and other minority voters are permitted to vote, it would extend bilingual requirements, and it would prohibit the use of any kind of test or devices to deny an individual the right to vote.

Each and every Member of the House has the unique opportunity today to continue the work of the great civil rights leaders of the past, Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King, Rosa Parks, Fannie Lou Hammer, and our own John Lewis, to overcome the ghosts of oppression and fight for a new day of equality and respect for every individual.

I urge my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to vote for H.R. 9 and oppose all amendments.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the Fourth of July holiday, Americans are still paying record prices at the pump to fuel their cars for summer road trips and vacations. And this Republican Congress is still dragging its feet and refusing to pass legislation that would actually do something to prevent these high prices, to prevent oil and gas companies from price gouging.

For the past year, Democrats have sought to pass legislation that would give the Federal Trade Commission authority to hold oil and gas companies that gouge consumers accountable. The Senate hasn't even taken up the Republicans' own weaker price-gouging bill which passed the House in May. That means more toothless investigations, more corporate bandits getting off scot free.

The FTC issued a report in May that exposed the need to pass legislation that clearly defines price-gouging offenses. Even in instances where the FTC has found that consumers have been abused at the pump, the FTC was powerless to prosecute the companies that engage in price gouging.

The five largest oil and gas companies reported $110 billion in profits in 2005, and ExxonMobil reported the highest profit of any American company ever.

There is a price-gouging problem. It is happening at the producer and refiner levels, not at the retail level. We should pass the Democrats' FREE Act and give consumers relief at the pump once and for all and do it now.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4761, the Domestic Energy Production through Offshore Exploration Act. This shortsighted initiative would feed America's oil addiction while threatening our coasts and eliminating one of our few remaining sources of fossil fuels.

Since President Bush declared that the nation is addicted to oil in his State of the Union speech, the President and the Republican Congress have continued to advance the agenda of their big oil buddies. This legislation would ensure that the nation's increasing energy demand is fed with oil instead of investing in alternative energy sources and promoting efficiency. The United States holds only 2% of the world's remaining oil reserves, while the Persian Gulf states have 60 percent of that oil. Feeding the nation's oil addiction is a threat to the nation's security.

This legislation limits states' abilities to protect their environment and their coastal residents. The energy companies already have access to 80% of our offshore oil and gas reserves. This legislation eliminates a 25-year, bi-partisan moratorium against offshore drilling that protects beaches and sensitive coastal areas. This bill makes it more difficult for states to prevent drilling off their coasts than to allow it, and limits their power to prevent new pipeline construction. It gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to threaten states with a loss of funding if they pass any law that restricts drilling. In order to reward the oil and gas industry, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress will make coastal states and their residents pay the price if we pass this legislation.

This bill will not bring down gasoline prices in the near term or ever. Given the average time it takes to produce oil and gas from new wells offshore, no oil and gas would be brought to the market from these new projects until 2013. We have the renewable energy capability and the efficient technology to radically reduce our demand for oil and gas today. By increasing fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks to 33 miles per gallon by 2015, we could eliminate our imports of oil from the Persian Gulf. By spreading alternative fuels and biofuels across the country, we could radically reduce the largest source of our carbon emissions. And renewable energy sources like wind farms could be brought online and produce electricity in as little time as one year.

This bill will add tens of billions of dollars to our record deficit by subsidizing the same oil and gas companies that are reporting record profits. Already, every man, woman and child in this country bares the burden of $30,000 of our current deficit. Now, this bill would allow oil and gas companies to pay billions of dollars less in royalty relief, compensates oil companies for any delays in their drilling projects with taxpayer money, and allows the Congress to divert revenue for new drilling projects. Oil companies should drill at their own expense, not taxpayer expense, and the federal government should vigilantly regulate all drilling projects.

I urge all members to oppose this budget-busting, polluting legislation and encourage Congress to fight America's oil addiction rather than feed it.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 4th of July and the 230th birthday of our great Nation, I am today introducing the Patriot Corporations of America Act which encourages corporations to invest in the American people and the American economy. It is time to rekindle the spirit of patriotism and create a new patriotic corporate ethic in America--one that unites workers and their employers in the mutual goal of building a stronger, more prosperous, more democratic business sector that can vigorously and proudly compete in the twenty-first- century global economy.

Since the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, we have benefited from the great work and contributions of countless American patriots and Congress has always undertaken efforts to honor those men and women. The Patriot Corporations of America Act continues that tradition by rewarding companies that commit to America and American workers.

If you want to make Americans of all stripes mad, tell them about the billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks our government gives to companies that outsource jobs and relocate to avoid giving back to the our great country. A recent poll in Foreign Affairs magazine reported that nearly 90 percent of Americans worry about losing their jobs to corporate outsourcing. And, it is estimated that between $30 and $70 billion is hidden away in tax havens like Bermuda by corporate ex- patriots.

To end this race to the bottom, to end the offshoring of jobs and research, Bill Edley, a former State Representative in Illinois, and political scientist Robin Johnson of Monmouth College, introduced a new idea of turning the tables around with the Patriot Corporations of America Act. It would reward companies, like New Maryland Clothing and Tama Manufacturing, that care about our Nation, our communities, and American workers. I am honored to be introducing this commonsense concept in the form of legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In exchange for preferential treatment in government contracting and a 5 percent tax rate reduction, Patriot Corporations would be asked to pledge their allegiance to our country by producing at least 90 percent of their goods and doing at least 50 percent of their research and development in the United States. They would limit top managements' compensation to no greater than 100 times that of their lowest- compensated full-time workers. They would show their commitment to their workers by contributing at least 5 percent of payroll to portable pension funds and by paying for at least 70 percent of the cost of health insurance plans. Finally, Patriot Corporations would simply be required to comply with existing federal regulations regarding the environment, workplace safety, consumer protections and labor relations, including maintaining neutrality in employee organizing drives.

Mr. Speaker, the Patriot Corporations for America Act would be revenue neutral. It would be paid for by closing corporate offshoring loopholes that that have been exploited and, if necessary, reining in some of the new tax breaks for millionaires.

Patriot Corporations would create a new class of companies committed to uphold the dignity and prosperity of American workers as well as to selling their goods on the American market and around the world.

Patriot Corporations are an expression of the American spirit of our fore fathers and mothers when they took that brave step of declaring our independence and creating the United States of America.

I am honored to be introducing this bill today and I encourage my colleagues to join me in saluting American businesses and workers.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in order to bring to the attention of my colleagues a study released by Families USA on the new Plan D prescription drug plan, Big Dollars Little Sense: Rising Medicare Prescription Drug Prices. This report, which was released earlier this month, describes how private prescription drug plans have failed to secure cheaper drug prices for Medicare enrollees and have done nothing to stem the tide of rising drug prices.

By comparing the prices under private Part D plans to the prices available to veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system, the Families USA report shows that the private insurers are failing to provide needed cost savings to their customers. Between November 2005 and April 2006, private Part D insurers raised the prices on seventeen of the top twenty most frequently prescribed drugs to seniors significantly, while the same drugs under the VA plan experienced little or no increase at all. The median difference in price between the Part D and VA plans was 46 percent. In other words, seniors enrolled in Part D private plan are paying an average 46 percent more for those drugs than they would have if they had been able to receive VA-negotiated prices.

As the study details:

For each of the top twenty drugs prescribed to seniors, the

lowest price charged by Part D plan was higher than the

lowest price secured by the VA. For Zocor (20 mg), a drug

used to prevent coronary heart disease, the lowest VA price

for a year's treatment was $127.44, while the lowest Part D

plan price was $1,275.36, a difference of $1,147.92 or 901

percent. For Zocor (40 mg), the lowest VA price for a year's

treatment was $190.72, while the lowest Part D plan price was

$1,275.36, a difference of $1,084.60 or 569 percent.

This difference is staggering, and it shows the difference between a publicly accountable plan that is committed to helping its beneficiaries and private plans that are committed to helping their profit margins. Big Dollars Little Sense debunks the myth that the price differences between the VA and private Part D plans has to do with the number of drugs covered. As the study states, the VA plan covers just as many drugs as the plans in Part D but is able to obtain ``large discounts simply by using the government's negotiating power.'' The VA utilizes the significant leverage it has in order to get cheaper drugs for its beneficiaries--an authority Medicare is explicitly prohibited from using under the Medicare law.

Another discovery that the report made was that the private insurers have done almost nothing to protect seniors from rising drug prices. Over a six-month period between November 2005 to April 2006, drug prices for the top twenty drugs prescribed to seniors rose 3.8 percent. That increase was mirrored by the private drug plans, which raised their prices to their customers 3.7 percent. (Again, prices under the VA system either did not increase or increased at a far lesser rate.) The drug prices continue to rise and the private insurers simply pass that increase on to the seniors enrolled in their plan, making little effort to negotiate fairer prices.

The Families USA report not only draws attention to the ineffectiveness of the private insurers but highlights the fact that there is no way to hold them accountable. Part D states that these plans are required to pass the discounts they receive on to Medicare beneficiaries but does not specify the proportion of the discount that must be passed on. The insurers could actually be getting huge discounts from the drug manufacturers and just keeping the difference, but we have no way of knowing. There is no disclosure and no accountability for the private providers who supply an essential benefit to the elderly in this country. This is a serious problem for seniors. Prices are higher than necessary, can increase over the course of the year, and can vary among plans. It is also a serious problem for taxpayers, who pay 75 percent of the cost of Part D premiums. Big Dollars Little Sense reports, too, that the median difference between the highest and lowest prices that Part D plans charged for the same drug was 36 percent. This is not just a question of picking the right plan during the enrollment period--since plans can change prices throughout the year but seniors are locked in, even a smart shopper can end up paying much more for their drugs than enrollees in other plans.

This report concludes that seniors in this country would get a far better deal if they were able to benefit from Medicare price negotiation:

Price data from the Part D plans from November 2005 and

April 2006 show that these plans are failing to deliver on

the promise that competition would bring prices down. The use

of ``market power,'' lauded by Medicare officials and the

Administration, has not resulted in drug prices that are

comparable to the low prices negotiated by the Department of

Veterans Affairs. Not only are Part D plan prices high, but

these prices are increasing far more often than they are

decreasing, and the plans are not containing drug price

inflation. These disturbing price tends do not bode well for

either Medicare consumers or taxpayers. The ``market power''

of the plans has not delivered the low prices promised to

Medicare consumers.

The law that established the Medicare prescription drug

benefit, in prohibiting Medicare from using the negotiating

clout of 43 million seniors and others in Medicare to obtain

low drug prices, has given seniors and taxpayers a benefit

that costs more than it should. When negotiations are divided

among a multitude of plans, none seems to do as well as a

single negotiator might. When it comes to reducing and

containing drug prices, the Medicare drug program is an

opportunity that has been badly squandered.

A Medicare-administered plan with Medicare price negotiation would lower prices since the drug companies would be more likely to provide a good deal to an entity representing 43 million of their best customers. That is why I urge my colleagues to read this important report and to support H.R. 752, the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act, which would give seniors and persons with disabilities the ability to enroll in a Medicare-operated plan with lower prices.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Stearns Amendment. This amendment would set a dangerous precedent in the way that this Nation and Congress approach minority voting rights.

Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act sets specific guidelines and requirements for providing bilingual ballots for political subdivisions with limited English-proficiency populations. The Stearns Amendment would essentially eliminate Section 203 and would discourage and disenfranchise entire populations of American citizens from voting. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 sought to protect the right to vote for those in our Nation whose voices were not being heard, the very same voices that this amendment seeks to extinguish.

Voting is one of the most important duties that citizens perform. It allows citizens to choose who will represent them and who will make decisions on important issues that will impact their everyday lives. Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the knowledge that no citizen's right to vote will be hindered.

Any election reform should break down barriers that face minority voters, not increase them. The Stearns Amendment would instead build new barriers to democratic participation for American citizens.

H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Act of 2006 would extend Section 203 provisions for 25 years, until 2032. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Stearns Amendment, and urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with Democrats to enact H.R. 9 in order to protect the voting rights of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in order to bring to the attention of my colleagues a study released by Families USA on the new Plan D prescription drug plan, ``Big Dollars Little Sense: Rising Medicare Prescription Drug Prices,'' This report, which was released earlier this month, describes how private prescription drug plans have failed to secure cheaper drug prices for Medicare enrollees and have done nothing to stem the tide of rising drug prices.

By comparing the prices under private Part D plans to the prices available to veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system, the Families USA report shows that the private insurers are failing to provide needed cost savings to their customers. Between November 2005 and April 2006, private Part D insurers raised the prices on seventeen of the top twenty most frequently prescribed drugs to seniors significantly, while the same drugs under the VA plan experienced little or no increase at all. The median difference in price between the Part D and VA plans was 46 percent. In other words, seniors enrolled in Part D private plan are paying an average 46 percent more for those drugs than they would have if they had been able to receive VA negotiated prices.

As the study details:

For each of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, the

lowest price charged by any Part D plan was higher than the

lowest price secured by the VA . . . For Zocor (20 mg), a

drug used to prevent coronary heart disease, the lowest VA

price for a year's treatment was $127.44, while the lowest

Part D plan price was $1,275.36, a difference of $1,147.92 or

901 percent. For Zocor (40 mg), the lowest VA price for a

year's treatment was $190.76, while the lowest Part D plan

price was $1,275.36, a difference of $1,084.60 or 569

percent.

This difference is staggering, and it shows the difference between a publicly-accountable plan that is committed to helping its beneficiaries and private plans that are committed to helping their profit margins, ``Big Dollars Little Sense,'' debunks the myth that the price difference between the VA and private Part D plans has to do with the number of drugs covered. As the study states, the VA plan covers just as many drugs as the plans in Part D but is able to obtain ``large discounts simply by using the government's negotiating power.'' The VA utilizes the significant leverage it has in order to get cheaper drugs for its beneficiaries--an authority Medicare is explicitly prohibited from using under the current Medicare law.

Another discovery that the report made was that the private insurers have done almost nothing to protect seniors from rising drug prices. Over a six-month period between November 2005 to April 2006, drug prices for the top twenty drugs prescribed to seniors rose 3.8 percent. That increase was mirrored by the private drug plans, which raised their prices to their customers 3.7 percent. The plans were unable to moderate increases, unlike the VA, where prices either did not increase or increased at a far lesser rate. The drug prices continue to rise and the private insurers simply pass that increase on to the seniors enrolled in their plan, making little effort to negotiate fairer prices.

The Families USA report not only draws attention to the ineffectiveness of the private insurers but highlights the fact that there is no way to hold them accountable. Part D states that these plans are required to pass the discounts they receive on to Medicare beneficiaries but does not specify the proportion of the discount that must be passed on. The insurers could actually be getting huge discounts from the drug manufacturers and just keeping the difference, but we have no way of knowing. There is no disclosure and no accountability for the private providers who supply an essential benefit to the elderly in this country. This is a serious problem for seniors. Prices are higher than necessary, can increase over the course of the year, and can vary among plans. It is also a serious problem for taxpayers, who pay 75 percent of the cost of Part D premiums. ``Big Dollars Little Sense,'' reports, too, that the median difference between the highest and lowest prices that Part D plans charged for the same drug was 36 percent. This is not just a question of picking the right plan during the enrollment period--since plans can change prices throughout the year but seniors are locked in, even a smart shopper can end up paying much more for their drugs than enrollees in other plans.

This report concludes that seniors in this country would get a far better deal if they were able to benefit from Medicare price negotiation:

Price data from the Part D plans from November 2005 and

April 2006 show that these plans are failing to deliver on

the promise that competition would bring prices down. The use

of ``market power,'' lauded by Medicare officials and the

Administration, has not resulted in drug prices that are

comparable to the low prices negotiated by the Department of

Veterans Affairs. Not only are Part D plan prices high, but

these prices are increasing far more often than they are

decreasing, and the plans are not containing drug price

inflation. These disturbing price trends do not bode well for

either Medicare consumers or taxpayers. The ``market power''

of the plans has not delivered the low prices promised to

Medicare consumers.

The law that established the Medicare prescription drug

benefit, in prohibiting Medicare from using the negotiating

clout of 43 million seniors and others in Medicare to obtain

low drug prices, has given seniors and taxpayers a benefit

that costs more than it should. When negotiations are divided

among a multitude of plans, none seems to do as well as a

single negotiator might. When it comes to reducing and

containing drug prices, the Medicare drug program is an

opportunity that has been badly squandered.

A Medicare-administered plan with Medicare price negotiation would lower prices since the drug companies would be more likely to provide a good deal to an entity representing 43 million of their best customers. That is why I urge my colleagues to read this important report and to support H.R. 752, the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act, which would give seniors and persons with disabilities the ability to enroll in a Medicare-operated plan with lower prices.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to join in support of this important bipartisan Health Centers Renewal Act, H.R. 5573.

Each and every day health centers provide high-quality primary and preventive care to our constituents. In Illinois, community, migrant, homeless and public housing health centers operate 268 primary care sites and serve close to 1 million patients every year.

Community health centers do a great deal with limited resources. They provide critical medical care services to many who would otherwise have no other place to go or would end up in an emergency room. They provide early care and chronic disease treatment, keeping people healthy and productive. They are models of accountability and patient involvement.

As the reauthorization bill points out, health centers are community- owned and patient-controlled, an important factor in their ability to reduce barriers to health care access and disparities in health care delivery.

They are also extremely cost-effective. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Illinois health centers save over $34 million in State Medicaid expenditures alone. The cost of serving a patient in a health center is about one-third less than in other settings.

As grateful as we are for all the work the community health centers do, it is also important that we recognize that they cannot solve the health care crisis facing our Nation by themselves. We need a vibrant Medicaid program and strategies to expand affordable access to health care for all, especially for the specialty care services that community health centers do not provide.

Finally, I want to take a moment to recognize the outstanding work of the Illinois Primary Health Care Association, which represents the State's community health centers. The association provides important support, not just in advocacy, but in helping health centers learn about and enter the new world of health information technology, IT, assisting in the expansion and construction of new health centers, encouraging culturally appropriate care. We thank them for meeting the new challenges of a growing medically indigent population that is diverse in every conceivable way.

I particularly want to thank the health centers that serve my district so well, centers operated by Access Community Health Network, Heartland Health Outreach, Heartland International Center, Howard Brown Health Center, the Chicago Department of Public Health, and the American Indian Health Service of Chicago. This reauthorization bill is important in making sure that they and other health centers around the country can continue to provide timely, high-quality care to those who would otherwise lack a source of care.

I strongly urge support of H.R. 5573, and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. Speaker, American seniors know that the Republican prescription drug plan that took effect earlier this year is deeply flawed. The plan is complex and confusing, unfair and unreliable.

This is not the plan seniors wanted. They didn't ask for a plan that forced them to go outside of Medicare to choose from dozens of private insurance plans, or a plan that creates a giant gap in coverage that leaves them with no benefits but still requires them to pay monthly premiums.

They didn't ask for a plan that slaps those who haven't yet selected a plan with a penalty that stays with them the rest of their lives.

Democrats believe it is time that seniors receive a simple and affordable drug plan. We can make prescription drugs more affordable by giving Medicare the ability to negotiate lower prices with the drug companies just like the Veterans Administration does. We can make the plan simpler and more cost effective, creating a plan within the current Medicare system.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats are not satisfied with the status quo. We will fight to do more to help our seniors afford their prescription drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and for holding this Special Order tonight on the minimum wage.

We are not the only ones that are up at this hour and doing our work. There are millions of Americans around the country who are working. Some of them are working in all-night diners serving people food, maybe taking care of a crying baby right now for someone else, maybe cleaning up after some elderly person, and many of them are doing that just to try and make ends meet and really aren't because they make the minimum wage, about 7 million hard-working people, and anybody who thinks a minimum wage worker doesn't work hard hasn't done a minimum-wage job. Sixty percent are women; many are the heads of households and have children themselves that they have a hard time buying food for or providing health care for.

In fact, a lot of those people who often are held in some contempt when they go to the store with food stamps, and who feel some embarrassment they have to come to get help from the government, put their hand out for assistance, and who are we really helping? We are helping the employers. We are subsidizing those employers with taxpayer dollars who don't pay a living wage or even close to a living wage to many of those workers.

Today the Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a study entitled ``Buying Power of Minimum Wage at 51-Year Low.'' The title tells it all. It has been 10 years since the Congress voted to raise the minimum wage and nearly 9 years since its implementation. If we don't act this year, it will be the longest period of inaction and stagnation since the minimum wage was created.

I know we have limited time, but I wanted to make a couple of points about what it really means to be on the minimum wage.

According to a New York Times article reporting on a recent study by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, last year was the first year on record that a full-time worker making minimum wage could not afford a one-bedroom apartment anywhere in the country. Anywhere in the country. Over the past 9 years, the minimum wage has not increased, but average rents have gone up more than 28 percent. In Illinois where I live, you need to make $15.44 an hour. In Chicago, you need to make $17.44 an hour in order to pay a two-bedroom apartment at fair market rent. That is three times the minimum wage.

In the 9 years that minimum wage hasn't increased, average health care premiums have risen over 75 percent. What hasn't risen? Everything has risen. All of the basics have risen, but the minimum wage has not. It is just shameful. Here we are talking about tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, talking about eliminating the estate tax for the Paris Hiltons of our country, and minimum-wage workers, people working right now at this late hour, make $5.15 an hour. We should all be ashamed.

We can do that right away. We could do it tomorrow. We could raise the minimum wage and provide some level of dignity and relief for hard- working Americans, and we should do that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak on this.

Mr. Speaker there has been no organization, no strategy and no plan for the handling of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. They have been in prison for years and years, with no hope of being formally charged. They are given none of the rights afforded prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention nor are they given the rights of criminal suspects in the U.S. justice system. In fact, out of the roughly 500 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, only four have been charged with war crimes. And, since these detainees are classified as enemy combatants, they can be held until the Iraq war is over. Since no one can accurately determine when the war will end, the prisoners could be detained for an indefinite amount of time.

Mr. Speaker, I visited Guantanamo Bay in 2003. I saw firsthand the conditions of the prisoners and the facilities in which they were being held. These prisoners were being held in small cells for over a year without any hope of having their day in court--or even being formally charged with a war crime. With this desperate atmosphere, it is not surprising that there have been at least 41 unsuccessful suicide attempts by 25 detainees since the United States began taking prisoners to the base in January 2002.

I find it inexcusable that my own country has not demonstrated more concern for the basic Constitutional rights of these prisoners. If there is legitimate evidence of crime, these prisoners deserve a speedy trial.

Mr. Speaker, we must be a positive example to the world. We must prove to all those who would challenge our way of life that a worthy Democracy that upholds the rule of law even in the time of conflict, can exist. If we are to convince the world that terrorism is wrong and freedom is right and just, then as the most powerful voice of liberty, the United States of America must start acting as a leader and as an example.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5252, the Communication and Enhancement Act. The COPE Act would allow telephone companies to reap the rewards of the, cable business with few responsibilities and could also threaten the innovative nature of the Internet. I believe the passage of this bill would be a major setback for consumers, communities, and the public interest.

I think we all agree that there is a need for consumer choice and competition in cable. Currently, most communities are served by the cable industry's quasi-monopolies. However, ``competition'' in cable shouldn't have the effect of, cutting consumer protections, reducing public broadcasting, and eliminating local rights. ``Competition'' shouldn't be about providing lucrative markets with several cable service options and leaving those in poorer neighborhoods with low- quality service and the potential for ever increasing cable raising rates.

The COPE Act would put the Federal Communications Commission in charge of what our localities have been successfully handling for years. Do we really think the Federal Communications Commission will do a better job at resolving consumer complaints? Is the FCC going to come out to Skokie, Illinois and take care of problems that may arise concerning the town's public right-of-way? And, does the FCC have the resources--both in budget and personnel--to do so?

I am also greatly concerned that there are not adequate protections in this bill for the Internet as we know it. The telecom industry has already told us that they plan to operate their own form of censorship, slowing down or speeding up delivery of content depending on it relationship to the provider. I am concerned that they could also start blocking email from advocacy groups they don't agree with and shutting down startups that may offer competition to products they provide.

I understand that many argue that the cost of continuing with an open Internet will fall on the shoulder of consumers, and that the Titans of the Internet will get a free ride if we pass a net neutrality provision. However, while the COPE Act would allow the telcos to set up their tollbooths, there are no guarantees, no protections, nothing to stop the telcos from bilking consumers--even if the telcos were to charge Google and Yahoo. They could double dip--and why wouldn't they? One can say that it probably won't happen, but there is nothing in this bill to stop them.

Mr. Speaker, the COPE Act is not the answer to lack of competition in cable service. I urge my colleagues to oppose its passage.

Mr. Speaker, as a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I rise in strong support of our brave troops and in strong support of Congressman Murtha's plan for a responsible redeployment from Iraq.

Americans want the truth about the Iraq war. Americans deserve the truth, and despite all the talk from those who declared this war, ineptly pursued this war, and still today justify this war, the American people in overwhelming numbers have determined for themselves the truth about this war.

Polls taken even after the killing of al Zarqawi show that only 33 percent of American adults think that the results of the war were worth the loss of life and other costs. Only 33 percent approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq. Only 26 percent of Americans feel that the United States is better off because of the war.

The American people in their wisdom have been able to distinguish reality from rhetoric. The truth has been a major casualty in the war of Iraq.

It is worth reviewing just a few of the statements presented as truth that have been proven to be not true, never true, and still today not true:

Dick Cheney said in August 2002, ``Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.''

In March 2003, Donald Rumsfeld said, ``We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.''

The President said in May 2003, ``We found the weapons of mass destruction.''

And Donald Rumsfeld on the cost, ``Well the Office of Management and Budget has come up with a number that is something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that will be the U.S. burden and how much will be other countries is an open question.''

Dick Cheney said May 30, 2005, ``I think they are in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.''

And what happens to those experts who tell the truth? Are they heeded and embraced by the Bush administration? Hardly. Although it is now universally agreed we didn't have enough troops to avoid the chaos and violence after the initial invasion, when the Army's top general, Eric Shinseki, testified in February 2003 ``something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers'' would be necessary to achieve victory in Iraq,'' he was immediately and publicly repudiated by Secretary Rumsfeld who said that ``the idea it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark.'' Shinseki was quietly ushered into retirement, and Secretary Rumsfeld remains in place leading the failed Bush administration policy in Iraq.

When Dr. Lawrence Lindsey, former assistant for economic policy to the President, told the Wall Street Journal in September 2002 that the war's cost could reach $200 billion, he was fired by the President.

Yet by the end of this year we will have spend $450 billion in Iraq. Some say at the end of the day the war will cost $1 trillion taxpayer dollars.

Since the time the President announced on May 1, 2003 that ``major combat operations in Iraq have ended,'' more than 2,350 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives, and the President has not attended a single one of their funerals. And the United States is spending in excess of $8 billion a month to wage the war. That is $266 million a day, $11 million an hour, $185,000 a minute and $3,100 a second, every second for this war. Certainly we could have afforded body armor and proper Humvees for our soldiers.

We could have insured 165 million children for 1 year, provided more than 13 million American students with 4-year scholarships at public universities, fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 11 years, give basic immunization to every child in the world for 92 years, and I believe that would have bought us more security than invading Iraq has done.

Our military men and women have done a magnificent job in the Iraq theater and deserve better. The civilian leadership in the White House and the civilian leadership in the Pentagon have failed. Time after time they have been wrong. They projected the cost of the war and got it wrong. They predicted the length of the war: wrong. They predicted the existence of weapons of mass destruction: wrong. They predicted the Iraqi reaction to our occupation: wrong. They got the reconstruction of Iraq wrong. When it came to providing needed equipment, they got it wrong.

And who will pay the price for those mistakes? None of the architects of this war. No one of them has been held accountable. The only ones paying the price are dead and wounded soldiers, our men and women in uniform.

We need a new direction in Iraq. The majority has nothing to offer in terms of a plan, just more political ploys, more talk, more mistakes like those cited today.

It is time to redeploy our troops from Iraq. There is a plan, the Murtha plan; and we should make sure that we are not establishing a permanent military presence there.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give well-deserved recognition to Joel M. Carp, who is retiring this month as the Senior Vice President for Community Services and Government Relations of the Jewish Federation/Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago.

Joel Carp has been serving the people of my district and Illinois for over 30 years. As a social worker taught to help individuals deal with problems and gain opportunity, he has also used his professional training to promote policies and initiatives that will serve many, many people whom he will never meet face-to-face.

Joel Carp is a tireless and passionate advocate. It doesn't matter whether someone is native-born or an immigrant, Jewish or not, young or old--he is there to provide assistance. For over three decades, he has fought to create services to meet the health, housing, nutrition and other needs of Illinois residents.

At the Jewish Federation, he is responsible for projects like Chicago's Jewish Refugee Resettlement Program and Project EZRA (Services for the Homeless, Chronically Mentally Ill and Economically Disadvantaged). He serves on the Illinois Department of Human Services' Family Self Sufficiency Council, the Governor's Families and Children Leadership Sub-Cabinet, and the Lt. Governor's Ethnic Affairs Council.

Joel Carp is also a force for change at the national level, where he has worked with OMB Watch, Independent Sector, and the National Immigration Forum and for policies to improve health and employment opportunities. And somehow he finds the time to publish, teach and mentor.

Joel Carp is a dynamo whose actions are directed to improving people's lives and the strength of our community. We have been fortunate to be able to benefit from his skills, his passion, his commitment and his compassion. While I know that he will continue those efforts even after his retirement this month, I want to take this time to recognize his extraordinary accomplishments and to thank him for his excellent work on behalf of everyone in the 9th Congressional District and for this personal friendship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act. This bill would endanger the environment and the health of communities across America in order to provide another giveaway to the oil and gas industry which is reaping record profits.

The oil industry is responsible for limiting refinery capacity. During the 1990s, the American Petroleum Institute encouraged the oil industry to limit refining capacity in order to boost profits. The industry followed instructions, closing 176 refineries since 1980 and failing to fully utilize available capacity. According to the Washington Post, between September 2004 and 2005, refineries marked up their prices 255 percent while gasoline retailers only marked up their prices by 5 percent. The five largest oil companies, many of which own refineries, reported record profits of $110 billion in 2005. ExxonMobil reported the largest annual profit of an American company in history.

Environmental regulations are not standing in the way of new refineries being opened. The CEOs of Shell and ConocoPhillips have testified that no Federal or State regulations had prevented them from siting new refineries. Only one energy company, Arizona Clean Fuels, has filed a permit to open a new refinery in over 20 years. When Arizona Clear Fuels was granted that permit, the company never actually opened the refinery. Its inability to find investors, not environmental regulations, prevented the company from opening a refinery.

After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, refinery outages caused a supply shock that was in part responsible for a rise in gasoline prices. The Democrats, under the leadership of Representatives Dingell, Stupak and Boucher, proposed the creation of a strategic refinery reserve which would ensure that the U.S. had an adequate supply of refined product in case of national emergency. Republicans have repeatedly rejected Democrats' efforts to create that reserve, which would put the interests of consumers before the profits of the oil industry. Republicans have also rejected an attempt by Ranking Member Dingell and Energy and Commerce Democrats to make this legislation bipartisan.

This bill is another giveaway to the oil and gas industry that could impose refineries on communities throughout the country. It requires President Bush to designate three closed military bases as sites for new refineries, waiving local and State regulations and giving communities little input in the process. It allows Secretary Rumsfeld to sell or transfer the land to an oil company at no cost. Congress should know by now that billions of dollars in giveaway to the oil and gas industry has only led to record profits and record energy prices.

This bill again demonstrates the misplaced priorities of this Republican Congress. While my constituents are paying $2.96 for a gallon of regular gas in Chicago, we are considering legislation that would do nothing to bring down gasoline prices. Nothing in this legislation forces oil companies to utilize all of their available refining capacity, nor does it protect our supply in the case of a national emergency. This bill will lead to higher profits in the boardroom and more pain at the pump.