Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2389. Here we are again considering needless court-stripping legislation that would destroy our constitutional system of checks and balances. This time we wrap it in the flag and call it the Pledge Protection Act.

We dealt with this same legislation two years ago, and it failed to become law. I ask my colleagues, why are we bringing this same legislation up for consideration again 2 years later?

Could it be an election year? Could my colleagues in the majority want to rally a certain part of their base? The real question is whether the majority will put election year political concerns ahead of the good of the Nation? Unfortunately, with this action, it looks like the answer is yes.

This is another extraordinary piece of arrogance on the part of the House of Representatives to pass legislation which would strip American citizens of their right to access the Federal courthouse. Can you imagine anything more shameful than telling an American citizen you cannot go into court to have your concerns addressed, heard by the courts of your Nation?

The right for a citizen to access the courts to decide questions of policy is as old as the Magna Carta, and it is important to us as anything else in the Constitution. Here we calmly say, ``You cannot have access to the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court.'' Shame, shame, shame, shame.

This is a precedent which is going to live to curse us, and we are going to live to regret this day's labor because other precedents will be following this, wherein we strip the rights of citizens under the Second Amendment, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments.

The Congress has considered these kinds of questions before. It is to be anticipated if this works, we can look to see this kind of abusive legislation considered in this body again. And you can be certain that somebody is sitting out there now thinking of new rights we can strip because we disagree with them.

I do not believe that we should strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction when it comes to issues related to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. It drastically interferes with the separation of powers between the three branches of our government.

While I will always defend the autonomy and the power of the legislative branch, the principle of judicial review that Chief Justice John Marshall set out in the 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison is law. This landmark case established that the Supreme Court has the right to pass on the constitutionality of an act of Congress. To whittle away one of the bedrock powers of the judicial branch is wrong for the Union and wrong for our citizenry.

Tinkering with the foundation of our judicial branch could come back to haunt us. You can be almost certain with the passage of this legislation that there are interests out there deciding what other rights can be stripped of American citizens because we disagree with them. Maybe a future Congress will want to strip court challenges to gun control legislation by gun owners or sportsmen.

Mr. Chairman, we live in one Nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. If we pass this bill, we begin to hollow out the true meaning of the pledge, the Constitution and what it means to live in this great Nation.

Like I did 2 years ago, I strongly oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act'', and urge my colleagues to reject President Bush's regrettable veto.

We are here to decide once again whether our Nation will move forward in the search for treatments and therapies that will cure a multitude of dreaded diseases that afflict an estimated 128 million Americans. These diseases include Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries or spinal dysfunction, and diabetes. Embryonic stem cell research holds the potential for treating these diseases, and many more.

H.R. 810 is a sensible and targeted path forward. It would impose strict ethical guidelines for embryonic stem cell research and would lift the arbitrary restriction limiting funds to only some embryonic stem cell lines created before August 10, 2001. By removing this arbitrary restriction, H.R. 810 will ensure that researchers can not only continue their work to prolong or save lives, but also conduct such research using newer, less contaminated, more diverse, and more numerous embryonic stem cells.

H.R. 810 does not allow Federal funding for the creation or destruction of embryos. This bill only allows for research on embryonic stem cell lines retrieved from embryos created for reproductive purposes that would otherwise be discarded. This point is critical: if these embryos are not used for stem cell research, they will be destroyed.

President Bush's rejection of this narrow and commonsense measure should be overridden by the people's House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 88, the so called Federal Marriage Amendment. This bill would turn over 200 years of State jurisprudence on its head, attempting to Federalize marriage.

This resolution is another attempt to mandate one definition of marriage upon the States. I ask my colleagues if we take away this right from the States, what's next? Where does it stop? Take away local decisions for education or child custody issues. Between the consideration of this bill and the court stripping bills that we will take up this week, it leads me to believe, Mr. Speaker, this is just another cynical political ploy by the majority during an election year.

Like Vice President Cheney and former Representative Bob Barr, I believe the voters of each State should decide for themselves who can and cannot marry. It has always been a State function. It should remain so. To take away that right of the State to decide this issue, we endanger basic principles of the Federal system in which we live. As our Constitution so eloquently states in the Tenth Amendment of our Federal Constitution, ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

Mr. Speaker, amendment of our Constitution has happened only 17 times since the Bill of Rights was passed. Some of those amendments do not look so good today. Many of those not adopted now look worse. We should not lightly tamper with the perfection, beauty and majesty of our great Constitution.

There have been no Committee hearings, no time to look at different amendment proposals, and no opportunity to have the important deliberations that should take place when amending the Constitution. We have heard nothing from our concerned citizens and from our Constitutional scholars.

The issue before us today is not whether you are for or against gay marriage. It is whether or not we should Federalize marriage and take away the right of the States to define marriage.

Now Mr. Speaker, I supported the Defense of Marriage Act and continue to do so. At this point, the Defense of Marriage Act remains the law of the land. It works. Nothing yet threatens this law. Nothing more needs to be done on this matter.

Those proposing this amendment rely on hypothetical dangers to try and push through a dramatic, but mischievous change to our Constitution. I am opposed to taking away the right of each State to have its citizenry decide how to define marriage. It seems to me too many people are meddling in this matter for political reasons. Let the States continue to decide sound public policy on this subject.

We must never rush to amend our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill and ask for my colleagues to vote against this iniquitous, politically inspired, and destructive legislation.

The Constitution is not a laundry list to be amended on whim or caprice. It is a great, noble and living document, not to be trivialized by amendments which are unnecessary. This amendment is for useless political purposes and should be defeated as an affront to our great and majestic Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization. As a cosponsor of this important legislation, I urge my colleagues to pass this reauthorization without amendment.

The Voting Rights Act has went a long way in ensuring that the voting rights of minorities are honored, and that American citizens, whatever their ethnicity, are able to go to the polls and participate in the electoral process without threats, intimidation, or violence.

As a member of this body when the Voting Rights Act was initially considered, I know first-hand how this law has changed America for the better, ensuring that all Americans are able to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

Before the Voting Rights Act, some States had nasty little devices called poll taxes and literacy tests that just happened to keep minorities from voting, while, at the same time, failing to disqualify any White citizens from exercising the franchise. And if those devices did not work, intimidation, threats, and even violence were used to keep minorities from going to the polls.

Mr. Chairman, many of those nasty devices were wiped away when the Congress passed President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights Act. Those that were not directly wiped away by the Voting Rights Act were defeated by cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court by the Attorney General of the United States.

As George Santayana stated so eloquently: ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' It is important that the House pass this historic renewal of the VRA without amendments that would besmirch the legacy of the three women who are honored in its title. To do anything less would jeopardize many of the accomplishments that those three courageous women and thousands of others fought for: that all Americans can exercise their right to vote freely without fear.

Mr. Chairman, regrettably, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I say regrettably because I really would like to support increased domestic production of hydrocarbons. Like all my other colleagues, over this past winter, my office was inundated with pleas for help from constituents with through-the-roof home heating bills. Unfortunately, I expect the same next winter.

You see, Mr. Chairman, I just fundamentally believe that the waters we are talking about are federal waters. And that the revenue from leasing activities should go to the Federal Treasury for the betterment of the Nation. While I might agree to sharing some of the revenue with the states, I simply cannot in good conscience support giving them 50 to 75 percent--or as is in the manager's amendment 42.5 percent to 75 percent. These revenues go to funding some of our most important programs throughout the country, including in my home state of Michigan. The Minerals Management Services estimated, prior to the manager's amendment, that this revenue sharing will cost the Federal Treasury $69 billion over the next 15 years. While the new period over which this is phased in has lengthened, the net cost is still much the same. In this era of ever increasing deficits, we simply cannot afford to lose that revenue.

As the author of the National Environmental Policy Act, I am also troubled by a provision that would exempt leases sales from the analysis and public process required by NEPA.

In short, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see more energy production in the Outer Continental Shelf. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to achieve this. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today is the wrong way.

Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this Chamber or in this body that is not a loyal American and does not want to see to it that our troops, our Nation, and our security is protected. But this is not the way to do it.

This resolution is conceived in sin, and it is brought forward to us without an opportunity to consider it or discuss it properly. No hearings, no opportunity to amend, not adequate discussion, not an opportunity for a motion to recommit. All done in a closed fashion, sprung on this body with no time to consider. The end result: The opinion has to be that this is a clear, bald-faced attempt to strangle criticism of this administration. This is an attempt to silence the press.

I would quote to you what Tom Jefferson had to say some years ago: ``I am for freedom of the press and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.''

Now, beyond that, Herbert Hoover: ``Absolute freedom of the press to discuss public questions is a cornerstone of American liberty.''

That is what we are talking about here, the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

This administration is perhaps the most deceitful and dishonest that I have seen in the 50 years I have served

in this body. They either do not know what they are talking about or they deliberately mislead. They told us about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They told us about Iraqi connection to al Qaeda. They asked us to believe that the giving of no-bid contracts to Halliburton, which wastes billions of dollars, are in the public interest. They tell us that the insurgency is in its last throes. They tell us that they are protecting our civil liberties while they are tapping our phones and spying in our libraries and looking into our bank accounts. They tell us to trust them on everything because they are protecting our civil liberties.

Well, I don't think I can trust this administration to protect my civil liberties or those of the people that I serve. And I certainly don't believe that the majority has shown that we can trust them because they are not having a fair or decent debate on this. They are bringing to the floor a bill under a gag rule to gag the press, to intimidate the press, and to see to it that the one agency in this country that is telling the people the truth about what is going on over in Iraq and elsewhere and the functions of this administration is denied the opportunity to come forward and to tell the truth so that the people may know of the follies and abuses of this administration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to denounce this resolution that we have before us today. I denounce it because, it is not only inaccurate--and inaccuracies have no place in carefully considered legislation--but also because I believe that it is a pernicious attack on the very foundation of a free society.

It is impossible to have a democracy without a free vibrant press, the claims of this Administration not withstanding.

It is the press that keeps our government transparent, and policy makers honest.

It is the press that informs the public, and we should have nothing to fear from an enlightened population.

In fact, what we should fear is a public that takes its cues from politicians rather than newspapers.

Over two-hundred years ago Thomas Jefferson said, ``I am for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents:''

Almost a century ago Walter Lipman wrote, ``A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society'' and the epitome of Republican presidents, Herbert Hoover, said. ``Absolute freedom of the press to discuss public questions is a foundation stone of American liberty;''

But this Congress and this President are cut from a whole different cloth. The press, and by extension the people, are things to be feared. They believe the press should be dismissed, and the public should be ignored.

This Administration seems to think that any oversight is bad oversight, and the Congress willingly agrees. In fact, the only thing that has kept the public as woefully informed as they are has been the press.

For the past five and a half years, the President and his deputies have told the American people ``Trust us.''

Trust us on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Trust us on an Iraqi connection to Al Qeda.

Trust us on gigantic no bid contracts to Haliburton which wastes billions of dollars of the taxpayers money.

Trust us on mission accomplished.

Trust us on the insurgency being in its last throes.

Trust us that civil liberties are being protected as we pursue terrorists.

Trust us that we had no idea New Orleans levies could be breached.

Trust us that everything is legal and your civil liberties are protected.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to trust anymore. I cannot trust the claims of this Administration anymore, and the only people that have even attempted to keep them honest, and to inform the American people, is the press.

An uncomfortable truth was revealed in the New York Times, and a needless detail was included in a Washington Times story in 1998 that enabled Osama bin Laden to escape capture. Yet these are the prices we pay for a free press.

No one ever said that freedom was easy, or neat, or simple to manage. Rather it is hard, it complicates policy, and makes governing messy.

But it also works and it has made us a model to be emulated and to be envied throughout the world--and I would have it no other way.

I urge my colleagues to voted on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to and celebrate the storied career of Joseph H. Hallissey. His 60 years of remarkable leadership, in positions at the YMCA, Hallissey Travel, the Dearborn Public Schools, and the Henry Ford Community College, more than distinguish Mr. Hallissey as a truly impassioned and accomplished citizen.

After serving his country as an officer in the United States Air Force from 1950 to 1953, Mr. Hallissey excelled in his time at the YMCA, as well as in his years as a travel agent during which time he served as President, Trustee, and General Congress Chairperson for the American Society of Travel Agents. Mr. Hallissey was honored as Travel Agent of the Year by the 30,000 member American Society of Travel agents, and ``Travel Person of the Year'' for his efforts in founding the Institute of Certified Travel Agents in Detroit.

While Mr. Hallissey was indeed an invaluable aid to those who wished to escape for a short time, his work in that area was, and continues to be, equaled only by his ceaseless effort to better the lives of those around him. Through the years he has served on numerous committees supporting public education, the Dearborn Public Schools, and Henry Ford Community College, and co-chaired seven campaigns generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for these institutions. He has also served on the Board of Directors and fundraising campaigns for countless community organizations, among them: Centurions of Dearborn, Dearborn Chamber of Commerce, Dearborn Goodfellows, Dearborn Rotary Club, Fairlane Club, Henry Ford Hospital, and Inter-service Club Council of Dearborn.

Mr. Hallissey and his lovely wife Veronica have been recognized for their longstanding support of public education by having the Dearborn Public Schools' Miller Element School Library Resource Center and the Henry Ford Community College North Hall dedicated in their honor. Mr. Hallissey's commitment to public education was also clearly expressed as he excelled during his career as Coordinator of Community Relations and Ventures in Partnership Coordinator for the Dearborn Public Schools, as well as in his career as Director of the Henry Ford Community College Office of Development. He also serves as chairperson for the Scholarship Committee of the University of Michigan Alumni Club of the Greater Detroit and reviews hundreds of scholarship applications annually.

Admittedly, I am not the first of those who have found it fit to admire Mr. Hallissey's compassionate contributions. He has been honored by many organizations for his community volunteer efforts, receiving the Dearborn Chamber of Commerce ``Citizen of the Year'' Award, the Dearborn Rotary Distinguished Community Service Award, the Dearborn Inter-Service Club Council ``Member of the Year'' Award, the Henry Ford Community College Distinguished Service Award on two occasions in 1976 and 1991, and the Henry Ford Community College President's award. Joseph Hallissey's commitment to bettering the lives of those around him, and endless efforts to create a vibrant, outreaching educational community, will not soon be forgotten. I would like to thank Joseph Hallissey for his ceaseless and industrious humanitarian accomplishments over the past 60 years, and would ask that all my colleagues rise to wish him the best for a long and rewarding retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life, service and example of Pastor Jerry Hatter. Pastor Hatter has found his home and place of service at the Brown Chapel A.M.E. Church, in Ypsilanti,

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5573, the ``Health Centers Renewal Act of 2006''. Community Health Centers are local, non-profit, community-owned health care providers that serve low-income and medically under-served communities. They provide healthcare services to more than 15 million people annually, 6 million of whom have no health insurance coverage. They are located in more than 3,400 communities in every single State, including my home State of Michigan where we have approximately 30 health centers.

Community health centers are vital to the health and well-being of our country's most vulnerable citizens. There are over 41 million uninsured Americans and untold numbers of under-insured persons. This number is increasing at a rapid pace, forcing risky delays for important primary and preventive healthcare services.

For almost 40 years, America's health centers have helped communities meet escalating health needs and address costly and devastating health problems, from infant health development to chronic illness, to mental health, substance addiction, homelessness, domestic violence, and HIV/ AIDS. Community Health Centers span urban and rural communities across the Nation and their remarkable success has earned them broad bipartisan support among Federal, State, and local policy-makers. We should continue to do everything within our power to support these health centers and provide them with the resources they need so that they can continue to do their jobs as successfully and effectively as they have for the past four decades.

``To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.'' Teddy Roosevelt.

I remember how proud I was to serve my country in World War II, and I remember how proud I was of the support of Americans, and I remember how proud I am now to be a Member of this body. I know how important it is that we support the troops, and I remind my colleagues over here, we all, everyone in this room, supports our troops without exception. We have honest differences about the policies or how we got where we are. We are not permitted to discuss those under this gag rule.

What this body should do, and I remember how proud I was of the different meaningful debates which we had here, where there was opportunity to amend, to discuss, to have a 5-minute rule, to have a motion to recommit, so that a national policy bringing us together could be forged in a proper legislative forum and a proper legislative fashion.

We are told, either expressly or implicitly, by the administration, and by people on that side of the aisle, that there is something unpatriotic about questioning the behavior of this administration or the policies or the way they are being conducted. Let me not answer that yet. But let me give you

the answer that Teddy Roosevelt, a great patriot, a Republican, a wonderful President, had to say: ``To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American people.'' Listen to that. That is what we are supposed to do.

We are not supposed to be a congregation of yes men and lickspittles. We are supposed to be the voice of the people and to hammer out the policies of this Nation in an honorable and open fashion. That is not happening today.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a fair and proper procedure nor is it a debate.

H. Res. 861 comes before us under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed. This body is told by the rule, no amendments are allowed. Take it or leave it, we are told.

I say shame. What is there to fear from an open debate and what is there to cause us to lose the right to amend this legislation?

There is much which we can approve in H. Res. 861 and much on which we can arrive at agreement and consensus.

There are things in this resolution which are controversial, and these require, more than ever, honest and frank discussion.

I find the language of paragraph 3 to be a particular problem. We should not foreclose our options on redeployment.

It may well become that there is such a need and such an interest in the United States, and arbitrary pronouncements such as this will actually haunt us.

Like many other Members of this body, I supported the President's father when he came to Congress seeking authorization to liberate Kuwait.

There the process was honest, open, and truthful. The intelligence was clear, the mission was finite, and the world was united. Here the process is closed, the debate filled with hyperbole and half-truths, the world is alienated, and our mission is murky and indefinite.

Here the reasons given for invasion of Iraq were that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons.

Like many others, I did not believe the evidence supported the administration.

I believed we had careless use of intelligence: honest mistake, careless with use of the facts, or willful deceit.

History tells us one or all of these unflattering conclusions are supported by the unfortunate facts of the administration's behavior.

Now for my own position: Like all of us, I support our troops. I consistently vote for more money, more equipment, and more resources to support them in every way I can to win and to bring them home safe and well.

I have not called for withdrawal of our troops. I have suggested no tactics or strategy, but then neither has the administration, which seems to have for its purpose and tactics more of the same, stay the course.

Our failures and mistakes are many, leaving weapons and munitions everywhere uncollected and available to criminals, insurgents, jihadists, and al-Qaeda members.

We disbanded the army police and security services, necessary to keeping order and assisting in husbanding victory and peace.

I am outraged at the fact that this exercise appears to be politically motivated. Charges verging on disloyalty are directed at loyal Americans who criticize the administration failures or suggest better tactics or strategies.

Listen to Republican leadership instructions to their members: ``Democrats on the other hand are prone to waver endlessly about the use of force to protect American ideals. Capitol Hill Democrats' only specific policy proposals are to concede defeat on the battlefield.''

These words are false, deceitful, dishonest, outrageous, and vicious. So here we have today's proceedings: Political attacks on Democrats. Disregard of truth. Disregard of facts, and most importantly, disregard of the need to correct failed policies. I cannot, and will not, support such a phony and arrogant process.

We must deal more fairly with one of the great issues of our day, which has cost us over $450 billion, 2,500 dead Americans, 20,000 casualties, the trust of our people and the respect of the people of the world.

We are losing the equivalent of a battalion a month and spending $1\1/4\ billion a week.

Our troops are performing magnificently, but the administration is functioning without any adequate plans.

The results are disastrous consequenes for our troops, for our country, for our relatIons with our friends and allies, particularly people in the Arab world.

We need a real opportunity to discuss these matters and to provide real congressional input into this situation. That is being denied to the Congress and the country here.

I cannot support this process and I express the thoughts of the people on this war and on a strange, foolish, and irresponsible process.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend LTC Donald P. Lauzon as he retires from a distinguished career in the U.S. Army and as the Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Detroit District.

Born in Rhode Island and earning his Bachelor of Science from Rhode Island College, LTC Lauzon was commissioned into the Army in 1986. He served bravely overseas in Bosnia, in Iraq, and as the Company Executive Officer of the 547th Combat Engineer Battalion in Germany. Before arriving in Detroit, LTC Lauzon served as Chief of the Department of Military Training, National Geospatial and Intelligence Agency at Fort Belvoir in Virginia. His military awards and decorations include the Bronze Star, the National Defense

Service Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and nearly a dozen other illustrious awards and badges. LTC Lauzon has also earned two Master's degrees: one in Military Operational Art and Science from the U.S. Air Force and another in construction management from Colorado State University.

While serving as the Commander in the Detroit District, LTC Lauzon's inspired leadership guided others through the quickly shifting business environment as well as towards a more organized and efficient Lakes and Rivers Division. The numerous successful projects he oversaw are a tremendous credit to his skill as an engineer and his abilities as a manager. LTC Lauzon has been a big player in the ongoing efforts to expand the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge--a project that is near and dear to my heart.

In retirement, I know LTC Lauzon will have more time to improve his golf game and spend more time hand making golf clubs. But most importantly LTC Lauzon will be able to spend quality time with his wife Kathleen and his two children Lauren and Zachary.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you and all of my colleagues to join me as we honor the retirement of LTC Lauzon from the Army and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers for the Detroit District. Though his leadership will be sorely missed, his past efforts and his foresight will be appreciated long into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Susan Backman on the occasion of her retirement as Superintendent of Schools for Dearborn Heights District #7. She has served the community and its students with distinction for more than 30 years.

Mrs. Backman graduated from Western Michigan University in 1971 with a degree in home economics and distributive education. In 1979, she earned her Master of Education degree from Wayne State University. She then earned advanced certification as an education specialist and completed post-graduate credits at Wayne State University in 1988 and 1992 respectively.

In 1971, Mrs. Backman began her career as a teacher in District #7, a job she would keep for the next 13 years. In 1986, she became the Special Education Supervisor, and she earned the position of Director of Student Services in 1994. She then served as Interim Superintendent from 1996 until 1997, when she was hired as Superintendent of Schools. Since that time, Mrs. Backman has worked tirelessly to provide all that she can for the students and staff of District #7.

There is no question that Mrs. Backman's nine years as Superintendent greatly benefited the students of Dearborn Heights. She spent countless hours fostering better relationships with the staff, the community and the Board of Education. Mrs. Backman led a dedicated team of administrators and facilitated the passage of many ballot initiatives to secure additional resources. Furthermore, she oversaw the dramatic reversal of the District's finances from budget deficits and mismanagement to one of growth and responsibility. Throughout her career, Mrs. Backman has been an innovator and a pioneer in researching and implementing the new policies, procedures and programs that have helped District #7 succeed and excel. Mrs. Backman's 2005 nomination for National Superintendent of the Year reflects her undying efforts as an advocate for public education.

Susan Backman's retirement is a bittersweet moment for District #7, and I would ask that my colleagues rise and join me in wishing her the very best of luck, health and happiness in the future. I join the community in thanking her for her dedicated service to the students of Dearborn Heights over the last 35 years. While her leadership and guidance will be missed, her work and achievements will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New York. This is a bad rule. It gags the House. It does not give enough time. It denies opportunity for Members to offer worthwhile and important amendments. It is going to lead to enactment of bad legislation. I would be ashamed to support or present a rule of this character.

This body is supposed to debate matters. We are supposed to be able to offer amendments. We are supposed to be able to represent our constituents, and we are supposed to be able to see to it that the public interest is broadly served by the legislation we pass after fair consideration. None of that is present, and I say to this body on this rule, shame. Reject the rule.

I support consumers having choices for video and broadband. This bill will do more harm than good, and our constituents and communities deserve to know the truth about it, but they also deserve to have a fair bill.

Democrats on the committee offered real solutions to prevent harm to consumers. We came close to a deal. At one point, we had a handshake deal which would have served everybody, but the telephone companies got on the leadership here, and you know what has happened. We are not able to even consider an amendment which will take care of the cities.

This is going to affront the cities. It is going to leave many consumers of these kinds of services with less service, worse service, higher cost and inability to participate fully in the business of moving information and information technology at all.

First, the bill would leave consumers paying higher cable prices for worse service. Some may even lose their only provider of cable service altogether. This is a bill which is supported not by consumers, but by the special interests and by those who will be the beneficiaries of a national system of charter.

Second, the legislation does nothing to stop cable operators and incoming cable operators from offering inferior service to groups of people based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. Representatives Solis, Baldwin, Waxman, Watson and Wu sought to prevent this by offering a strong antidiscrimination amendment. This amendment has been blocked. Why?

The bill removes the authority of the cities and townships to manage their own property, and it is going to clog the FCC with business which they will simply disregard because it will be inconvenient. Cities will be hurt, our constituents will be hurt, and the constituents of the cities will be hurt. Representative Doyle and I offered amendments to keep the locals in charge, with courts hearing appeals rather than a Federal bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the Republican majority has again blocked that amendment.

These three issues deserved open debate, they are important, as did others offered by Democratic colleagues, or amendments that might wish to be offered by Members on the floor. This is a complex, technically difficult piece of legislation. It is one in which the future of this country is going to be very much affected, and it is a piece of legislation which is going to relate to how people are treated fairly.

None of that is permitted by the rule. The legislation is a bad bill. We could have made it a good bill had my Republican colleagues been cooperative and had the special interests not gotten on them.

If you look at this legislation and how it is going to work, you will find that this legislation is going to benefit the special interests, particularly the cable and the telephone industry. You will find that it will do nothing for the ordinary citizens. It is a shameful bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this measure. It is a bad bill. It does nothing except take care of the special and the vested interests. The baby bells, the telephone companies, and the cable operators are going to cut a fat hog. The consumers are able to anticipate only a few things: One, they are going to get worse service, probably less competition, and almost certainly increases in rates.

Consumers are going to see their cities lose control over their streets and roads to, of all things, the Federal Communications Commission, one of the sorriest of the Federal agencies, and an agency which has neither the staff time nor willingness to address the important questions that are going to be conferred on it by this legislation.

In addition to that, the FCC is going to be clogged. There is going to be deadlock and absolute chaos in that agency because of the total lack of that agency in addressing the serious questions regarding administration of highways, streets, roads, and use of public facilities belonging to cities, counties, and States.

It would be a wonderful argument, which is made by the proponents of this bill, that it will lower cable bills and bring consumers choice. What a wonderful argument, if only it were true. This bill is going to harm our consumers, harm our citizens, and harm commercial users of the Internet.

First, with regard to consumers. The bill will leave many consumers paying higher prices for cable services. There is no general promise of lower prices. In fact, the telephone companies, and listen to this, have been telling Wall Street that the price they get for their services will be higher than cable. That is the competition we are going to see under this legislation.

Worse, the bill is a blow to the universal service principles which Congress has insisted on since 1927. The bill abandons current law that in exchange for the use of public property cable operators are required to serve all consumers, all consumers in the franchise area. Both new and existing cable providers will, under this bill, be allowed to cherrypick and skim cream,

serving only attractive neighborhoods and the highest value of consumers in the way that best suits their balance sheets. The rest of us will only be left without competitive choice, but we very well can face higher cable bills, worse service qualities, or even withdrawal of our only provider.

The bill's redlining provisions focused on income is too weak to offer any real protection against discrimination, which is why the leadership conference on civil rights opposes it. The bill does not stop cable operators from offering inferior service based on a person's race, color, religion, national origin or sex.

Second, communities find that this bill inexplicably takes control over local rights-of-way. And as I mentioned, hands them, of all things, to the FCC. Now, the FCC knows about as much on street and sidewalk repairs and local traffic patterns and other local concerns as it does about astrophysics, yet the bill lets the FCC overrule the cities with regard to the management of their property. This is the reason that the League of Cities, the Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties oppose it.

Citizens and commercial users of the Internet will find a third reason to oppose it. This bill does away with network neutrality. It is something in which there should be no mistake. Telephone and cable companies will be able to operate as private tax collectors to single out certain Web sites to pay extra fees, to make extra benefits, and get extra privileges. Small and large business schools, libraries, ordinary citizens running Web sites will get shut out of this fast lane unless they are willing to pay a lot more. This could significantly alter the open and innovative Internet that the government has, until now, protected.

If you want a bad piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, we are looking at it right here. It is going to hurt people. We could have written a good piece of legislation but, regrettably, did not. We have before us, then, a piece of the purest special interest legislation, something which will benefit the few at the expense of the many, something which is rather worthy of this Republican-led Congress.

Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, this is a good amendment. If you want to improve the bill, and I suspect the Bells don't want you to, and they may not even permit you to. But the hard fact of the matter is this preserves network neutrality.

The bill, as it now constitutes, says that the FCC shall do certain things. But it denies them specifically the authority to write rules under which uniform treatment will be afforded to all persons. It imposes, or permits the imposition of huge fines. But the fines will never be imposed.

What network neutrality does, it sees that everybody is treated alike with regard to use of the Internet. That has been a principle which has been applied to the Internet and Internet use since it was first originated.

This legislation permits the Bells to begin to disregard that, to pick and choose whom they will serve, to determine the conditions under which they will afford service, and to create a situation where there will be no rights and no capacity for the user of the Internet or the companies which provide Internet service to see to it that they can protect their rights.

The Markey amendment, which is before us, gives us some assurance that the FCC will be able to do some of the things that it should do to see to it that we preserve the Internet as we have known it, to protect the users, to protect the companies which provide this service, to protect the libraries, the schools, the individuals and the universities.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, for this time.

I begin by observing that this bill and the arguments made on its behalf are as phony as a $3 bill. My colleagues have seen this sorry piece of legislation before and they voted it down. Since we considered this legislation the first time, there have been no hearings. The arguments made against it at that time are as good today as they were then. And the committee has made no effort to go out and get the facts or to learn what is going on so they could make an honest and factual presentation to this body.

The harsh fact of the matter is the refinery shortage in this country is an economic one. The oil companies do not make money in refineries. The harsh fact of the matter is, as was told me in my office by the head of one of the major oil companies, they do not need any help and they do not want any help to build refineries because they have made an economic judgment that it is better not to build because they make their money elsewhere, and that is a far better way of spending oil companies' money.

Now, if we look at the remarks of Daniel Yergin, a respected oil analyst, he tells us the industry has added the equivalent of 10 new good-sized oil refineries over the last dozen years. In addition to these expansions, recent announcements by the industry anticipate an additional 1.1 million barrels of new refining capacity will be added in coming years. Most importantly, this has been done under current law.

A survey we conducted recently of State and local permitting agencies provides further evidence that the environmental permitting process is not preventing new refineries from being built or existing refineries from being expanded. Only one new major refinery has requested an air permit in the past 30 years. It got the permit, but it never got the investors. Explain that, proponents of the bill.

The air permit has been granted not once but twice. According to our survey, permitting agencies responsible for permitting half the refineries in the

country have issued all, all, but two major expansion permits in less than a year after receipt of a complete application.

This is an ill-advised bill, brought to the House under a parody of the House rules, with no opportunity to amend and little time for an intelligent debate. The rule is effectively closed and permits no amendments by Members on this side of the aisle.

My colleagues on the Republican side have said that the Democrats have not conducted themselves in good faith. Such remarks were made by the chairman of the subcommittee. I would note, and I wish he were here so that he could hear me say this, that those statements are not true.

We consulted through staff and Members alike with the Republicans to come forward with a fair piece of legislation and a compromise bill which would, in fact, work. We offered suggestions on behalf of our side of the aisle through the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), offering a meaningful substitute, including a refinery bill which would have passed and which would have worked. It was a bill which would have set up not just provisions relating to refinery permits, but also relating to Federal movement towards the construction of these refineries. If you want refineries, that is the way to get them because industry will never construct new refineries because they do not want them.

Now, one more curious thought. My Republican colleagues have said that we will have an energy bill every week, and they are coming close to it, but they are having some small difficulties because here they have to bring the same bill up twice, once under suspension and lose, and once now under a gag rule.

I would note for the benefit of my Republican colleagues that we passed last year, with bipartisan support and my assistance to my friend, the chairman of the committee, in drafting a piece of legislation which included refinery legislation in it, the energy bill of the last year, a good piece of legislation. I supported it. I worked with the chairman to get it done. I would note in a curious, indeed a most curious, action, that bill is substantially repealed by this very strange piece of legislation.

It cannot be explained to me, I think, in a few words as to why it is that that bill, touted as the solution to our Nation's energy problems, has been now repealed at least insofar as the refinery permitting provisions, and why we have to now rush ignorantly forward with a bag upon our heads to pass a new piece of legislation which is going to accomplish precisely nothing, except perhaps help my Republican colleagues in a time of terror and fear.