Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great friend and wonderful public servant, Dearborn, Michigan Mayor Michael A. Guido, on becoming the President of the United States Conference of Mayors.

Mayor Guido began his career in public service when he was elected the youngest person ever to the Dearborn City Council. He promptly surpassed that achievement two terms later by becoming the youngest Mayor in the city's history. Since assuming the mayor's office in 1986, Mayor Guido has masterfully guided Dearborn with an immense degree of dedication, passion and competence.

As mayor of Henry Ford's hometown for 20 years, Mayor Guido has proven his tremendous ability to serve as a leader both locally and nationally. In Dearborn, Mayor Guido has been able to reduce crime; maintain a responsive police, fire and medical service structure; raise and sustain high property values; and, increase the quality of life through providing recreational, cultural and artistic programs and overseeing the building of nationally recognized cultural and recreational facilities. He managed all of this and much more while maintaining responsible fiscal discipline.

Mayor Guido has also contributed his expertise nationally through a number of organizations. He is a past member of the National League of Cities, NLC, Board of Directors, chaired the NLC's Working Group on Homeland Security following the tragic events of September 11th, and was a member of the Federal Communications' Local and State Government Advisory Committee. Mayor Guido also continues to serve on the National Advisory Councils of Fannie Mae and the NLC.

Knowing such a decent, kind and apt public servant such as Michael Guido has been a distinct privilege of mine for many years. I have seen Mayor Guido grow into a veteran public servant whose savvy for understanding complex national issues has always exceeded my expectations. I have no doubt that the U.S. Conference of Mayors will be well served having Mayor Guido as its President. I ask that all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Mayor Guido on his inauguration as the 64th President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5126, the ``Truth in Caller ID Act.'' And I commend the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Joe Barton, and Representative Eliot Engel for introducing this bipartisan bill.

Many consumers subscribe to caller ID services that let them know the number of an incoming telephone call and the name of the caller. Consumers often rely on this caller ID information to decide whether to answer a call. Consumers should be able to trust that the caller ID information has not been changed for fraudulent or harmful purposes.

Until recently, manipulating caller ID information, also called ``spoofing,'' was difficult and required expensive equipment. Unfortunately, advances in technology have allowed individuals with fraudulent intent, and others seeking to do harm, to easily spoof their caller ID information, making calls appear to originate from a different person, organization, or location. As such, the recipient of a call that has been spoofed may answer the call thinking that it is coming from someone from whom it is not.

There are legitimate reasons to spoof caller ID information. For example, a domestic violence clinic may alter its caller ID information to mask its identity. This is important for the safety of victims of domestic violence since many victims seek help while they are still living with their abuser.

Caller ID spoofing, however, can be used for nefarious purposes. In a widely reported case, SWAT teams were dispatched to an apartment building in New Brunswick, New Jersey, last year after authorities received a call from a woman saying that she was being held hostage. The caller had spoofed the caller ID information to make it appear as though the call was coming from inside the building.

Caller ID spoofing is also used to gain personal information from a consumer so a criminal can more easily steal the consumer's identity. Equally troubling is the use of such spoofing by predators to cause physical or emotional harm to their victims.

H.R. 5126 will help put an end to caller ID spoofing for fraudulent or harmful purposes. Specifically, the Act makes it unlawful for someone to change their caller ID information with the intent to defraud or cause harm to another person.

This bill is good consumer protection legislation. I am pleased to support it and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 193, the ``Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005''.

More than a year ago, the House overwhelmingly passed a broad measure to ensure that viewers and listeners would be properly protected from indecent broadcasts over the public airwaves. The Senate has now sent back just one piece of that more comprehensive measure.

The legislation before us will raise the maximum fine for indecent broadcasts tenfold, from $32,500 to $325,000. Increasing the amount that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can fine a company that broadcasts obscene or indecent programming is important, particularly given the growing size of these companies due to media consolidation.

Raising the level of potential fines is a good first step, so I support this measure. But it falls short of being a comprehensive solution to hold the FCC's feet to the fire on this issue.

People who are offended by indecent broadcasts on the public airwaves deserve prompt and thorough consideration of their complaints. Previously, the FCC had let some complaints languish for years, resulting in their dismissal. Unfortunately, delays continue. The viewing and listening public still does not receive prompt evaluation of their complaints, and the Commission's treatment of many consumer indecency complaints remains haphazard.

The House last year approved a much stronger and more comprehensive bill by a vote of 389 to 38. The bill would have increased the fines to $500,000 and given the FCC additional tools to fight indecency over the public airwaves. More importantly, it would have required the FCC to act on consumer complaints within a specific timeframe. It would have also made the Commission more accountable by requiring regular reports to Congress on its enforcement activities. This reporting requirement would have ensured that Congress was aware of any FCC action or inaction regarding complaints from our constituents regarding indecent broadcasts. The Senate bill does not take these steps to make the Commission more responsive or accountable.

Consumers would have been better served if the House and Senate had negotiated a compromise bill that included several of the provisions from the House bill to keep the FCC accountable. Nonetheless, S. 193 is a step in the right direction. As such, I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my dear friend Richard ``Dick'' Shoemaker on the occasion of his retirement as the vice-president of the United Auto Workers after 49 distinguished and exemplary years of service.

Born in St. Clair Shores, Michigan, Dick joined UAW Local 865 in 1957 at the age of 18. By the time he was 27, he was elected the youngest president of that local in its history. This rapid ascent in leadership would continue throughout his life. In 1969 he was appointed as an International Representative and in 1982 he was named as the Administrative Assistant to the Vice President of the UAW. Through a course of many other prestigious promotions, Dick eventually rose to become a Vice President himself.

A constant champion of working America for nearly half a century, Dick's successful negotiations with companies including Ford, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Mazda, Toyota and Mitsubishi created opportunities and advancements for tens of thousands of workers. His inspiring work shows remarkable results such as record raises in wages, job security, and a measure which ensures that employment at GM and its suppliers remains at healthy levels. The members of the UAW and their families, are fortunate to have prospered under his strong and courageous leadership.

In addition to tirelessly advancing the rights of the working-class, Dick is also a member of the Michigan Democratic Party, the ACLU, and a lifetime member of the NAACP. His activity in the community and state extends even further as he serves on the boards of the Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO and Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Michigan.

Dick once said that those in the labor movement ``have [their] walking shoes on every day.'' Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to join me and all of my colleagues as we congratulate Dick Shoemaker on phenomenal career and wish him a happy retirement with his children, grandchildren, and his wife Mary. Even In retirement, I know that Dick will never take off his well-worn walking shoes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant, William ``Bill'' Hartwig, on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Department of Interior. For the past few years Bill has been serving as Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

I first met Bill in 2000 when he was working as the Regional Director for the Midwest Region. Together we embarked on a project unprecedented in America's history: an international sanctuary for birds, plants, and animals of all kinds. Today, Detroit is blessed with the serene beauty of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. This 2,100-acre refuge provides Southeast Michigan citizens with a previously unimaginable opportunity to experience the magnificence of a lush habitat for hundreds of protected species close to home. To Bill's eternal credit, this remarkable project would never have been possible without his vision and powerful determination.

Long before becoming one of the Nation's great conservationists, Bill was born in Riverside, CA. Recognizing his life's path early, he graduated from West Virginia University with a bachelor's degree in outdoor recreation. Between WVU and receiving his master's degree in administration from George Washington University in 1976, Bill served in Vietnam where he received Army Commendation Medals and the Bronze Star.

Bill began his work in the Department of the Interior in 1977. Through the course of his illustrious career there, his care for the environment and all its inhabitants touched an incredible variety of issues ranging from land management to migratory bird conservation. In 1988 he received the Department's Meritorious Service Award and in 1990 was named an ``Unusually Outstanding Employee.''

Bill Hartwig is a great conservationist and his impact on this country is impressive and profound. I personally thank Bill for his invaluable help in creating the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, and I invite you Mr. Speaker, and all my colleagues, to join me in recognizing Bill for his dedication to the out-of-doors, to conservation, and for his long and distinguished career with the Department of the Interior.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation should be considered under an open rule with lengthy debate and full opportunity to discuss it, not at 8 o'clock at night with the corporal's guard here on the floor.

I yield to no man in my support for Israel. I have voted for hundreds of billions of dollars for it over the years I have served here. And I yield to no man my position to terror and terrorism and terrorists. But that is not what is at issue here tonight.

The administration says this bill is not necessary. It points out that this bill constrains the administration in delivering meaningful diplomatic effort to resolve the problems of the Middle East. The Middle East's problems and the problems of the Palestinians and the Israelis will not be resolved by starving the Palestinians or by creating additional hardship. They are desperate people, incarcerated in walls, afflicted with high unemployment, suffering from health and other problems. The non-governmental organizations point out that this will strip them in substantial part of contributing to this. It will in large part almost totally strip the United States from the ability to address the needs of the Palestinian people and to address the humanitarian concerns which we have about them.

Peace in the Middle East is not going to be achieved at gunpoint. It is going to be achieved by negotiations, by people working together; and that process may be ugly, dirty and slow, but it is the only process that will work. To create additional hardship and suffering for the Palestinians is simply going to guarantee more desperate, angry men who are fully determined that they will go forth to kill Israelis or Americans or anybody else. Our purpose here tonight should be to look to the well-being of the United States, craft a policy which is good for this country. And that policy can only be one which is good for Israel and for the Palestinian people, one which is fair to all, one which puts the United States as a friend and an honest broker of peace to both parties where we can be so accepted.

To take some other course is simply to assure continuing hardship and a

continuing poisonous, hateful relationship amongst the parties in the area. When this Congress realizes that and when we, this Congress and the others here, will recognize that that is the way peace is achieved, then there will be a real prospect for peace. We can expect that the Palestinians will receive the justice that they seek. We can expect that the Israelis will achieve the security that they need and they want and they deserve and that we want them to have.

This legislation will do none of that. This legislation promises further angry men, more bitterness, more hate, more ill-will; and it assures that the thing which we must use to bring this miserable situation to an end, honest, honorable, face-to-face negotiation, will either not occur or will be moved many years into the future.

Think about it. The needs of Israel are not served by this resolution. The needs of the United States are not served by this resolution. The needs of the Palestinian people are not served by this resolution.

Let us vote it down and get something which makes sense and which serves the interests of all concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution on the floor. I oppose Hamas. I oppose what they stand for. I oppose their use of violence, their targeting of civilians; their vision for the Palestinian people; their rejection of Israel; and most of all I deplore their rejection of peaceful reconciliation.

For all these reasons, and many more, I do not think that Hamas is a true partner for peace. But while Hamas may not be, the Palestinian people are. The vast majority of Palestinians want peace. The vast majority value peace, follow the law, oppose violence--and legislation like this only hurts the vast majority we need for peace.

I understand the House's desire to ostracize Hamas. But I do not understand how we keep making the same mistakes by punishing the very people we all say we want to help. The restrictions on aid in this bill will not hurt Hamas, they will receive plenty of money from Iran, but this will hurt the Palestinian people.

Under this bill assistance will be limited only to ``basic health'', a restriction we reject for almost every other nation. This bill would stop economic development assistance, sanitation assistance, environmental assistance--and most ironically, at a time when we are criticizing their choice of government--democracy assistance.

Make no mistake about it; their vote was to get back at our own repeatedly misguided attempts to punish rather than cajole, to batter rather than build trust, and to impoverish rather than to uplift. When we provided Mahmoud Abbas no deliverables and only hardships, it made Hamas's promises hard to ignore.

Our actions emboldened the Hamas, and we are about to do it again. My friends, passage of this legislation will create yet another failed state and humanitarian catastrophe in the Middle East. However, this one, unlike Iraq, will be surrounded by our staunchest ally in that region. If we destabilize Palestine we will destabilize Israel. If we help create chaos we weaken the chance for finding peace between Israel and her neighbors--and even threaten the very viability of the Jewish state.

If this legislation is signed into law we will lose once and for all the Palestinian people. Our rejection of them will create one clear victor--the government of Iran. If we pass this legislation, Iran will win by default. Instead of textbooks for Palestinian children being written by USAID they will be written by the Iranian Revolutionary Council. Schools will be built with Iranian oil money and our ability to influence peace will be weaker as a result.

What I find so strange is that this legislation is being championed by people who believe themselves to be the staunchest supporters of Israel. Mr. Speaker, in order to strengthen Israel peace needs to prevail in the region. In order to guarantee Israel's survival the Palestinians need to find prosperity and view the United States as a friend. This bill will only stymie those efforts. I ask my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend from Minnesota, who has done so much for the natural resources of this country and for the protection of its waters. I salute you, Jim.

When the original Clean Water Act and its amendments were passed, the waters of this country were so filthy that they were unsafe for recreational purposes, for swimming, for drinking and even for industry. Imagine that. And we were ditching, draining, drilling and drying our wetlands at a pace which was unbelievably bad for the country. We also were destroying in that process not only wildlife habitat, but one of the finest natural flood control systems that has ever been devised by the mind and hand of the almighty God.

Now, in the debates on the Clean Water Act, if you read the history, you will find that there the managers of the bill in a colloquy with me said that this law was to cover all navigable waters of the United States and all waters that affected the navigable waters of the United States, and that has been the settled interpretation of the law ever since. It has stopped the drainage and the drying up of our wetlands. It has done an enormous amount of good to clean up the waters, so that now they can be used for swimming and boating and recreation and industry and irrigation and other things which were not available before.

If you will but take a look, you will find the consequences of this understanding which this amendment would deny funding for. The guidance that we are talking about has wiped out the protections for bodies of water like the Sacramento River in New Mexico, a water supply for a number of communities. Despite being a drinking water source, the Folsom South Canal in California has been determined not to be water under the Clean Water Act. Imagine that, if you please. Forested wetlands in Delaware that connect to the Little River, feeding directly into Delaware Bay were declared isolated and not covered. An 86-acre lake in Wisconsin, popular with fishermen, is no longer covered by the Clean Water Act.

Now, I want to remind my colleagues that not long back, 218 Members of this body joined in sending a letter to the President of the United States asking him not to implement the plans that were in the offing in the administration. That letter was honored by the President withdrawing the regulatory change, but he left in place the guidance. The guidance is every bit as bad.

This corrects that situation. It makes it possible for matters to be corrected so that we can continue the protection of wetlands in the United States, we can continue to protect our drinking water, our recreational waters and the waters which are so important and precious to fish, wildlife, and conservationists.

This is an amendment which will stop wrongdoing. This is an amendment which will protect the water resources of this country at a time when the need is clear. This is a proposal which sees to it that the wishes of 218 Members of this Congress, communicated to the President from Members from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, are carried forward and that we do serve as wise conservators and protectors of the natural resources and, above all else, the precious water of the United States.

I urge the adoption of the amendment offered by my good friend Mr. Oberstar and by the distinguished gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I again must rise in opposition to the budget before the House. I cannot support another budget that not only adds to the deficit, but for the fifth consecutive year creates the largest deficit in history.

The Congressional budget is a reflection of our priorities--and at the risk of sounding like a broken record--I must say that this Republican budget once again gives priority to massive handouts for their fat cat buddies, and forces working families, veterans and students to foot the bill. Unfortunately, this seems to have become somewhat of a Republican tradition.

Some of my colleagues will praise this budget for its so-called ``savings''. What they fail to mention is that all of the spending cuts are not going towards reducing the deficit but instead are being used to partially offset the $228 billion price tag of a massive new tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, there is no rationale whatsoever to explain how you can decrease revenues while increasing spending and still balance the budget. Anyone with common sense can tell you that if you want to spend more, you must either earn more or save in other areas--otherwise you go into debt. Yet in each of the past six years, the Administration has increased spending faster than national income.

As bad as the numbers before us are, the true picture is in fact worse, because the budget resolution includes no funding after 2007 for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for 2007 includes only a $50 billion ``placeholder''--less than half of the amount appropriated for 2006.

The war costs are only one of the many budgetary gimmicks used to hide the true nature of this budget. Another is the deceptive cut in veterans' health care. Republicans like to say that they have greatly increased funding for veterans' healthcare. This is true if you are speaking of total spending, but the only reason for the Republican spending increase is the increase in the number patients. On a per capita basis, increases in veterans' health care funding average only 0.1 percent per year, well below inflation.

Two days ago, President Bush announced that he will deploy up to 6,000 National Guard members to ``assist the Border Patrol'' along our southern border. It is important to note that in 2004, Congress authorized annual increases of 2,000 border patrol agents from 2006 through 2010. Ironically, for the first two years of this increase, the Administration and the Republican Congress have failed to meet this target. The President's budget proposal for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 failed to include enough funding for an additional 2,000 Border Patrol agents, and subsequently, Congress failed to appropriate full funding for the authorized increase. Under the tight spending constraints provided by the Republican budget framework, the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee reported a bill that provides only 1,200 new border patrol agents--800 agents less than the authorized level. In contrast, the Democratic Substitute provides more than enough funding to provide for an additional 2,000 Border Patrol agents.

Education also takes a hit in this budget resolution. The Department of Education is cut by $2.2 billion--the second year in a row that Republicans will cut federal education funding despite school districts' need for promised assistance to meet demanding standards under No Child Left Behind, and the increasing cost of higher education. In addition to funding cuts, 42 education programs will be eliminated under this budget, including the Even Start family literacy program, the TRIO Upward Bound program, the Perkins loan program and all federal vocational education programs.

In particular, the Perkins loan program is extremely important to colleges and universities throughout the state of Michigan. At the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University, both of which are located in my district, 8,658 students received Perkins loans during the 2004-2005 school year. At a time when we should be actively supporting opportunities for higher education, this proposed cut is a cruel slap in the face for our colleges and universities and for their students.

The environment will also suffer if this bill passes. Funding for the Environmental Protection Agency will be cut by $304 million from 2006, with most of this cut coming from programs that ensure clean drinking water and protect public health. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund is cut by 22 percent from 2006 which, when added to past years' cuts, represents a 49 percent decrease since 2004. Additionally, despite the growing backlog of infrastructure construction and maintenance projects, funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would be slashed by 11 percent. These cuts are ill-advised and will greatly undermine our Nation's ability to preserve and protect the resources we have been blessed with.

I would also like to mention one specific program that has been placed on the chopping block--the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). This program provides nutritional food packages to over 475,000 low-income elderly, mothers and children, including 75,000 from my home state of Michigan. Under this budget resolution, CSFP would be eliminated, and all of these individuals would simply stop receiving their food packages. This is unacceptable. CSFP costs approximately $110 million per year, which is .03 percent of the projected deficit for FY2007. This means that eliminating the CSFP program will barely make a dent in the deficit, but 475,000 seniors, women and infants will be in danger of going hungry.

It is for these reasons and many more that I stand here today to oppose this budget. The Democratic alternative would balance the budget by 2012 while rejecting deep cuts in essential federal programs. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Democratic substitute and no on the Republican budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-advised, ill-conceived, poorly calculated, and deeply regressive tax bill for the same reasons that I rose to oppose the tax cuts of 2001 and the yearly effort by this Congress to make them permanent every year since their approval.

I oppose them for a host of reasons. I oppose them because they are leaving our children and grandchildren with trillions, I say that again, trillions of dollars of liabilities owned by the Chinese, the Saudis, the Indians, and the Europeans. We are literally mortgaging the prosperity of today's children to the fickle nature of our competitors and rivals.

I oppose them because it has forced our military to go into battle without proper body armor on our troops--soldiers who largely come from families that do not benefit from these tax cuts--and without blast shields on our Humvees.

I oppose them because it shifts the tax burden from those who benefit the most from the success of America, to those who are desperately trying to realize their American dream. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the poorest workers under this legislation will end up with a total tax savings of two dollars while those who earn $1,000,000 or more will pocket a generous $42,000.

But this distribution isn't just unfair to the working poor; it is deeply unjust to the middle class. Families who earn from $75,000 to $100,000 will only receive a dollar a day of tax relief--not even close enough to cancel out the higher interest rates on credit cards and student loans that are resulting because of our persistent budget deficits.

Finally, I am opposed to this legislation because it excuses this Congress from the tough decisions that a future Congress and a future President are going to have to make. We all know that the Alternative Minimum Tax is going to hit the middle class hard and to fix it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. But rather than addressing it, we are asking the Congress of 2012 to take care of our mess. We know that the retirement of the Baby Boomers is going to force massive concessions in our budget, but again, our message is to leave it to tomorrow. Let someone else clean up our mess.

Well, I hate to say, with this Congress and this President I am not surprised we are asking someone else to take responsibility for yet another mess.

Mr. Speaker, rather than bringing legislation to the House floor that would actually help senior citizens get the prescription drugs they need and address some of the problems that they are having with the new drug benefit, the Republican leadership has brought forward an ``advertisement'' in the form of a meaningless resolution that does nothing, absolutely nothing, to make it easier for seniors to enroll in the prescription drug plan.

Instead, they are encouraging our constituents to beat an artificial deadline and enroll in these plans without having accurate information to prevent them from enrolling in a plan that does not meet their needs.

The independent Government watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office, recently reported that a good deal of the information that Medicare is providing on this new drug benefit is wrong or incomprehensible to the average beneficiary. For example, Medicare representatives gave an incorrect answer 60 percent of the time when they were asked to help a beneficiary find the lowest-cost plan to enroll in.

These findings also point to larger problems. Because of inaccurate, complicated, or confusing information, seniors have not been given a fair shake. Why is the House not addressing these matters?

We should be here today voting on a bill to extend the May 15 deadline and helping seniors avoid an unfair and unnecessary penalty. Instead, we have a meaningless resolution encouraging seniors to do exactly what they have been doing, which is to evaluate their options. I encourage that--so I will support the resolution. But we should be doing much more to help seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to former Representative Elford Albin Cederberg, who passed away on April 17th at the age of 88. During the 26 years Representative Cederberg served in the House, he and I grew very close and I always considered him an ally in fighting for the people of Michigan. Not only was Representative Cederberg a friend and fellow politician, but also a family man married for almost 50 years to his late wife, Marguerite, and a veteran of World War II decorated with five campaign battle stars and the Bronze Star. Whether he was storming the beaches of Normandy or fighting for his beliefs as the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, he always exhibited strong leadership and a deep appreciation for our community.

A native of Bay City, Michigan, Representative Cederberg began his career of public service by joining the Army. He was assigned to the 83rd Infantry Division during World War II. Not long after the war, he entered politics as the mayor of Bay City and in 1950 proceeded to unsuccessfully run for Congress. However, Representative Cederberg was determined, sharp and passionate; it was no surprise that 2 years later he successfully won election to represent the 10th District of Michigan in this great House. He went on to serve for 13 consecutive terms.

A strong advocate of the auto industry and Michigan at large, his accomplishments will be remembered and his legacy will continue to impact us. His companionship and great character are already sorely missed by all.

I would ask all my colleagues to join me in extending our heartfelt condolences to Representative Cederberg's children, Marilyn and Tom, and the rest of the Cederberg family.

His passion for Michigan and for this great institution will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for awakening at long last to the need to pass strong anti-price gouging legislation to protect America's energy consumers.

It would have been far better if the House majority had come to this realization last fall, when Representative Stupak offered a stronger version of the bill we are now debating. Instead, the Republicans voted down the Stupak bill on three separate occasions in Committee and on the House floor. Apparently, the Majority has now seen the light, as this new bill borrows heavily from H.R. 3936, anti-gouging legislation sponsored by Rep. Stupak.

Better late than never, I suppose. But in the meantime, seven critical months have elapsed during which all manner of shenanigans may have occurred in the energy markets. Fortunately for consumers, a mild winter sheltered them from the full effects of high prices during the winter heating season, but last month gasoline prices shot up. As we approach the summer driving season, there is no relief in sight.

In a perfect world, I would support Representative Stupak's bill over the legislation now under consideration. In fact, since last December House Republicans could have signed the discharge petition pending on the Stupak bill and passed it on the suspension calendar. That would have empowered the Federal Trade Commission to go after price gougers-- or better yet--the enactment of anti-gouging authority might have deterred gasoline price gougers from taking advantage of U.S. consumers.

Nonetheless, the bill before us today is much improved from the version the Majority offered in the fall. The American energy consumer is hurting and action is needed. I will, with some misgivings, support the bill before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the legislation before us today. I oppose it, not because I oppose clean, open, and transparent government; or because I don't want the American people to have faith in their legislators.

I oppose it, quite simply, because all it does is put lipstick on a pig. It allows the Republican majority to give themselves a self congratulatory pat on the back and then proceed with business as usual. It allows those same Republicans, who have let K Street and corporate greed-heads to feast at the trough of

American democracy, to proclaim their reborn innocence. It scolds the lobbying community for the sins of their membership, and does nothing to change the culture of corruption here in the Congress and in the Executive Branch other than making people fill out a couple more forms.

I have served in this beloved institution for quite a while now. I love it with all my heart. In my time here I have always tried to do right by the people. I have always tried to spend their money wisely. I have tried to make sure that their government responds to their concerns. I have tried to make sure that the Executive Branch, whether it was run by Democrats or Republicans, understood Congressional prerogatives. And the Congress, as a whole, used to respect these privileges as well.

Things have changed. They have changed, not because there's a thriving business for lobbyists--lobbyists thrived when Congress was honest--but because this Congress now sees K Street's interests as its own. Not only have we seen a rise in a culture of corruption, but we have also seen the withering of the culture of skepticism.

Too many people here in the Congress accept, without a moment's hesitation, the priorities of a lobbyist. No questions are asked, no criticisms are made. Doing K Street's bidding is not our job, representing the American people is. Until the Majority figures that out, no amount of reform and self-congratulations is going to change our image or restore the faith of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a very remarkable group of

women. As I'm sure many of us here can attest, the aging process can be a daunting experience. This special group has refused to accept that life after a certain age means confinement to a rocking chair. Now, it is hard for me personally to imagine that someone who is merely 50--the minimum age for membership--could approach this spry age with reservation; however, these women tell me that this birthday can be somewhat traumatic.

As the story goes, several years ago Sue Ellen Cooper of Fullerton, California read the poem, ``Warning'' by British poet Jenny Joseph. The poem begins,

``When I am an old woman I shall wear purple

With a red hat that doesn't go . . .''

So inspired was Ms. Cooper by this poem, that she decided to pass along a copy of it to a friend, accompanied by a vintage red fedora. Her friend loved the gift, and did the same for a friend of hers. On April 25, 1998, under the direction of Exalted Queen Mother Sue Ellen, The Red Hat Society first convened in a tearoom of ladies wearing purple dresses and--of course--red hats.

Although it took some convincing, these ladies had to explain to me that red and purple do not actually match. Nevertheless, this fashion faux pas stuck and is quite a sight to see indeed.

These wonderful women refer to themselves as a ``dis-organization'' determined to take on aging with a sense of humor, camaraderie and a fun-loving spirit. They organize social events, hold conferences and communicate with ``hat-quarters'' via their own webpage. This inclusive group even allows women of lesser maturity to join their ranks. To differentiate these ``ladies in waiting'' from full-fledged members, this sub-sect is confined to wearing lavender dresses with pink hats, reserving the truly outrageous garb for those who have hit ``the big one.'' My wife Deborah tells me that lavender and pink do not go very well together either, but they are generally preferable to red and purple.

Sue Ellen Cooper realized that behind every woman, no matter how responsible and upstanding of a citizen she was in her youth, is a crazy old spirit waiting to get out and cause some trouble. Ms. Cooper and her friends found a way to connect these women, and since that day in 1998, they have seen nothing but success. Any woman who is of a certain age and willing to go out in public dressed in particular flare can start her own chapter of Red Hats. California, Florida, and Michigan lead the nation in Red Hat chapters, with the 15th Congressional District alone boasting 91. There are thousands more active chapters across the United States, and even some international chapters as far away as Egypt and Japan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me today in commemoration of the official first meeting of the Red Hat Society and honor these thousands of inspiring women who endeavor to remain young at heart and in soul.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Saint Hyacinth Roman Catholic Church, in Detroit, MI on its centennial anniversary. Since 1907, Saint Hyacinth has served as a place of worship and gathering point for the Polish community in Detroit.

Saint Hyacinth was established in 1907 by a small group of Polish immigrants. At the beginning of the 20th century, this new parish served the large and growing Polish immigrant community in Detroit. During World War I, the congregation came together in order to provide solidarity for their brothers and sisters in Poland, as well as to contribute to the overall war effort. With a growing population Saint Hyacinth built a new church in 1924. This beautiful Byzantine- Romanesque church building towered over all other local buildings, serving as a deep source of pride for the Polish community.

World War II brought another opportunity for Saint Hyacinth to serve its country, community, and loved ones in Poland. With its strong connection to Poland, there was no doubt that Saint Hyacinth and many of its parishioners would play an active role in the American war effort. Their bravery and sacrifice was honored with an honor roll installed in the church vestibule.

The post-War years brought change to the surrounding community, but Saint Hyacinth remained steadfast in its dedication to serving the community. Following WWII, then Bishop Monsinger Woznicki appealed to the Church's many Polish parishioners to retain their family names, instead of changing them, as had become the custom. He also called on his parish not to flee to the suburbs, but stay in the surrounding neighborhood.

Saint Hyacinth was honored with its listing in the State of Michigan's Historical Site Registry on September 21, 1988. In January 2001, Saint Hyacinth was honored by the City of Detroit and its 300th Anniversary Committee, with a Heritage Award. It also received a granite paver, inscribed in both English and Polish, on the Riverfront Promenade. This serves as a testament to the great contributions this parish has provided to the city of Detroit and its people.

Mr. Speaker, for one hundred years Saint Hyacinth has served as the heart of Detroit's Polish community. Innumerable parishioners have passed through its doors through the years and the lessons they have learned helped shape their values and beliefs. Saint Hyacinth has stood as an example of all the hard work, determination, sacrifice and love that the surrounding community provides. For generations, the parish of Saint Hyacinth has

turned a beautiful building into something much more, the heart of a community. I want to congratulate the congregation of Saint Hyacinth; the good works they have done serve as an example of all that a community can and should be.