Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today's ruling is a victory for content creators and consumers. It is clear that those who encourage content theft are responsible for their conduct even if they themselves are not stealing. With this ruling, creators will be encouraged to take advantage of the digital marketplace and provide consumers with even more digital content.

For years, consumers have been clamoring for access to digital content. Because content protection technology and content owners had not caught up with the Internet, music lovers turned to illegal download sites like Napster and Kazaa for digital content.

We had heard that, if the content industry would just create a legal avenue for obtaining digital music, consumers would embrace it. The premonition was largely true. The record industry and high-tech worked together to develop digital content protection, to clear the rights needed to get music online, and to get music on the Internet. According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, the response to legitimate digital content has been overwhelming: in 2004, only twenty- four percent of music downloaders had tried legitimate download sites; in 2005 to date, the number jumped to forty-three percent.

Internet sites like Apple iTunes, Napster, and Rhapsody offer consumers a variety of ways of obtaining music, from one-time downloads to monthly subscriptions. In just the past few years, over 300 million songs were sold on just a single website. No matter how you view it, the marketplace is working.

Today's Supreme Court decision makes it clear that encouraging others to steal is as nefarious as stealing directly. I have no doubt that, with this added assurance, content creators will roll out even more digital content to consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my colleagues Paul Krugman's essay entitled ``The War President'' which was published in today's New York Times. How this country gets involved in a war always matters and since Congress has the Constitutional power to declare war, every Member of Congress must know how we got there, what we're doing there now and how the war shall end.

[From the New York Times, Jun. 24, 2005]

The War President

(By Paul Krugman)

In this former imperial capital, every square seems to

contain a giant statue of a Habsburg on horseback, posing as

a conquering hero.

America's founders knew all too well how war appeals to the

vanity of rulers and their thirst for glory. That's why they

took care to deny presidents the kingly privilege of making

war at their own discretion.

But after 9/11 President Bush, with obvious relish,

declared himself a ``war president.'' And he kept the nation

focused on martial matters by morphing the pursuit of Al

Qaeda into a war against Saddam Hussein.

In November 2002, Helen Thomas, the veteran White House

correspondent, told an audience, ``I have never covered a

president who actually wanted to go to war''--but she made it

clear that Mr. Bush was the exception. And she was right.

Leading the nation wrongfully into war strikes at the heart

of democracy. It would have been an unprecedented abuse of

power even if the war hadn't turned into a military and moral

quagmire. And we won't be able to get out of that quagmire

until we face up to the reality of how we got in.

Let me talk briefly about what we now know about the

decision to invade Iraq, then focus on why it matters.

The administration has prevented any official inquiry into

whether it hyped the case for war. But there's plenty of

circumstantial evidence that it did.

And then there's the Downing Street Memo--actually the

minutes of a prime minister's meeting in July 2002--in which

the chief of British overseas intelligence briefed his

colleagues about his recent trip to Washington.

``Bush wanted to remove Saddam,'' says the memo, ``through

military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism

and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed

around the policy.'' It doesn't get much clearer than that.

The U.S. news media largely ignored the memo for five weeks

after it was released in The Times of London. Then some

asserted that it was ``old news'' that Mr. Bush wanted war in

the summer of 2002, and that W.M.D. were just an excuse. No,

it isn't. Media insiders may have suspected as much, but they

didn't inform their readers, viewers and listeners. And

they have never held Mr. Bush accountable for his repeated

declarations that he viewed war as a last resort.

Still, some of my colleagues insist that we should let

bygones be bygones. The question, they say, is what we do

now. But they're wrong: it's crucial that those responsible

for the war be held to account.

Let me explain. The United States will soon have to start

reducing force levels in Iraq, or risk seeing the volunteer

Army collapse. Yet the administration and its supporters have

effectively prevented any adult discussion of the need to get

out.

On one side, the people who sold this war, unable to face

up to the fact that their fantasies of a splendid little war

have led to disaster, are still peddling illusions: the

insurgency is in its ``last throes,'' says Dick Cheney. On

the other, they still have moderates and even liberals

intimidated: anyone who suggests that the United States will

have to settle for something that falls far short of victory

is accused of being unpatriotic.

We need to deprive these people of their ability to mislead

and intimidate. And the best way to do that is to make it

clear that the people who led us to war on false pretenses

have no credibility, and no right to lecture the rest of us

about patriotism.

The good news is that the public seems ready to hear that

message--readier than the media are to deliver it. Major

media organizations still act as if only a small, left-wing

fringe believes that we were misled into war, but that

``fringe'' now comprises much if not most of the population.

In a Gallup poll taken in early April--that is, before the

release of the Downing Street Memo--50 percent of those

polled agreed with the proposition that the administration

``deliberately misled the American public'' about Iraq's

W.M.D. In a new Rasmussen poll, 49 percent said that Mr. Bush

was more responsible for the war than Saddam Hussein, versus

44 percent who blamed Saddam.

Once the media catch up with the public, we'll be able to

start talking seriously about how to get out of Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of tribal sovereignty but rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment because it has not been subject to full debate in committee or the House.

I would like to articulate the importance of tribal sovereignty. Because Indian tribes are sovereign governments, the U.S. Government has long read the Commerce Clause and the 11th Amendment as upholding the sovereign immunity of tribes. Congress's intent in preserving sovereignty has been recognized even recently; in 1991, in Oklahoma Tax Common v. Potawatomi Tribe, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the long- standing existence and importance of tribal sovereignty:

In light of this Court's reaffirmation, in a number of

cases, of its longstanding doctrine of tribal sovereign

immunity, and Congress' consistent reiteration of its

approval of the doctrine in order to promote Indian self-

government, self-sufficiency, and economic development, the

Court is not disposed to modify or abandon the doctrine [of

sovereign immunity].

Tribal sovereignty is and should remain one of the fundamental principles of the United States, and we should not define its parameters in a ten minute debate.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an insignificant matter I say to my colleagues.

It should be noted that the San Antonio Spurs have lost five games at home until last night, and I bring this to the attention of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), my dear friend on the Committee on the Judiciary, that this is the first time that we have gone to seven games in 11 years, and no one has ever won their last two games in a national basketball championship on the road.

So it is with bated breath that I let everyone know that the Detroit Pistons are alive and well and, I think, up to this incredibly important athletic contest tomorrow night.

Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my colleague, who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Constitution and has served us so well across the years in this regard.

I also want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the minority member of the Committee on Rules, for conducting such a dispositive examination of the rule and the substance of the measure that is before us today.

Today's consideration of House Joint Resolution 10 will show whether we have the strength to remain true to our forefathers' constitutional ideals and defend our citizens' right to express themselves, even if we vehemently disagree with their method of expression.

I have been thinking about this. I have never met anyone that supports burning the American flag. Very few Americans favor burning the flag as an expression of free speech. I personally deplore the desecration of the flag in any form, but I still remain strongly opposed to this resolution because this resolution goes against the ideals that the flag represents and elevates a symbol of freedom over freedom itself. If adopted, this resolution would represent for the first time in our Nation's history that the people's representatives in this body voted to alter the Bill of Rights to limit the freedom of speech.

While some may say that this resolution is not the end of our first amendment liberties, it is my fear that it may be the beginning. By limiting the scope of the first amendment's free speech protections, we are setting a most dangerous precedent. If we open the door to criminalizing constitutionally protected expression related to the flag, which this is, it will be difficult to limit further efforts to censor such speech. Once we decide to limit freedom of speech, limitations on freedom of the press and freedom of religion may not be far behind.

It has been said that the true test of any Nation's commitment to freedom of expression lies in its ability to protect unpopular expression, such as flag desecration. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote as far back as 1929, the Constitution protects not only freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but ``freedom for the thought we hate.''

This resolution is in response to two Supreme Court decisions, Texas v. Johnson in 1989 and the United States v. Eichman in 1990, two Supreme Court decisions in one bite. It is always

tempting for Congress to want to show the Supreme Court who is boss by amending the Constitution to outlaw flag-related expression.

But if we do, we will not only be carving an awkward exception into a document designed to last for the ages, but will be undermining the very constitutional structure that Jefferson and Madison designed to protect our rights. In effect, we will be glorifying fringe elements who disrespect the flag and what it stands for while denigrating the Constitution itself, the vision of Madison and Jefferson.

Concern about the tyranny of the majority led the framers to create an independent judiciary free of political pressure to ensure that the legislative and executive branches would honor the Bill of Rights. A constitutional amendment banning flag desecration flies in the very face of this carefully balanced structure. The fact that the Congress would consider the first-ever amendment to the Bill of Rights without so much as a hearing in this Congress makes this all the more objectionable.

Mr. Speaker, no hearings. Why not? Well, we have done this before. If Members want to find out what the debate would be like, read it from four other times that we have done this.

James Madison warned us against using the amendment process to correct every perceived constitutional defect, particularly concerning issues which inflame public passion. And, unfortunately, there is no better illustration of Madison's concern than the proposed flag desecration amendment.

History has proven that efforts to legislate respect for the flag only serve to increase flag-related protest, and a constitutional amendment will no doubt increase such protests many times over. Almost as significant as the damage this resolution would do to our own Constitution is the harm it will inflict in our international standing in the area of human rights.

Mr. Speaker, demonstrators who ripped apart Communist flags before the fall of the Iron Curtain committed crimes against their country's laws, yet freedom-loving Americans applauded their brave actions. Yet if we pass this action, we will be aligning ourselves with those autocratic regimes, such as in the former Soviet Union and Iran, and diminish our own moral stature as a protector of freedom in all of its forms.

Those who oppose this amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag express the sentiment of many Americans. In May 2005, just last month, a majority of Americans opposed such an amendment by 63 percent to 35 percent because of its first amendment restrictions. Our veterans, citizens who have risked their lives to defend the ideals the flag represents, oppose this amendment as well. Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights, two organizations, do not want to see the first amendment unraveled and a desecration of what the flag represents.

For those who believe a constitutional amendment will honor the flag, I urge them to actually read the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson. The majority wrote, and I concur, ``The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters, it is to persuade them that they are wrong. We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.''

I urge my colleagues to maintain the constitutional ideal of freedom and reject this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, but would be pleased if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader, would precede me.

Mr. Speaker, when we think of Peter Rodino on the Committee on the Judiciary, it conjures up the names of some of those great men and women, Barbara Jordan, who walked the halls, who listened in that 2141 Rayburn Room to the constitutional arguments that were being presented day in and day out. And we thought what would happen after Mannie Celler was the chairman. Here was little old Peter Rodino and people said, Wow, where are we going to go from here? Mannie Celler was a giant, an orator, a fighter, a great writer. And Peter Rodino came to the chairmanship of the Committee on the Judiciary as a very modest, humble member of that committee. He never sought the spotlight. You would rarely see him on television before Watergate and impeachment. It seemed like it was provident that for that impeachment, we needed exactly the kind of persona that Peter Rodino brought because without it, I can tell Members we do not know where that committee was going. That committee was very passionately divided, and it was very even numbers of Democrats and Republicans.

There was open writing about whether this Nation could stand an impeachment of a President because there had not been one in over 100 years. They were saying how can Chairman Rodino contain this huge division that is ripping not just Washington but the whole Nation, indeed the world was focused on whether or not there were grounds to remove under the second amendment to the Constitution under articles of impeachment for treason, high crimes or misdemeanors.

Believe me, we were under a great deal of tension. Everybody was getting angrier in their speeches and the pronouncements of the Members, but Peter Rodino never lost his temper. He never raised his voice. After we had the White House tapes come out, then the articles of impeachment came forward. And out of five of them, three of them received the votes of at least half a dozen Republicans and Democrats as well. I might as well tell Members there were Democrats on the committee that were not convinced that impeachment was the route to go.

So Peter Rodino, with people like Bob Kastenmeier of Wisconsin, Don Edwards of California, Jerome Waldie of California, Barbara Jordan. And there was a freshman member on the committee named the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). And there were some interesting staff members. One was named attorney Hillary Rodham and another was Attorney Zoe Lofgren. There were all kinds of names coming in and out.

Every day brought new developments. President Nixon was resolute that he would never give up his office to these kinds of scurrilous attacks, and Peter Rodino persevered through this. Had there been a chairman with a different personality or temperament, I am not sure how those impeachment hearings would have gone forward.

When I visited Peter Rodino at Seton Hall Law School last spring, he was still full of stories. He was still reminding me of incidents and how we had to get the votes and master the subpoenas, the issuance of the subpoenas and the order of witnesses and what we would do with John Dean and Haldeman and Archibald Cox. Those names all figured into this incredible situation that this very modest Member of Congress from Newark who preceded the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) was able to keep it together.

It transformed America. It forced the President to resign rather than to have us have to bring those articles of impeachment forward. Chairman Rodino worked behind the scenes to figure out who would actually take the place of President Nixon.

I will never forget the discussions that went on in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building in which finally the Speaker from Oklahoma and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary said there is only one thing that we can do to keep this country on an even keel, and that is there is one congressman in the House who can do this and he would be accepted by the Ds and the Rs, and his name was the gentleman from Michigan, Gerald Ford. They took that name down and moved it forward.

I want to tell Members, Peter Rodino, when he would see someone that was there during those months from May 1974 to July 1974, he would start off by saying, John, do you remember that day we had so and so come by our office and we had to decide on whether we were going to issue subpoenas or not, or whether we were going to let them bring their testimony forward or whether we could get a bipartisan group of Members to move these hearings forward.

The pundits were all writing, This is ridiculous. This can't be done. Peter Rodino has no experience to bring this kind of a matter to the House of Representatives. It does the House and the Congress and the country a huge disservice. But Peter Rodino, his excellent staff, the Members of both parties gradually, one by one, realized that we had more than enough grounds. As a matter of fact, we had more articles of impeachment. After a while, we stopped raising new articles because they were not necessary.

And so I want to tell everybody here that even though I have served under

Emanuel Celler and Jack Brooks and Henry Hyde and Jim Sensenbrenner, Peter Rodino was the leader of this committee that I have served on since I have been in the House of Representatives, the committee that protects the Constitution, the committee that promotes civil rights, the committee that has spent all of its time trying to make the Federal criminal code, the laws of the land, the compacts between the States, the Department of Justice oversight that has been within our jurisdiction.

Peter Rodino served those noble ends in a way that none of the previous chairmen of this great committee and the Congress have. I will always remember with great pleasure and privilege in the fact that I was able to serve on that committee with this wonderful man. We will always remember the great service that he gave to this country.

Mr. Chairman, the Jackson-Lee amendment, which is really based on the concept of no more Tulias, is one that I hope my colleagues will support. None of the funds made available in this act under the heading ``Office of Justice Programs'' may be used by a State authorizing agent that has not shared, with the Attorney General, its improvement of criminal justice records as described in section 3759 of title 42.

We remember the Tulia incident with great pain. This case arose out of Texas in which huge numbers of African Americans, 15 percent of the African American population was arrested and prosecuted and sentenced to decades in prison. This is our response to how we handle it. I urge support of our colleague from Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, on this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an embarrassing circumstance that we again find ourselves in. There are reasons that have required that the gentleman from New York, regretfully, bring this privileged resolution to the floor. There is little question that the demeanor of the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), was very, very unusual for the meeting that was held, which he was required to hold.

Now, do not take my word for it. I want you to go look at the evidence. It was all taped. I was stunned by my friend's continued hostility, not just toward the members of the Democratic side, but the witnesses themselves. I have never, ever experienced a witness being stopped dead in mid-sentence. It was highly inappropriate. The meeting was ended incorrectly. You cannot walk out of a meeting. You cannot say ``The meeting is adjourned,'' slam the gavel down and walk out.

I have worked in the Committee on the Judiciary. I came to this committee and all my career has been spent there. I worked under Emanuel Celler, Jack Brooks and Peter Rodino. I had wonderful times with the chairman that preceded the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

What I want Members to do, and I plead with them, is to support the gentleman from New York's privileged resolution, and allow the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and me to continue meetings trying to get this committee back on track and make it whole again. Join us in that request. Please.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce a Resolution commending W. Mark Felt for his extraordinary service to the country in exposing the ``Watergate'' scandal. Good faith whistle blowers like Mr. Felt represent high ideals of public service and the American tradition of challenging abuses of power. They also provide the diversity of views and information necessary for the checks and balances in a democracy.

As the world now knows, Mr. Felt, the then Deputy Director of the FBI, disclosed that he was the confidential source known as ``Deep Throat,'' that assisted Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their investigation of the Watergate scandal, which eventually led the House to the verge of impeachment and the ultimate resignation of President Nixon.

Quite frequently, it is courageous whistle blowers such as Mr. Felt who are responsible for disclosing corruption in our government. We have no doubt that absent Mr. Felt's involvement, we would never have learned about the illegalities and obstruction of justice at the highest levels of our government, up to and including President Nixon.

This Resolution recognizes that Mr. Felt was not only a courageous public servant, willing to risk his career to expose wrongdoing, but a model agent and administrator as well. I therefore believe it is altogether fitting and proper that Mr. Felt's service be commemorated and honored by the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the bipartisan Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005, along with Representatives Frank, Ros-Lehtinen and Shays. In past Congresses, this legislation has been cosponsored by almost 200 members and we expect similar support this session.

Bias crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant threat to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society. For the year 2003, the most recently available data, the FBI compiled reports from law enforcement agencies across the country identifying 7,489 criminal incidents that were motivated by an offender's irrational antagonism toward some personal attribute associated with the victim. Law enforcement agencies have identified 9,100 victims arising from 8,715 separate criminal offenses. Racially motivated bias again accounted for more than half (51.4 percent) of all incidents. Religious bias accounted for 1,343 incidents (17.9 percent) and sexual orientation bias each accounted for 1,239 (16.6 percent) of all reported hate crimes, followed by ethnicity/national origin bias with 13.7 percent and disability bias with 0.4 percent of all incidents. While every state reported at least a small number of incidents, it is important to note that reporting by law enforcement is voluntary and it is widely believed that hate crimes are seriously under-reported.

Despite the pervasiveness of the problem, current law limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents against protected classes that occur only during the exercise of federally protected activities, such as voting. Further, the statutes do not permit federal involvement in a range of cases where crimes are motivated by bias against the victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity. This loophole is particularly significant given the fact that four States have no hate crime laws on the books, and another 21 States have extremely weak hate crimes laws.

This legislation will make it easier for federal authorities to prosecute bias crimes, in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped federal prosecutors combat church arson: by loosening the unduly rigid jurisdictional requirements under federal law. While ostensibly identical to past versions, this Congress the bill is more explicitly inclusive of the transgender community. In addition, we have included a provision mirroring the Washington State hate crimes statute that is designed to protect the 1st Amendment rights of the accused, without burdening the prosecution of those alleged offenses.

State and local authorities currently prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes and will continue to do so under this legislation, with the enhanced support of the federal government. Through an Intergovernmental Assistance Program created by this legislation, the Justice Department will provide technical, forensic or prosecutorial assistance to State and local law enforcement officials in cases of bias crime. The legislation also authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to State and local law enforcement agencies that have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Finally, under our bill, the Attorney General or other high ranking Justice Department officials must approve all prosecutions undertaken pursuant to this law, ensuring federal restraint, and further ensuring that the States will continue to take the lead.

Behind each of the crimes statistics cited above lies an individual or community targeted for violence for no other reason than race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity. People like Waqar Hasan of Dallas, who lost his life in a post-911 backlash hate crime. His murderer admitted that he wanted to send a message to the local Arab population and beyond. These discrete communities have learned the hard way that a failure to address the problem of bias crime can cause a seemingly isolated incident to fester into wide spread tension that can damage the social fabric of the wider community.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005 is a constructive and measured response to a problem that continues to plague our Nation. These are crimes that shock and shame our national conscience and they should be subject to comprehensive federal law enforcement assistance and prosecution.

Mr. Chairman, what a great day this is. After 73 times on the floor, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) now has an amendment to discuss a plan to develop a plan as soon as practicable to provide for the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq. Here are Members of the House of Representatives who are, if we look at Article I, Section 8, the only ones that can declare war under this great Constitution, saying, We do not even want to talk about a plan.

Well, I say to my colleagues, the President of the United States has already said that America does not plan an indefinite occupation of Iraq, and neither do the independent Iraqi people. So what we want our colleagues to understand is that Congress can talk about this. Please, summon up your courage. That is your job. That is why we are here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and thank the Chairman and his staff for working with us to ensure the bill does not overreach.

The bill was designed to target illegitimate actors who trade in counterfeit marks. We all agree that manufacturers have a right to ensure that fake goods are not marketed in their names and that their own goods are not marketed under fake names.

The bill as originally written, however, could have been construed by some as going further than that. It left as an open question whether someone other than the manufacturer could affix marks to goods that correctly identify the source of the goods. This ambiguity could have had a negative impact on the parallel market, in which third parties lawfully obtain goods and make them available in discount stores. Not only has this practice been upheld by the Supreme Court, but it also saves consumers billions of dollars each year.

Fortunately, H.R. 32 was amended in the full committee pursuant to an amendment offered by Representative Wexler to clarify that the legislation is not intended to be relied upon as a weapon against the secondary discount marketplace to the detriment of American consumers-- consumers dependent upon the price options and competition afforded by alternative sources of genuine goods.

In particular, H.R. 32 was amended to specifically protect lawful repackaging of genuine goods by ensuring that any such third party repackaging, not intended to deceive or confuse, is specifically saved from criminal prosecution under this Act. The Committee specifically agreed that combining single genuine products into gift sets, separating combination set of genuine goods into individual items for resale, inserting coupons into original packaging or repackaged items, affixing labels to track or otherwise identify genuine products and removing genuine goods from original packaging for customized retail displays were not covered by the legislation as they provide important value to American consumers.

I am happy to report that the final language ensures that H.R. 32 adequately protects lawful American businesses, including those servicing the discount marketplace, while, at the same time punishes illicit counterfeiting activity. As a result of these good faith negotiations, we now have a bill that protects manufacturers, targets illegitimate actors, and leaves a legitimate industry unscathed.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, so much of American history is defined by our national commitment to tolerate each others' religious differences. This was the wisdom behind the words of President John Kennedy, who reminded us that ``tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.''

I introduce this Resolution today as a reminder that we must still strive to condemn bigotry and religious intolerance, and recognize that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect. Our dedication to this struggle has never been more important than it is today, with recent events both at home and abroad. We can begin to fulfill this obligation with a renewed effort to continued education and the dispelling of stereotypes.

For example, much of the public is not aware that the word Islam comes from the Arabic root word meaning ``peace'' and ``submission.'' Terrorism cannot be justified under any valid interpretation of the Islamic faith. There are an estimated 7 million Muslims in America, from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds. The holy book of Islam, the Quran, is recited by Muslims during prayer. From the Quran, Muslims learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality.

This Resolution recognizes that believers of all religions, including the faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, should be treated with respect and dignity. The mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity. I am concerned as anyone that our nation would disparage the Quran or the Muslim religion. This Resolution therefore makes it clear that it is not the official policy of the U.S. government to disparage the Quran, Islam or any other faith. I hope this Resolution will help us recognize that we need to embrace the Muslim people and tolerance if we are truly interested in supporting democracy around the world.

Mr. Speaker, Glenn McCullough steps down today as the 12th and last full-time Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority Board.

I have worked with thousands of people during my years in Congress., Chairman McCullough has been one of the kindest and most honorable with whom I have had the privilege to work.

Glenn McCullough, in my opinion, has been an outstanding Chairman for TVA. He has had the extremely difficult job of attempting to balance all kinds of competing interests, and he has done the job well.

He has done great things for the environment and the employees at TVA while still remembering that many TVA ratepayers and low-income people also need help, too.

Chairman McCullough is a man of high integrity who should be remembered as one of the finest Chairman TVA has ever had. He has worked as hard as possible for the people of the Valley, and this Nation is a better place today because of his service.

I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record the following article from the May 16 edition of the Knoxville News Sentinel.

Departing Chairman Says Utility Still Faces Financial, Environmental

Challenges

(By Duncan Mansfield)

Departing Chairman Glenn McCullough said the Tennessee

Valley Authority is stronger than when he arrived in 1999,

but the nation's largest public utility still faces

financial, environmental and competitive challenges.

Tougher soot and smog requirements on coal-fired power

plants could cost TVA $4 billion to $5 billion beyond the $6

billion it has already spent or committed for pollution

controls.

Rising fuel prices for its fleet of fossil plants, gas

turbines and nuclear stations could force further cost-

cutting and a likely electric rate increase that would affect

some 8.5 million people receiving TVA power in Tennessee and

six surrounding states.

Yet as McCullough nears the end of his term on Wednesday,

May 18, as the 12th and final full-time chairman in the 72-

year history of TVA, he remains optimistic about TVA's

future.

``I think TVA will continue to be a high performer,''

McCullough told The Associated Press in a recent interview in

his 12th floor office at TVA headquarters in Knoxville.

McCullough, 50 was mayor of his hometown of Tupelo, Miss.--

TVA's first member city--when he was appointed to an

unexpired term on the three-member TVA board in 1999 by

President Clinton. In 2001, President Bush elevated

McCullough, backed by then-Senate Majority Leader Trent

Lott, R-Miss., to chairman.

During his tenure, TVA changed its Tennessee River

watershed plan to improve recreational use, set rising peak-

power demand records, adopted a rate increase in 2003 to pay

for coal plant pollution controls and developed the first

commercial wind farm in the Southeast.

TVA also reduced a nearly $28 billion long-term debt by

$1.8 billion. In doing so, the agency eliminated hundreds of

jobs and put one of its twin headquarters towers in Knoxville

up for sale as surplus. The tower sale is pending, and the

payroll stands at 12,700--compared to more than 30,000 in the

1980s.

The self-financing government agency with a $7 billion

budget also took heat over extravagant travel and

entertainment spending by executives but moved quickly to

crack down with new internal policies.

However, McCullough said the boldest actions were the 2001

write-off of $3.4 billion in

non-producing assets, including three unfinished nuclear

reactors, and the $1.8 billion decision to restart a

mothballed reactor at the Browns Ferry station in Alabama by

2007.

``It was a good business decision, not an easy one,'' he

said of the write-offs, while the gamble on the Browns Ferry

reactor--60 percent complete--could pay off in meeting

baseload demand through 2014.

``All of those things kind of roll off the tongue, but I

tell you, there are thousands of people that did their job

better so that TVA could have record generation and record

clean air and record economic growth and record debt

reduction,'' McCullough said.

Looking ahead, McCullough said a rate increase, which has

become rare in recent years at TVA, seems inevitable because

of rising fuel costs that can't be controlled.

``I think the future board will have to determine what

rates need to be and when adjustments are necessary,'' he

said. ``I don't know how much, and I don't know when.''

McCullough doesn't know if he will be on an expanded part-

time board that is being created after he leaves. Senate

Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., pushed the board

restructuring to make the group more open and responsive. The

White House has yet to name nominees.

McCullough sees plenty of opportunities and challenges

ahead for them.

TVA is working with two national consortiums studying

designs and licensing for the next generation of nuclear

plants, while TVA assesses the feasibility of using its

unfinished Bellefonte nuclear plant in Alabama as a possible

project site.

Meanwhile, TVA continues to review efficiencies and costs

of new ``clean coal'' technologies for its fossil fleet.

McCullough believes coal and nuclear should remain the

foundation of TVA's power system.

``We are also looking at the business model,'' McCullough

said. ``There could be some opportunities for TVA to do joint

ventures with perhaps other utilities or other entities that

make good business sense.''

He cited TVA's deal set up a few years ago to buy power

from the Red Hills Power Plant and Mississippi Lignite Mining

Co. near Ackerman, Miss., as an example of a successful joint

venture.

Meanwhile, growing private and commercial development along

the Tennessee River continues to stir resentment among the

families of former residents displaced by TVA's hydroelectric

dam projects in the 1930s and '40s.

McCullough is sympathetic to a point. ``Land in the valley

is almost sacred. That is a characteristic of the South that

I am frankly proud of--`Don't mess with the land.' I

understand that,'' he said.

``But if you look on the TVA seal, you see the words

`Progress Through Resource Development,' '' he said. ``And

you can't make progress without some development.''

McCullough said he is looking forward to going home to

Tupelo and spending time with his wife, Laura, and two

teenage sons, and weighing his career options.

More low-key than his predecessors, McCullough said being

chairman of TVA, like being mayor of Tupelo, was ``a

wonderful opportunity to make a positive difference.''

``I didn't ask to come to TVA, and I didn't ask to be

chairman. But I was asked to do this job, and it was a unique

opportunity,'' he said. ``If you get it right, if you make

good decisions and fulfill the mission of TVA, then the

people of the valley can be better off for generations to

come. And that can be satisfying.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee/ Conyers amendment to H.R. 1817, which would direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study of two Administration proposals to increase fees paid by applicants and petitioners for immigration services.

The administration's fiscal year 2006 budget submission proposed that Congress enact legislation to authorize the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) component of the Department of Homeland Security to increase the fee paid by applicants for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) above the statutory limit of $50.

The administration also has proposed that Congress enact legislation to extend a provision that permits USCIS to charge an extra fee for providing faster services to some employment-based immigration applicants and petitioners. The administration wants Congress to extend this program so that the extra fee can also be charged to family-based applicants and petitioners, as well.

The Jackson Lee/Conyers amendment would require that the Government Accountability Office conduct studies of each of these proposals so that Congress can have an opportunity to assess their consequences and impact before acting.

TPS Fee--When Congress enacted the TPS statute in 1990, it had the option of permitting the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to set the fee at whatever level was necessary in order to pay for the cost of adjudicating an applicant's application. Instead, in recognition of the special circumstances faced by TPS beneficiaries, Congress opted to cap the TPS fee at $50.

By statutory definition, Mr. Chairman, TPS beneficiaries come from countries where there has been a natural disaster or an ongoing armed conflict and the foreign state is unable to handle their return. While it is certainly true that TPS applicants can get work authorization pending their requests, they would first have to pay the fee in order to be considered for work authorization and TPS status. Many TPS beneficiaries, Mr. Chairman, come from impoverished countries and are often in the U.S. visiting relatives or are here for other brief stays. It may not be the best policy to raising fees for TPS beneficiaries when they have no practical alternative but to remain in the United States.

If the fees for TPS are raised to the outrageous levels that other fees have been raised to in recent years, it could result in two unacceptable consequences. It could either drive would-be beneficiaries underground because they cannot afford to pay the fee. Or it could result in an exponential increase in requests for fee waivers, an outcome that would slow down adjudications for all other applications or immigration benefits. My amendment request that the GAO examine these potential consequences.

Premium Service Fee--Nearly five years ago, Congress enacted legislation giving the Administration the authority to charge a $1,000 premium fee for businesses that wish to expedite the adjudication of their employment-based immigration applications and petitions. The Administration has asked Congress to give it the authority to charge a similar fee to family-based applicants and petitions.

The accounts are mixed, Mr. Chairman, on how well the premium service fee for employment-based applications and petitions has worked. We have heard from some, for instance, that implementation of this diversion has resulted in a slowing down of adjudications for those businesses who decline to pay the extra $1,000. At a minimum, an impartial body should study how the premium service program is working in the business arena before extending it to family-based applications and petitions.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there are vast differences between the resources available to employment-based and family-based petitioners and applicants. Businesses often can pass on the costs of a premium fee to their customers or adjust the wages and benefits of the prospective employee to recover the extra cost. These options are not available to families, on the other hand.

If reports are true that implementation of the program in the employment arena has slowed down adjudications for those businesses that decline to pay the fee, expansion of the program to the family- based arena could have disastrous, unintended consequences for those families that cannot afford to pay an additional $1,000 for each application or petitions.

Conclusion--Mr. Chairman, the studies and reports that my amendment would mandate do not seek to prejudice the question of whether the administration should be given the new fee authorities that it has requested. Instead, my amendment would see the advice of impartial experts at the Government Accountability Office before Congress acts. I urge the adoption of this amendment.