Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the life of Shirley Demmer and applaud Bill Demmer's establishment of the Shirley Dudek Demmer Summer Chair of Research at the Brain Aneurysm Foundation.

In 1952, Shirley was born in Detroit, Michigan to a homemaker and a General Motors automotive worker. She grew up in a modest neighborhood with five siblings. Tragically, at age 13, Shirley lost her mother to what was thought to be a stroke, but was later confirmed to be a ruptured brain aneurysm. After the passing of her mother, Shirley had to grow up fast. In 1975, she met her future husband Bill, with whom she would share 30 wonderful years of marriage. In 1978, the Demmers moved to Northville, Michigan, and raised their three children. Shirley was active in her community, involved in philanthropic efforts especially in the area of violence against women. Bill became Chairman of the North American International Auto Show.

At 50, Shirley decided to accomplish one of her life's goals and complete her bachelors degree. In 2007, she graduated with highest honors from Madonna University with a degree in sociology. Soon thereafter, Shirley applied and was accepted into the University of Michigan's Gender Studies graduate program. Unfortunately, she never had a chance to earn her graduate degree. Sadly, Shirley Demmer died in November 2007. Shirley was a person of extreme warmth and caring. She touched the lives of many people in her community, and she is sorely missed.

After her passing, Bill sought to learn everything possible about brain aneurysms. He found the incidence of brain aneurysms are often partly genetic and his mother-in-law had probably died from a ruptured brain aneurysm. Consequently, he ensured their children and Shirley's siblings were screened for brain aneurysms. Thanks to these screenings, Shirley's sister Nancy was found to have a brain aneurysm and underwent a successful craniotomy to save her life. In addition, her husband Bill provided a grant to establish the Shirley Dudek Demmer Chair of Research at the Brain Aneurysm Foundation to promote early detection of brain aneurysms.

Fortunately, today there is a greater awareness of brain aneurysms and the danger they pose to Americans. Through the efforts of people like Bill Demmer and organizations like the Brain Aneurysm Foundation, our nation's leaders have become involved in efforts to promote brain aneurysm awareness. For on September 26, 2008, Representative Patrick Tiberi (OH) introduced H. Res. 1511, which would express support for designation of the month of September as ``National Brain Aneurysm Awareness Month''.

Madam Speaker, today, as we remember the life of Shirley Demmer, I ask my colleagues to join me in mourning her passing and applauding the establishment of the Shirley Dudek Demmer Chair of Research.

I rise today not to change anyone's mind, but to express to my constituents my reasons for opposing this bill.

There will always be time and pretext enough for people to compromise their principles and put forward poor public policy that may in the short run be popular, but in the wrong run will be detrimental to the long-term interests of the American people. We learn this through history.

In the 1832 bank panics, Andrew Jackson had the question of whether he would remove the Bank of the United States' charter. The people in the bank did not like that. They threatened the prosperity of the American people. In the middle of the panic, Andrew Jackson looked at these bankers and he said, ``There are no necessary evils in government. The Treasury to you, gentlemen, is closed.''

This was an act of courage on the part of President Jackson, because he understood what was at stake was not merely an ephemeral prosperity or a panic caused by the very people with their handout. Andrew Jackson understood this was about majoritarian rule; it was about the faith in the people's representative institutions and those who inhabit the seats in which they are entrusted.

Today we are in a global financial bank panic. It is the first of our global economy. We are seeing a leveraged bailout of the United States Treasury. In the end, these interests that want your money are threatening your prosperity, and the choice you face is this: You will lose potentially your prosperity for a short period of time at the expense of your long-term liberty. Once the Federal Government has got you to take that risk and pass it on to you as a ``moral hazard,'' they will be in the marketplace. And as the free market is diminished, your freedom itself is diminished, and as your Congress does not stand up to these and put forward a better plan that truly protects the taxpayers, that truly has the long-term interests of the United States at heart, you will be in jeopardy of losing both your prosperity and your liberty.

The choice is stark, and it was put forward in the book by Dostoevsky. In ``The Brothers Karamazov,'' the grand inquisitor came to Jesus and he said, ``If you wish to subject the people, give them miracle, mystery and authority; but above all, give them bread.''

It has always been the temptation in a crisis especially to sacrifice liberty for short-term promises of prosperity, and it was no mistake that during the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution the slogan was ``peace, land and bread.''

Today you are being asked to choose between bread and freedom. I suggest that the people on Main Street have said that they prefer their freedom, and I am with them.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Miss Allison Schmitt upon her achievement of the Bronze Medal in the Women's 4x200 Meter Freestyle Relay in the 2008 Summer Olympics.

Allison Schmitt was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on June 7, 1990. At the age of 9, she began her swimming career with the Plymouth Canton Cruiser in Canton, MI. Allison then went on to join the Ann Arbor Swim Club at the age of 12. During her high school career, Allison swam Varsity all four years she attended Canton High, and was also acknowledged by her team as the MVP all four years. During her time at Canton High School, Allison was named All-State a total of eight times, two per year of attendance, and was named Michigan High School Swimmer of the Year in 2006. In her senior year, Allison was Canton High's Swim Team Captain. Allison is a ten time All-American athlete and holds two Michigan State High School records.

In December of 2007, Allison began training with Club Wolverine's High Performance Group, under Coach Bob Bowman. In January 2008, Allison graduated from Canton High School to train for the Olympic trials. On July 2, 2008, Allison made the USA Olympic team and subsequently achieved a national age group record in the 200 meter freestyle.

On August 14, 2008, the United States Women's 4x200 meter Freestyle Relay team consisting of Allison Schmitt, Natalie Coughlin, Caroline Burckle, and Katie Hoff broke the American record and swam the relay in 7:46.33, achieving a third place finish and a bronze medal.

Madam Speaker, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Allison every success as she attends the University of Georgia, where she will continue her swimming career during the fall of 2008; and in congratulating and thanking Miss Allison Schmitt upon her winning the bronze medal as a member of the United States Women's 4x200 Freestyle Relay Team for making us all so proud.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. I also wish to take this moment to thank him for his strength of character and his depth of intellect and leadership on this issue.

It has been said if you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in such a situation, as America finds itself amidst a potential economic meltdown of its financial sector.

Right now, the U.S. Congress is being asked to vote upon the Paulson- Bush-Obama-McConnell-Pelosi-Reid plan. I myself will be up front and say I think it is a disastrous policy that House Republicans should continue to resist. What we are asking Americans to do, quite simply, is to send money to the very people who caused this problem and expect them to fix it.

If I can put this in the simplest terms that even I could understand, we have a liquidity crisis in our financial markets. That means that private investors are standing on the sidelines. They do not want to put their money into purchasing toxic assets. What they are now doing is asking Congress to put your money into purchasing toxic assets, and, if you do not, then these private investors have promised to wreak havoc upon your personal savings, upon your credit ratings, upon your financial existence. And for what sin? For not giving them $700 billion to fix the problem that they caused.

House Republicans have stood against this. We have consistently tried to keep ahead of the crisis atmosphere, and we have succeeded. What we instead offered is a responsible position that protects the taxpayers, that puts private recapitalization first, so that Wall Street can bail itself out of its mess before going to the taxpayers, and

putting an appropriate backstop in place.

Now, we have been reviled for our principled opposition to what we believe is an extortion of taxpayers' precious resources. For this we have been condemned in the liberal media. For this we have been condemned by the majority Democratic Party in this House. We have been condemned by the Democratic majority in the Senate. We have been condemned by our own Republican President and his Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board Chairman.

In fact, I think we have recently reached the height of the disapprobation heaped upon us when earlier the Speaker of the House, in response to our refusal to spend $700 billion of taxpayer money on this problem, we were labeled ``unpatriotic.'' I suppose this should not surprise us the least bit. We had earlier heard from the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Senator Biden, that Republicans, because we would not raise your taxes, were also unpatriotic.

Now, there has been some debate whether there is a new Democratic Party in America. If I may link these two statements to disprove that notion, according to Senator Biden and Speaker Pelosi, if you do not support raising the American people's taxes and spending $700 billion of it on Wall Street, you are unpatriotic.

I disagree with this assessment, and I trust that the American people do. In fact, in many ways it tends to point out the politics that are being played here. The reality is, as has been shown so often in the past, the Republican Party in Congress is the minority party. In the House of Representatives especially, the minority has acute pangs, because we do not have the power to obstruct a single thing the majority wants to get done. Let me draw a quick comparison.

When we were debating increasing American energy production to help our constituents and ease their pain at the pump by increasing supply, we were denied a bipartisan vote on an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Today, in the debate to bail out Wall Street, we see the Speaker demanding a bipartisan vote to bail them out.

The dichotomy proves the point that if this Democratic majority truly believes, as does their Speaker and Senator Obama and others, in President Bush's plan, yes, I know that sounds dysfunctional, but these are the times in which we live, they would then take it upon themselves to do one of two things: They would run us over; or instead they would choose the prudent course, to work with us.

Today they are beginning to show signs they may work with us. But, unfortunately, the political games continue. We continue to hear now, in addition to being unpatriotic and obstructive, which is impossible as the minority party in the House, we continue to hear that if we resist an arbitrary Sunday midnight deadline, we, who cannot stop this bill from being passed, are going to cause the meltdown of the American and the global economy.

We instead as House Republicans are going to do what you sent us here to do, which is guard your money with which you have entrusted us. What we are going to do is reject arbitrary deadlines, for two very critical reasons important to the American people.

One is we will have no rush to misjudgment, whereby a bad bill is passed for the sake of meeting an artificial deadline that winds up being either passed into law or being forced into a no vote defeat in this House, the result of which could be the very economic meltdown we are trying to prevent.

The other alternative is if prudent consultation with Republicans and Democrats continue and we pass the arbitrary deadline, if investors' expectations are raised improperly and irresponsibly, if we do the right thing and take a prudent course with this legislation towards a pro-taxpayer outcome, the economic meltdown may still occur.

This is why House Republicans refuse to put a deadline on these economic negotiations, which are of critical interest to the American people, the same way we opposed putting artificial deadlines on our troops in Iraq. One is dedicated to preserving the prosperity of the American people, just as the other was dedicated to preserving the liberty of the American people by expanding it to the Iraqis.

We have failed to do so in the past in our negotiations with the Democratic Party to make it clear that we have learned our lesson. We will not legislate defeat, either of our troops or of the American taxpayer, and we will continue to stand strong in their defense.

Why is this critically important? If one looks at the lessons of history, we see critical times where decisions are made that affect future generations. This is such a time.

This is the first economic panic of the global economy. The precedent that we set as your servants in Congress will be followed for decades to come. If we are rushed into this by a market bent upon getting their billions from taxpayers, we will set a precedent that we will rue. If we take our time and have prudent, responsible progress towards a pro- taxpayer result, such as embodied in the Cantor-Ryan plan, we will have done our job, not only for the crisis of the present, but for future generations to come.

This is why today I say I have never been more proud to be a House Republican, because in many ways the more you are reviled for not abandoning the hard-working, responsible American people, for not abrogating their trust in you to protect their tax dollars and their futures, we wear it as a badge of honor, because that is precisely what we were elected to do as the party of Lincoln, as the party of Reagan.

And I have a history lesson as I conclude for the party of Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson stood tall for the working people of America in the face of every rich special interest that this Nation had. When they demanded a Bank of the United States and got a servile Congress to pass it for them, he vetoed it, not once but twice, because he knew that the best way America could grow was from families, communities and neighborhoods, not from a centralized Bank of the United States.

Today we face a centralized shadow bank of the United States on Wall Street, and this is precisely the forces that we are standing up to for the responsible, hard-working people of America. And when Andrew Jackson for the second time vetoed a charter for the Bank of the United States, he said something that I would ask every Democrat in this Chamber to remember: ``There are no necessary evils in government.''

So that when this Democratic majority brings a bill to the floor, make sure that you believe in it; because if you do not believe in it and you do not vote for it, or you do, do not go home and tell your constituents that this was a necessary evil to get through this time. And we as Republicans on our part will always remember the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson: ``If one man plant himself upon his convictions and then abide, the whole huge world will come around to him.''

We will stand our ground, backed by principle and the American people, and we will do our duty.

I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Madam Speaker, before I was elected to Congress, we used to hear--and unfortunately with some justification--that when faced with a crisis, Members of Congress would invariably soil themselves, throw money at the problem, and hoped it went away. Unfortunately, in these dysfunctional economic times, we find that this process has continued. As American families face a potential meltdown of the financial sector, we have seen what I believe to be an inappropriate response starting with this administration.

From the time that we were informed that a potential financial meltdown was going to occur, the separate, equal branch of governance, which is the

United States Congress, was told that we had but one alternative, and that if we did not pass it quickly in the time period specified by the executive branch, that our economy would be severely damaged.

It has been my opinion that we were elected to serve in this Congress by the sovereign people of the United States, to make important decisions on their behalf, to do it with our due diligence and our devotion that it's due, and to come up with a positive solution to their situation.

Last night, as I watched the President of the United States explain his view of this, I was struck by the fact that again we were told that if we did not give unlimited amounts of money, up to $700 billion, and unlimited powers--with lack of adequate oversight--to the executive branch, that we were failing in our due diligence and responsibilities to the American people.

I heard the President of the United States say that if we do not support what they put forward as the only alternative to this crisis, we do not understand the need to act. That statement is false. We understand the need to act.

We heard from the President of the United States that if we did not support his plan and the Paulson plan, that we did not care about American families. That statement is false. We care very much about American families.

What we did not hear was a recognition that a three-page document that gives to the Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve unlimited powers--the likes of which Stalin and Mao killed people for--was not an acceptable response to give to this separate, equal branch of government.

Today, we are told that House Republicans are standing in the way of a $700 billion use of your tax dollars to bail out the very people who caused this problem. Guilty as charged. House Republicans believe that there is an alternative.

The administration tells us that their first, last, only resort is to go to the taxpayers and bail out Wall Street. We fundamentally disagree with this. What we believe should happen is Wall Street should bail out Wall Street. House Republicans believe that the toxic assets that are clogging up our economy should first attempt to be recapitalized by the people sitting on the sidelines with their money waiting for you, the taxpayer, to be fleeced and put it in so they are confident that the market will work. This is not making the market work.

I heard from the President last night that the free market has failed.

The free market has not failed. The free market is correcting from the bad deeds of actors within that market. It is the government that is trying to interfere in the market for political purposes.

We cannot reinflate the bubble to save the American economy. What we need to do is be responsible and lay forward a private recapitalization plan with appropriate backstop that first and foremost protects the innocent, namely the taxpayers. The people who on Main Street invested and saved and had good credit their entire lives should not be asked to go back in and help the cowboy capitalists who shot themselves in the foot. House Republicans understand this. Just as we understand the need to act quickly, we also understand the need to act appropriately.

This is not an attempt to engage in an argument with the President. I have admiration for the President. And I have supported the President, as have House Republicans, when he has been correct. But he is in error now. House Republicans stood and supported the Petraeus surge so our troops would have victory in Iraq. Today House Republicans oppose the Paulson splurge so that we can have prosperity in America over the long run. And make no mistake. We understand the gravity of this situation. But we will not engage in a rush to judgment that destroys the possibilities of a free market and prosperity for American families for decades to come.

We will not walk out of this room after a forced vote, waving a piece of paper in our hands and claiming ``peace in our time.'' We will do the job we were entrusted. And we will get the job done.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge the Western Wayne Youth Traveling Classic (WWYTC) League, upon the 25th anniversary of its establishment.

Now celebrating its 25th year, the Western Wayne Traveling Classic is a junior bowling league. Since its inception, over one thousand young bowlers have been enriched by the program. Importantly, more than thirty thousand dollars in scholarships have been awarded to bowlers through the WWYTC, substantially contributing to the education opportunities of Detroit area youth. The WWYTC has become a beloved area institution of Canton, Westland, and the Wayne County area in general. Relationships are built and young people given activities that keep them occupied constructively. In the past quarter century, a marriage has resulted from young people meeting in league competition, and the first child of a first generation WWYTC youth has now become a member of the WWYTC. This league has produced world bowling hall of fame members like Lisa Bishop, and become a well-known fixture of the Wayne County area.

From 1983 to the present, its founder, Harold Winters has served as the Executive Director of the Western Wayne Youth Traveling Classic League. His initiative began a league which enabled youth in the area to compete, learn about sportsmanship, and constructively participate in their community. Before the league's founding in 1983, there were no classic bowling leagues in the Western Wayne County area. This league created an opportunity for young bowlers to learn the fundamentals of the sport and compete in a fun and family oriented environment.

Madam Speaker, over the years, the Western Wayne Youth Traveling Classic has been a beloved feature of the Wayne County area. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding the spirit represented by this league, and the benefits it has brought to our community.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to place into the Record an article by Dr. Phyllis Zagano, Senior Research Associate-in-Residence at Hofstra University concerning Catholic teaching on human life.

[From the 2008 Religion News Service]

Commentary: Catholics Dems and Bishops in for a Bumpy Ride

(By Phyllis Zagano)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is clearly confused about

Catholic teaching on life issues. On NBC's ``Meet the

Press,'' Tom Brokaw asked her: ``When does life begin?'' She

answered, ``We don't know.'' Pelosi said ``that as an ardent,

practicing Catholic,'' this is an issue she's studied for a

long time. ``And what I know is, over the centuries, the

doctors of the church have not been able to make that

definition.''

Pelosi is wrong, and some Catholic bishops have tried to

correct the record.

I don't think the Democrats are worried.

A few years ago I rode the New York-to-Washington shuttle

with a prominent politician who is a Catholic and a Democrat.

He said that U.S. bishops collectively squandered their moral

authority with the priest pederasty scandal. Whether for so-

called ``liberal'' or ``conservative'' causes, he said,

Catholic bishops are the political touch of death. No one

listens to them. Including, it seems, Catholic-educated

Pelosi. While the bishops try to straighten out Pelosi, who

confuses medieval discussions about ``ensoulment'' with

historical teachings on abortion, the Democrats are trying to

sound like they are both for and against abortion.

Brokaw backed Pelosi into a theological corner by playing

part of a televised interview in which California Pastor Rick

Warren asked Sen. Barack Obama (and, later, Sen. John

McCain), ``At what point does a baby get human rights?''

Catholicism calls that two questions: First, is the embryo

human life? Second, when does the embryo become a person?

Obama addressed both questions. He said ``If you believe that

life begins at conception . . . then I can't argue with

you.'' He also basically said deciding when the embryo

becomes a person was above his paygrade. After seeing the

Warren-Obama replay, Pelosi muddled Brokaw's question. She

said--incorrectly--that the church only decided human life

begins at conception ``like maybe 50 years'' ago.

Wrong, Madame Speaker. ``The Didache'' (the teachings of

the apostles collected a generation after Christ) says, ``You

shall not procure an abortion, nor destroy a newborn child.''

Several church fathers--from Tertullian to St. Jerome--and

the apostolic constitutions all forbade abortion. Some,

however, confused matters by talking about ensoulment, asking

when the human being became a human person. The ensoulment

debate seems stuck in Pelosi's memory, and could be what she

was talking about. She said St. Augustine thought ensoulment

occurred about 30 days after conception. But trying to figure

out ensoulment only leads to debate over whether abortion is

merely similar to murder (killing a human being) or actually

equal to murder (killing a human person).

No one knows for sure when the developing human being

becomes a person with a soul. It might be at conception, or

it might not. So Christianity, with other religions, has

historically forbidden abortion in the face of this dilemma

because the human being is always potentially a human person.

The earliest fertilized egg is not a future banana or frog.

It is human life. What's fascinating is that Sens. Joe Biden

and John McCain agree that life begins at conception. And

although neither expects (or possibly wants) help from the

bishops, McCain has the most to gain by Pelosi's misstep.

Pelosi is at best misinformed, and has misinformed a

nation. The Catholic bishops will try to counter her bad

information. And Catholic politicians, who have increasingly

ignored a lot of Catholic teaching, don't seem to think that

what the bishops say will make any difference. Seatbelts,

everybody. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Harold Winters, founder of the Western Wayne Youth Travelling Classic League, upon the 25th anniversary of its establishment.

Born in 1939, Harold grew up in Detroit, Michigan, graduating from Redford High in 1956. He moved to Canton in 1971, and is married to Maria Winters. Harold worked for Ford Motor Company for 32 years, retiring in 1997. For 48 years, Harold Winters has shown exceptional dedication to being involved in his community. A 36 year member of Divine Savior Catholic Church, he has acted as an advocate and counselor, regularly sending inspirational messages to encourage people of all ages. During the 1970s, Harold helped raise funds for efforts to combat muscular dystrophy. Harold remains a lifelong member of the Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks and a member of the Friends of Charter Township of Canton Library.

From 1983 to the present, Harold has served as the Executive Director of the Western Wayne Youth Travelling Classic League. His initiative began a league which enabled youth in the area to compete, learn about sportsmanship, and be involved in their communities in a constructive way. Furthermore, the league has generously provided more than 30,000 dollars in scholarships to young athletes since its inception.

Madam Speaker, over the years, Harold has served his community selflessly and acted as the inspiration for the Western Wayne Youth Travelling Classic. His service has spanned forty years and influenced his community in numerous ways. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Harold Winters' public spirit, dedication, and service to his community.

I've long thought that civics should be taught as earnestly as possible in our schools.

Yesterday, we saw the spectacle of a Democratic House sham energy bill being passed out of here and lauded as if the problem had been solved. The problem is no one had consulted with the Democratic Senate, which had declared it dead on arrival.

Now, for a bill to become law, it must pass both Chambers and be signed by the President of the United States. Only in that way can meaningful American energy security and independence be secured. That is why I have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 417 that says that it is the sense of this Congress that we will not adjourn until meaningful energy legislation has been passed into law to help the American people through this difficult time.

Now, again, I have to do this because there seem to be some who think that simply passing a sham energy bill for political cover out of this body is going to help any American struggling at the pump. It will not. Let them put your money where their mouth is and stay here until they get the job done.

The joys of a segue.

It's right in this time to concede that despite Republicans over the course of August talking about the Democratic majority taking a 5-week paid vacation, that we do recognize when this institution has acted with due alacrity. Today we have before us the opportunity to name North Platte, Nebraska, Rail Town USA. We could not have done so at a better time, because jumping into the competition for the coveted title of Rail Town USA is Washington, D.C.

This week we have seen a bill drafted in the dead of night, sent to this floor and rubber-stamped by the Democratic majority and proclaimed to solve America's energy crisis. This is as unfortunate as it is injurious. America has an energy crisis. It also has representative institutions who seek to deal with this problem, so the processes put forward, so that the voices of our constituents could be heard, so that true compromise could be found.

And yet in Rail Town Washington, what have we seen as a result? A sham energy bill sent to a Democratic Senate by a Democratic House, and a pronunciation from a Democratic Senator herself was that the bill was dead on arrival. What we do today is important to recognize Rail Town USA. But as the gentlelady pointed out, what Americans can do and the challenges they can transcend acting together is what truly makes North Platte, Nebraska, Rail Town USA, because it shows what, in a time of crisis, people coming together for the common good, sincerely and earnestly, putting forth the effort can accomplish. We could well learn and emulate their efforts. And yet we do not.

In this time where Americans are suffering, they should expect no less from their servants in Congress than to do this. Because to do anything else is to diminish not only ourselves as your servants, if that were possible in this Democratic Congress, but it diminishes the institution itself as a beacon of representative democracy for all the world.

Critically, I think we can change this. I think there is still time that we could learn from the people of North Platte, Nebraska, and their worthy history, that we still have time to come together. And if we do not come together before this Congress adjourns, a relatively short period of time, I suggest we make a commitment to each other, like the people of North Platte, Nebraska. Let us tell the American people that until this energy crisis of our time is solved, until their servants in the United States Congress come together on a truly bipartisan bill that can be signed into law and relieve your pain at the pump and guarantee American energy and security, we will stay here. We will serve the full time that you elected us to work in this Chamber on your behalf. Because to leave here and go play politics while the American people suffer is not worthy of this institution, and it is certainly not worthy of the example set forward by the people of North Platte, Nebraska, Rail Town USA.

Madam Speaker, woven throughout the fabric of our lives in the Wolverine State, we in Michigan, the Midwest, and all of America must never take our Great Lakes for granted. Today, in a bipartisan moment that reflects what is both the best in us and is expected of us, we come together to ensure that we do not take them for granted.

I come to this as someone whose parents took him on vacation with my brother up to Lake Superior to see its pristine natural beauty, to watch the glow of a Michigan sunset over Lake Michigan, to fish in Lake Erie and, in a moment of rare weakness on the part of my wife, I proposed to her on the shores of Lake Huron. I won't bring up whether she regrets it or not.

I say this because, as we raise our own children and they share the same experiences with the natural beauty of the Great Lakes, we are honoring a commitment to future generations to ensure that, for the time to come, our Great Lakes remain not only the boon of our quality of life and to the vibrancy of our economy, but they remain the most visible way we in Michigan and in the Midwest in America can teach our children that we honored our duty to defend those Great Lakes and pass them on for future generations.

I thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this bipartisan legislation.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

And I think you've hit upon, with the quote from Speaker Pelosi about trying to save the planet, one of the fundamental problems that we've run into trying to come up with a sound energy policy for the United States.

As the gentleman from Tennessee talked about, we want a bridge. We want a responsible transition from where we are today to where America becomes energy-independent and secure. We believe we need maximum American energy production, commonsense conservation, and free-market, green innovations to provide that responsible transition that does not allow for the callous infliction of economic pain upon the American people.

And when you think about what we hear in phrases like, ``I'm trying to save the planet, I'm trying to save the planet,'' what we're really hearing is that the party that was elected to lower our gas prices, the Democratic Party, has made a subtle shift in what they're trying to accomplish. They're now trying to break us off our addiction--not to foreign oil simply; they are now trying to break our addiction to oil.

So, in short, their solution to the problem of high gas prices is to make sure that no one has access to any gas at all. And that's why another quote, which I'm sure you'll put up, is that they have described, in their own Democratic staff's words, ``Drive smaller cars and wait for the wind.'' This is not a responsible solution.

Like many people, when I was growing up--I'm 43--I remember something called the ABC Wide World of Sports. I remember ``The Agony of Defeat.'' And I used to like Evel Knievel. Now, there was one time when Evel Knievel, instead of just jumping over cars and busses--you know, he worked for a living, it's tough work; if you can get it, it pays well--he was going to jump something called the Snake River Canyon. And I remember watching this on a little, tiny TV screen with my dad. And my dad looked at it, just looked at Evel and his little suped-up motorcycle, he looked at this enormous Snake River Canyon, and my dad said, ``That boy ain't gonna get there from here.''

And when I think of the Democrats' energy strategy, whereby we have no domestic production of our own natural resources from the Outer Continental Shelf, from ANWR, from anybody else, anywhere else, and they tell us, we're going to fix this with green technological innovations, it's going to be magic, I think of poor Evel Knievel. The only difference is that, in trying to jump immediately, cold turkey, from our current petroleum-based economy into some distant green future where we do not need our own domestic energy resources, is we are not simply taking the American people over the Snake River Canyon, the Democratic majority is pushing them over an economic cliff. And they are already beginning to see where the abyss lays every time they drive by and buy gas at the pump.

Now, as we heard about the process last night, people think, why does process matter? I don't know. It seems to me that as a sovereign citizen of our free republic, we live in a democracy for a reason; that the will of one person will not be imposed upon any sovereign citizen of the United States, certainly not by the subservient Members of Congress because we work for these people. These people are our bosses, and they want their voices heard on the floor of this House. And on an issue as critical as American energy and how we transition to a secure future not only for ourselves, but more importantly, for our children, they expect to have their voices heard through their elected representatives.

And as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, we heard several promises about what an open process this was going to be, how every vote was going to count, how every voice was going to be heard and we would come together in a bipartisan fashion to serve the American people. And yet, what did we see? We saw a bill drafted in the dead of night by a Speaker, handed to her Rules Committee, no amendments allowed, and voted, rubber-stamped by her Democratic Congress, with no debate on this floor, no dissent about amendments, no chance to offer alternatives, no committee process. Silence, silence, in terms of input on this bill.

And then we saw something that I thought I would never see. We saw 24 people who had co-sponsored a bipartisan bill, who had sang its praises to their public and to the rest of the American people, and they voted against it--and I didn't really hear a good reason put forward--so they could pass a sham drill bill.

Now, we've heard a lot about why the Republicans didn't do certain things over the course of their majority. And we paid a heavy price-- and a rightful price, as many of us have admitted. We were put into minority, from majority to minority status by the American people, and we are learning a painful lesson. But let us not forget the people who obstructed a sound, sane, productive American energy policy for the entire time they were in the minority. They act as if they had no hand in it.

When we were in the majority, we tried, we tried mightily. Many times the House would pass legislation and it would get to the Senate, yet the Democratic minority did everything they could to prevent the expansion of American domestic energy production to the level sufficient that it would serve the American people and lower the gas prices. The only difference now that they're in the majority is they have to pretend that they're trying to lower them.

And that's why, when you pass a bill out of this House called a compromise bill when you have not talked to anyone on this side of the aisle about what goes in the bill, it means it's a compromise amongst yourselves. That is a unilateral compromise. So let's be clear about who compromised with who.

And then when it comes to the floor, it's called ``landmark legislation,'' it's

going to create jobs. And if you vote against this, you are a captive of Big Oil because you don't want to lock up 88 percent of America's reserves?

As our friend Steve Scalise from Louisiana said, the Democratic ``sham drill bill'' might as well have been written by OPEC; it's going to make them a lot of money when America doesn't produce its own oil and gas.

And the best part is their unilateral compromise the Speaker cut with whomever, they didn't bother to talk to the Senate. As Senator Landrieu from Louisiana mentioned, that bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. How do the statements we've heard yesterday, the justifications, the compromise, landmark legislation, when your own Democratic Senators think it's dead on arrival?

Where is the hope for the economically struggling families across America? Where is your sense of responsibility, not only to the people of this country, but to their House right here, to this institution? Where is the hope for the American people who are suffering under energy prices, skyrocketing since you took power in this place? There isn't. Because it's a sham.

And it is the Democratic Senate that will prove it. It is not Republican Luddites that don't want to go forward towards a more ``green'' future. What it is is the Democratic Senate telling the Democratic House we can't stomach your bill.

Now, the thing that I think that everybody should remember is there is a solution to this. If and when this happens, if the Democratic Senate refuses to pass the Democratic House ``lethargy bill,'' this Democratic majority here in the House, the Democratic majority in the Senate, this Democratic Congress can say we will not leave here until a real piece of energy legislation helping the American people is signed into law, until we have done the job we have been elected to do on behalf of the American people. I do not think that is too much to ask. I do not think that is something that the American people should be denied.

I yield back to the gentleman.

Will the gentlelady yield for a question?

You've brought up the Constitution. Previously, we had heard throughout the energy debate that there is about $10 billion a month being spent in Iraq.

Will the gentlelady please tell the Democratic Congress who controls the power of the purse to appropriate those billions of dollars to Iraq?

Will the gentlelady please yield for one more impertinent question?

If the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate chose not to appropriate money to Iraq to the tune of $10 billion a month, could that money be spent there?

I thank the gentlelady.

I thank the gentleman. Earlier the gentleman from Tennessee had mentioned that we are going to be looking at the prospect of a speculators bill on the floor again. My question is, regardless of the merits of the speculators bill, it is a simple proposition to anyone watching.

We have heard much debate about energy policy. I remember hearing much of this back in a very unpleasant period of our Nation's history called the 1970s. What is old is new again. So when we hear about the speculators bill, the Democratic Congress, the Democratic majority, had come in with a reputation for being against the production of American domestic energy. Again, it was not limited to the technique of drilling. Clean coal, nuclear energy, all sorts of alternatives they were opposed to.

Now, if you were investing your money in the energy market and you saw the anti-American energy party take power in Washington, and you understood the concept of supply and demand, that as demand goes up, if supply stays stagnant, prices skyrocket, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that when the Democratic majority came into Washington, it was against the domestic production of America's own energy resources, that something was going to give and the prices were going to shoot through the roof and you were going to make a lot of money.

So, again what you see is the total denial of responsibility for their policies, many of which have failed to be implemented, having an impact on markets. Just as we will hear later on, or throughout the rest of the year, the 12 days or so that they even show up for the work they are paid to do, is when you promise the largest tax increase in American history in your budgets, when your chairman of the Ways and Means Committee talks about the ``mother of all tax increases,'' this is going to have affect on markets.

This is going to have an effect on the rational, hard-working Americans, who every day know that as much as they

scrimp and save, here comes big brother government to take that money right out of your pocket. So consequences of ideas, or even bad ideas especially, can be detrimental to the average, hard-working American.

Now, you and I, through the Chair the gentleman from Georgia, we know one thing: The best economic stimulus for the United States of America is an all-of-the-above energy strategy that gets that trend line on energy prices stabilized and going down so that the unemployment numbers can stabilize and start going down; so speculators start losing money because the supply of oil will be coming online and they know it; so big oil doesn't make the money as the supply floods the market to meet the demand and the prices stabilize and go down; so hard-working Americans know they are not going to have to choose between freezing and eating, they are not going to have to worry about whether they can drive to see their doctor in rural areas; so they can make sure they still work in manufacturing because the fixed cost of energy hasn't driven their job offshore or killed it altogether.

We know this, which is why we are so passionate about helping the people who have entrusted us with the opportunity to serve them in this, their House.

I will wrap it up with this, the gentleman from Georgia. There are many people who say, Republicans, you weren't great. You told us you stood for things. You told us you believed our liberty was from God, not the government; our prosperity was from the private sector, not the public sector.

Yes, we did, and we did not do a good enough job keeping with our principles.

There is a difference between us and this Democratic majority. I want to know what the succinct enunciation of the principles upon which you base policy are. Because what I see in the energy debate, or lack thereof, and the Democrat sham energy bill is a quite simple proposition. They support the government rationing of American energy. You will get 12 percent when you are suffering. We will lock up 88 percent forever. That is the gist of their argument.

Why does this matter now? Because you hear more of the same promises that the gentleman from Georgia listed and had proven broken. And when you start to do your thinking this year, as the American people are want to do, I will be more than happy if the American voters judge this Democratic Congress not by the fact that it took America in a new direction to a 9 percent approval rating, which technically makes the Democratic Congress the most hated in American history; I want Americans to look at two numbers.

I want Americans to look at the price of gas when the Democratic Party took power in January of 2007, promising to lower them; and I want them to look at the price of gas, oh, maybe around early November 2008. And tell you me if you have changed your mind, if you no longer think this Democratic Congress deserves to be the most hated in American history. Because they have a chance to work with us. We are putting politics aside. We will compromise in a real bipartisan fashion to help the people whole elected us.

But if you refuse, there is nothing we can do, because, as the gentleman started out earlier, the math doesn't add up in our favor.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the extraordinary life of Barbara Colbeck upon her passing at the age of 64.

For almost 50 years Barbara dedicated her life to liturgical music and her community. Born and raised in Detroit, Barbara attended Saint Lawrence Grade School and Holy Redeemer High School. There, she would meet and fall in love with her high school sweetheart William. They married, and spent 40 wonderful years together. A resident of Livonia, Barbara began to play piano and organ at St. Lawrence when she was in 7th grade. For 49 years she played at Detroit area Churches. She played liturgical music at St. Simon, St. Jude, was First Organist at St. Colette, and finally served as Music Minister at St. Edith.

On August 17, 2008, Barbara passed away. A beloved mother, grandmother, daughter, and sister, she is survived by her husband William, sons Patrick and Christopher, daughter Cherlyn Sellepack, and grandchildren Michael, John, Carolann, and Julianna. Known by her friends and family for her generosity, her strength, and her smile, Barbara faced cancer with dignity and courage, never losing her faith or friendship for all. St. Edith Church was graced by her music and her smile for 23 years. Barbara Colbeck's music will live on in the memory of those who knew her.

Madam Speaker, Barbara Colbeck is remembered as a musician, cantor, teacher, mentor, and friend. Today, as we bid her farewell, I ask my colleagues to join me in mourning her passing and honoring her lifetime of contribution to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule, and like our previous speaker from Indiana (Mr. Pence), I do support the Childers amendment in the nature of a substitute. But I, too, find it ironic that we are discussing this today when we have so little time to discuss America's future energy security and energy independence.

Earlier today we've heard that we will be confronting landmark legislation. I concur with this assessment. Unfortunately, it will not be a landmark energy policy. It is going to be a landmark in political cynicism.

We've heard much about a compromise being struck. Yet as a member of a party that has not been consulted on this legislation, let alone involved in a free, open, and transparent process, we are left but to assume there's a compromise amongst the Speaker herself, potentially radical special interest groups, and maybe members of her own caucus that were privileged to be a part of its drafting behind closed doors.

Then what do we celebrate, as we've heard the word ``celebrate'' this landmark legislation so much? What do we celebrate? Do we celebrate the end of the House as a free, open, transparent institution where the voices of the American people are expressed through their servants in this Congress, to have an influence on legislation, to have an impact on legislation? Or do we actually, more, commemorate the loss of an individual's ability to serve as legislators rather than as radical rubber stamps for legislation placed under their noses?

What does this legislation do? Well, it increases a lot of things. It increases utility prices. It increases gas prices, increases taxes, increases everything but energy. And as we know, this is not what the American people demand. It is not what the American people deserve.

So we ask ourselves why. Well, there are two reasons. The first reason comes to us out of the curious visage that we have before us as Members, who in the past would not vote to drill a tooth, now embracing oil derricks as if they were endangered darter snails.

The question is why. It's because, as has been pointed out by many of my colleagues, this bill is not a drill bill, and drilling is, by the way, a technique. It is a technique that meets the goal which is maximum American energy production, and in that, this bill falls short. In fact, while you might be tempted to judge this book by its cover, the Dems are in the details and no drilling will occur, for many of the reasons put forward earlier.

So you ask yourself why. Why would we not expand supply? Why would we not allow Americans to access their own domestic energy resources to help successfully transition to American energy security and independence?

The reality is this. There are people who believe that high energy prices will help make this transition necessary, will force the American people to radically change their lifestyles in the pursuit of some abstract dystopia put forward by radical environmentalists and others who seek to undo the industrial age in American economic prosperity during this transition to a globalized economy.

That is the real basis of this discussion. That is the basis of this debate. We can have an all-of-the-above energy strategy that responsibly transitions America into a future of energy security and independence, or we can have a radical restructuring of their very lifestyle through the government regulation and rationing of American energy.

The consequences upon the people of this country will be devastating and, in the end, they will not be fooled. For while this bill comes before us and we are told the Republicans should not take ``yes'' for an answer, the reality is this: The American people will not mistake ``no'' for a solution, and in the end, they will also come to the conclusion that by not increasing American supply of their own energy resources, this deadbeat, drill-nothing Democrat Congress is Big Oil's best friend.

Mr. Speaker, two quick points as the debate draws to a close. First, I have to question again the use of the term ``compromise.'' The use of the term ``compromise'' implies that the minority party was consulted, our advice was sought, that we could channel the wishes and aspirations and voices of our people into this debate as the legislation moves forward. We were denied that opportunity. Perhaps it would be best to clarify that this is a compromise amongst the Democratic Party itself and not amongst the majority and minority parties.

Secondly, this bill continues to ration energy. This is a government rationing of energy, and at this point in time when America needs energy production, it will not meet the needs of people who are suffering.