Candice Miller

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we certainly all know that American consumers are facing an energy crisis. The high cost of energy to heat and power our homes and to run our automobiles is sapping family budgets across the Nation, and hurting the bottom line of businesses across the Nation as well. We need to do more to make our Nation energy independent and to reduce energy costs for our consumers. We need to focus on alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels as well by turning to alternatives like ethanol or biodiesel or nuclear power, solar, wind power. Just as it is wise to diversify your economic portfolio, we must diversify our energy options, and we need to do more to incentivize the production and distribution and use of alternative sources of energy. And I am confident that we will, we can. But while we work toward alternatives, we must also deal with the reality of the current situation. We have too few refineries, and those we do have are in areas that are vulnerable to natural disasters such as the entire world recognized last year with Hurricane Katrina. We have not built a new refinery in America since the 1970s. In that time, of course, demand for gasoline has absolutely skyrocketed. The lack of new refineries limits the supply of gas at a time of high demand and it drives up costs for our consumers. Too many on the other side of this debate look solely at conservation or alternatives, and they ignore the law of supply and demand. The brutal reality is that the greatest victims of this approach are the lowest income Americans who are dependent on older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. But they need help. As well, energy security equals national security and that fundamental caveat needs to be the impetus for this debate today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will serve as a bridge to a more energy-independent America.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) for offering this amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor. Very simply, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for the Employment Eligibility Verification Program. It is a very important program. It requires employers to verify the employment eligibility and identity documents presented to the employer and record the document information. This program is a very important piece in our efforts to get control of our borders. One of the primary reasons so many immigrants, of course, come here illegally is to find work. That incentive only exists if jobs are available. The vast majority of businesses do want to comply with the law and hire only those in the country legally. But because of a lack of a reliable verification system, they are unable to be certain that those that they seek to hire are actually here legally. There are still other businesses that knowingly break the law in order to exploit cheap labor, and that has to be stopped. We are a Nation of laws, and the American people expect those laws to be followed. They have had enough of the current broken system, and we need to take action to ensure that only those that are in our country legally are able to find work. This program is key to ensuring that businesses are complying with the labor and immigration laws of our Nation. The President has requested $110 million for this program in his fiscal year 2007 budget proposal. As it stands, the legislation only provides for $90 million. And while I certainly understand and appreciate the chairman and the committee having very, very difficult decisions to make, I do believe the funding for this program is one of the most important things that we can do to cut down on the flood of immigrants who are here illegally crossing our border. Mr. Chairman, I think it is absolutely essential that we get control of our borders, and increased funding for employment eligibility verification will help us to do this.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let me take you back to another time, 1986, and at that time, America had a problem with illegal immigration. They said we had about 3 million illegals here in the country. And in that debate, many people said that we needed to provide amnesty to those who were working here because we couldn't deport all of them and our country needed the labor. In exchange for granting amnesty, Congress and the American people were promised that the Federal Government would vigorously enforce our border. The illegal aliens got amnesty all right, and many became citizens, even though they violated the law to get here. But the Federal Government did not secure our border. The results of that action? An estimated 12 million more illegal aliens in our country today. Some are again calling for amnesty with a promise for stronger border controls. But the American people are not buying it again, and neither is a majority of this House. The American people and a majority of this House are demanding border security first. And as the Who said, ``We won't be fooled again!'' No amnesty.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong opposition to this amendment. I voted against this amendment in the House Armed Services Committee just last week where it was overwhelmingly defeated, and I intend to vote against it today as well. The health care professionals who serve our brave men and women in uniform in the military health system are dedicated to preserving life, and I have visited many military hospitals and witnessed the heroic efforts to preserve the lives of those wounded in battle, and we honor their service, we honor their dedication. This amendment would allow these great lifesaving medical facilities to be used as abortion clinics, and abortion is not the mission of the military health system. The mission is to save lives, not destroy innocent human lives. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the great service and the sacrifice of the dedicated health care professionals serving our military. These men and women face great challenges in healing those who have been wounded in battle, and through their efforts we have seen dramatic drops in the number of troops who die from these wounds. Their efforts have truly been heroic. Let them continue to focus on saving the lives of our men and women in uniform, and not taking the most innocent of human lives. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank all of the members of the Rules Committee for bringing the rule to the floor today. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the bill that we have brought to the floor here today, and I certainly want to congratulate and thank Chairman Duncan Hunter as well for his outstanding leadership and his dedication to a strong national defense and particularly to our troops. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important parts of this bill, I think, is that we do recognize that the most important asset in our entire arsenal is really not our incredible weapons or vehicles or ships, it is the men and women who bravely wear the uniform. That is why this bill has put such a strong focus once again on supporting our troops. The bill will provide for an across-the-board increase of 2.7 percent in the base pay for our troops, as has been mentioned numerous times already. It blocks increases in fees for those who are enrolled in TRICARE prime and standard. It also allows full TRICARE coverage for select Reserve personnel. It provides enhanced pharmacy services for nearly every military beneficiary. In addition, we forcefully attack the persistent problem of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs as they are commonly called, which have caused so many terrible problems for our troops. The enemy knows that they cannot defeat our forces on the battlefield, so they are resorting to planting bombs along the roadside. This bill authorizes over $100 million for radio signal jamming devices to prevent the detonation of IEDs. It also provides for another $100 million for 10 or more surveillance aircraft to patrol those areas where the IED activity is most deadly, and we must do certainly more to protect our troops from IEDs so that we can limit the amount, the number of casualties in battle. But in addition we need to learn better really how to defeat these terrible weapons, because, guess what, they could soon be finding their way to our streets here within our own borders in America. The American people and our troops can rest assured that we understand the problem of IEDs, and with this bill, again, we are taking very forceful action to defeat them. When we take the oath of office, we swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, whose preamble actually requires for us to provide for the national defense. This bill not only allows us to live up to our constitutional responsibilities to provide for that defense, it ensures that our Armed Forces will remain the best trained, the best equipped and the most lethal fighting force the world has ever known. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 627) congratulating Chris Carpenter on being named the Cy Young Award winner for the National League for the 2005 Major League Baseball season.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 627 offered by the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan). This resolution would congratulate Chris Carpenter on being named the Cy Young Award winner for the National League in 2005. After missing the 2003 season while rehabilitating his injured shoulder, Chris Carpenter made a miraculous recovery to win the 2005 Cy Young Award. He went 21-5 with a 2.83 ERA for the St. Louis Cardinals, receiving 19 of 32 first place votes and finishing with 132 points in balloting by the Baseball Writers Association of America. Carpenter began his career with Toronto. After compiling a 49-50 record in his first six seasons, Carpenter had surgery in September of 2002 to repair a tear in his pitching shoulder and the Blue Jays contemplated sending him back to the minors. He refused the assignment and chose to become a free agent before signing with St. Louis. Finally healthy in 2004, Carpenter went 15-5 with a 3.45 ERA to earn National League's comeback player of the year honors from his peers. In 2005, Carpenter won 13 straight decisions from June 14 through September 8, helping the Cardinals to the best record in baseball at 100 wins and 62 losses. He struck out 213 batters and got the best of several aces around the league. I would urge all Members to come together and honor the perseverance and dedication of Chris Carpenter, the winner of one of Major League Baseball's most prestigious awards, by adopting House Resolution 627. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all Members to support the adoption of House Resolution 627. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, during this time of conflict, we have seen so many examples of heroism exhibited by the men and women of our armed services. Every day these great heroes are on the front line of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout the entire world, defending our liberty and freedom and democracy. And most Americans, thank goodness, support their efforts and their mission; and the vast majority honor their service and sacrifice. But some do not and have expressed their objections in a variety of ways that have been articulated on this floor today. Some are protesting the Congress or the President, and that is fine because we are the policy-makers and we are the correct targets for indicating support or opposition to the war. But some have taken their objections to places where they simply do not belong. Many have begun to protest our fallen heroes as they are being laid to rest by their loved ones. Groups like the Patriot Guard, God bless them, have stood up and shielded families from this obscene type of protest, but we need to do more. No fallen soldier, sailor, airman or marine's family should ever be subjected to such trauma at a time of such great grief. Instead, our fallen heroes should be afforded the honor and dignity befitting their sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, whatever the merits of the recent controversy surrounding the proposed acquisition of American port terminals by Dubai Ports World, one very good thing came out of that controversy, and that was an enhanced focus on the needs to better defend America's ports. We recognize that the incredible amount of cargo that passes through our ports could serve as an entry point to be used by terrorists to smuggle in weapons to harm Americans. Of particular concern are nuclear or radiological substances or devices. During the DP World debate, many came to the erroneous conclusion that we were actually outsourcing port security. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me just tell you about a company in my district called Burtek. This is an American company and American workers who are doing great work to enhance our port security. Burtek is producing something called Mobile Radiation Portal Monitors, the first of which they delivered to the Customs and Border Protection Agency just last week. These devices will be placed at our ports and allow CBP to scan containers quickly and efficiently for any radioactive cargo. An American company and skilled American workers supplying a very important device to American security personnel to protect America's ports. We are not outsourcing this job to anyone, Mr. Chairman, and the great workers of my district are doing their part to defend our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation and to continue the effort to better secure our Nation's ports.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the situation at our porous borders is absolutely in a state of emergency. We are all hearing this message from our constituents in a variety of ways. This morning, I wanted to share a very clear message that I received from one of my constituents. A constituent of mine actually sent me this brick in the mail. On this brick it says, ``Since the U.S. Government seems to be struggling with the illegal immigration problem, I thought I would send you the means to begin solving the problem. This brick is sent to support stronger border security.'' Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding action. Last December, this House passed a very good border security bill that would in fact put this brick to very good use in building a security fence on our southern border. The debate in the other body is now turning toward amnesty for those who have come here illegally, and that is the wrong direction for America. We cannot offer amnesty or expanded opportunities for guest workers until we deal with the problem at hand. I urge the U.S. Senate to listen to the people, to look at the bill that was passed by this House in December and, as this brick says, support stronger border security.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Democracy Assistance Commission, I was honored this past week to host a delegation of Parliamentarians from the Republic of Macedonia, in my home State of Michigan. The Macedonia delegation was immersed in many factors important to the development of a democratic society. They visited our State capitol, as well as visiting one of our major daily newspapers, understanding that a free press is critical to a thriving democracy. They met with State elections officials to talk about how to run free and fair elections, a fundamental caveat of a thriving democracy. They visited the University of Michigan's famed Center for Russian and Eastern European Studies. They visited our courts to get a better understanding of our system of justice, and we enjoyed each other's fellowship at a banquet held in their honor at our local Macedonian cultural center. This week we welcome them to Washington D.C. The Republic of Macedonia is a great emerging democracy, and its leaders are committed to the cause of freedom and liberty for every individual. Da zivee slobodna, Makedonia. Long live freedom and democracy in Macedonia.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I wish to associate myself with his comments and his remarks. I certainly want to commend him for his remarkable leadership on the budget. Mr. Chairman, what an interesting debate that we have witnessed today, really a fascinating exchange here on the floor today. And let me say that the Budget Committee has certainly performed its very difficult duty I think extraordinarily well. Is the budget we are going to vote on absolutely perfect? Probably not. But is it a step in the right direction, a huge step in the right direction? Absolutely, yes. I find the Democrats' rhetoric today really difficult to understand. Been following the debate today. I do find it very difficult to understand. First of all, they don't support the budget because the deficit is too large. But yet they also don't support the budget because we don't spend enough. So which is it? Not sure you can have it both ways. And what would their answer be? Well, bigger government, that is for sure. That would be part of their answer. And dramatically higher taxes. That is for certain as well. And do you think that families who are struggling to pay for education or child care or home heating bills or gasoline can afford a tax hike? Do you think that seniors who are living on a fixed income can afford a tax increase? Well now, they say they only want to raise taxes only on the rich. We have just heard that rhetoric. But if past experience means anything at all, the Democrats' idea of rich is anybody who gets a paycheck. Absolutely anybody who gets a paycheck is rich, in their views. Or anyone who is getting a Social Security check. Because we can all remember that the last time the Democrats had control of this House they actually raised taxes on seniors' Social Security. Yes, that is right. If you are getting a Social Security check, the Democrats think that you are rich and they want to raise your taxes. Well, Mr. Chairman, we absolutely have to get spending under control, and this budget is a start but we do need to do more. The American people are demanding it. We have to keep taxes low because hard-working families simply cannot afford a tax increase. And I would urge my colleagues to support the budget resolution and to reject the tax and spend alternative of the Democrats.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this week the Senate is continuing to debate immigration reform which, of course, is badly needed. I would urge the Senate to look to the legislation that was passed by this House in December when crafting their legislation. America needs the House immigration and border security bill to protect our borders. The legislation that we passed ends the catch-and-release program, it gets tough on repeat offenders, promotes cooperation amongst local law enforcement as well, and it installs requirements to ensure that those who are here illegally in our country do not take jobs from American citizens. Some say that these illegals just take the jobs that Americans won't do, but I received a letter just the other day from one of my constituents who urged me to push for tougher immigration laws because he can't find work as a drywaller because of illegal foreign workers. This is considered a very good job from where I come from, the type of job that has built our middle class. Now we hear the Senate has cut a deal on providing amnesty for some illegal aliens, and I would have a message for the distinguished Senators on the other side of this building: amnesty has no chance of passage in this House. Look to the House bill if you want to see real immigration reform.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to support the rule and to support the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, it was just 4 years ago that the Congress passed a Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, and the purpose of that legislation was to ``eliminate'' hundreds of millions of dollars of unregulated soft money and the influence that wealthy donors had on the electoral process. However, the 2004 election cycle clearly demonstrated that BCRA was unable to deliver on what it promised. In fact, the great irony of all of this is that while soft money to political parties was eliminated, wealthy donors found a new avenue to fund their candidates and to have more influence than they had ever had under the old rules. In 2004, we saw George Soros and Peter Lewis inject more than $20 million each, each of them injecting more than $20 million into the election process. So, so much for eliminating soft money. Overall, federally focused 527s raised and spent over $550 million. Now, by contrast, George W. Bush and John Kerry combined to spend $655 million on their entire Presidential campaigns. The numbers are strikingly similar. The only difference is the Presidential candidates had to file with and abide by the rules of the FEC. The 527s did not. The Presidential campaigns were accountable to the voters. The 527s were not. And instead of the political parties providing key support for their candidates, 527s began to act as surrogate political parties. Essentially what happened here is the political parties were outsourced. Political parties were outsourced. The 527s ran TV ads, they operated Web sites, they ran phone banks, they mobilized the get- out-the-vote efforts, all with money not regulated by the FEC. In fact, the 527s proved so significant that MoveOn.org actually sent an e-mail to all of their supporters after the 2004 election and said this about the Democratic Party. This is what MoveOn.org said: ``Now it's our party. We bought it. We own it, and we're going to take it back.'' So, so much for eliminating the big dollars and big money. Often I hear my Democratic colleagues complaining about the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, another 527. Well, today, my Democratic colleagues have an opportunity to strike back. All of this activity was conducted with less oversight than when the political parties were able to accept soft money. And it is abundantly clear that something must be done. We need to do something to level the playing field that has shifted in favor of the unaccountable 527s. Right now, we have numerous groups operating under the cover of shadows, moving money back and forth in hopes of convincing voters to support a particular candidate. Mr. Speaker, prior to my service in this House, I had the great honor and privilege of serving for 8 years as Michigan Secretary of State, and I was responsible for enforcing the campaign finance act in my State and increasing voter participation. My administration was very honored with the highest grade in the entire Nation by the NAACP for being on the forefront of campaign reform. We were honored with the Digital Sunshine Award for our program to provide voters with more information on who was trying to influence the outcome of the election process. So I have had some experience with this issue, and I believe transparency is always the key. It is always the critical element. I do believe that if we do not act now, the nauseating ugliness, negativity and hyperpartisanship that we saw in 2004 will only intensify in 2006 and 2008. We must protect our democratic electoral process and keep those who seek to influence our votes accountable. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, last week we finally saw the Democratic Party roll out their ideas about how we should secure America, and they put a very heavy emphasis on how important they thought it was to support our first responders. How ironic it was, then, on that very same day to hear allegations that a Democrat Member of this House struck a Capitol Police officer, and how disheartening to hear the response of the Democratic leader of this House. It was, she said, no big deal. To those who might agree with the Democrats that allegedly assaulting a Capitol Hill Police officer is no big deal, I would respectfully remind them that just a few years back two members of the Capitol Police were shot and killed in the line of duty by a deranged man who was trying to attack the majority whip, and that during moments of danger and evacuation Capitol Police stand their posts while the rest of us seek to secure ourselves and the safety of others. This is only my second term here, so the Capitol Police don't always recognize me and occasionally they do check my identity. They stop me and check my identity. No problem. Madam Speaker, I wish to go on record as supporting the jobs that the brave men and women in the Capitol Police do to protect all of us, and let me just say to them thank you.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, yesterday congressional Democrats outlined their agenda to better secure America. I must say I was a bit surprised by what they had to say. Even though America has not been attacked on our soil since September 11, 2001, even though the vast majority of the leadership of the al Qaeda has been killed or captured, even though we have toppled two dictatorships and brought freedom to 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though funding has been dramatically increased to aid first responders, the Democrats are trying to peddle the idea that President Bush has failed to secure our Nation. Even though it was the Democrats who gloated that they ``killed the PATRIOT Act.'' Even though it was the Democrats under the Clinton administration who gutted our intelligence operations. Even though it was leading Democrats who voted against giving our troops the funding and support they need to win the war on terror. Even though it was the Democrats who advocated a defeat and retreat strategy for Iraq. I hope the American people will take a good look at the Democrats' plan and who is offering it, because they will see once again that it is the Republican Party that is the one that will fight to the ends of the Earth to protect America.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it appears that the more the Democrats talk down the new Medicare prescription drug program, the more the enrollments seem to go up. Democrats have been doing nothing but demagoguing and criticizing this program, yet the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced just last week that more than 27 million Medicare beneficiaries are now getting coverage and saving money on their prescription drugs. In fact, they just announced that another 1.9 million additional beneficiaries have signed up just since February. This is wonderful news. Even the New York Times is reporting success stories from seniors who signed up for the program and are now saving hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on their prescriptions. Mr. Speaker, this prescription drug benefit is doing something that most Democrats probably didn't even think would happen, maybe they didn't want to have happen: it is helping seniors; it is reducing their costs. As nice as it would be to hear Democrats stop for a moment and actually admit that this program is a success, perhaps they should just keep up their futile demagoguery, because at this rate, we will be at 100 percent enrollment in no time at all.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the first amendment guarantees freedom of the press, and with that freedom comes responsibility. But we all remember the 60 Minutes II report during the last campaign which used partisan sources and forged documents to assert that the President of the United States had not fulfilled his duty in the National Guard, a report that was proven to be false. Well, here we go again. Recently I saw a 60 Minutes segment in which a scientist claimed that his views on global warming were being censored by the administration. Of course, they did not report that this man had received a $250,000 grant from the foundation controlled by Theresa Heinz Kerry. They did not report that this man had endorsed John Kerry. They did not report that he has served as a consultant for Al Gore nor that he had made similar claims against President Bush's father in 1989. The first amendment gives freedom of the press, but the truth is the foundation for credibility. 60 Minutes should tell both sides of the story in a fair and balanced way, or they should simply air this disclaimer: ``60 Minutes brought to you by the National Democratic Committee.''

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, in this House, we are continually voting for increased funding for institutions of higher learning in our Nation, and it is certainly right and it is proper that we do so, because our future depends or our young people being able to receive the education that they so rightly deserve. But what has been troubling in recent years has been attempts by many of these same institutions that receive Federal funding to restrict or to bar military recruiters from their campuses in violation of the law. Recently, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court voted in an 8-0 decision to uphold the requirement that military recruiters be given access to students like any other perspective employer, or that institution could lose their Federal funding. This policy is very, very important to the future of our military, of our freedom, and of our democracy. The young men and women on our college campuses should not be denied the great opportunities available to them, to so many of them in the United States military, just because some college administrator may not agree with our national policy. We have freedom in our Nation, but that freedom is not free. And there are many young people in our Nation's colleges, in our Nation's universities who are willing to pay the price of service and of sacrifice in order to protect the freedom of every one of their fellow Americans. Mr. Speaker, this resolution restates the policy and sends a very clear message to our Nation's colleges and to our Nation's universities. We as a Nation want to support their mission to educate our young people. They must allow equal access to our military recruiters to give those students a chance to see if serving their country is perhaps the right career move for them or the right personal choice for them. Mr. Speaker, not one person in this Nation is drafted into military service. We have an all-volunteer military. It makes us strong and it keeps us free. Free people make free decisions. Let us let our young people continue to make theirs an informed decision. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very, very strong support of this resolution offered by my colleague from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). Mr. Speaker, since September 11, 2001, our Nation has been at war against the cowardly terrorists who attacked our Nation on that horrible day. The men and the women who served in our Armed Forces have made tremendous sacrifices to make America and the world a safer place. They toppled the Taliban and they brought freedom and democracy to 25 million people in Afghanistan. Because of that service and that sacrifice, Mr. Speaker, Afghanistan today is a partner and an ally in the war on terror, instead of the friendly host of our enemy. For the past 3 years, the Armed Forces have been engaged in Operation Iraqi Freedom. That mission has been very long, very difficult, and the sacrifices have been many. But the mission is being achieved. The Iraqi people have gone to the polls three times and are now finishing the work on establishing a Democratic national unity government. Once democracy takes root in Iraq, freedom will have gained another foothold in a part of the world where it is so desperately needed. None of these incredible accomplishments would have been possible without the sacrifice of our men and our women in uniform. All of our volunteer military, made up of citizen soldiers, are the best emissaries of freedom our Nation has to offer. These are men and women willing to give up their lives to spread freedom and to make our Nation more secure. And for that we owe them a debt which can never be repaid. The least we can do as Americans is to pause to reflect on everything that they have sacrificed, for the incredible service that they have given to the cause of freedom. And so to every soldier in the Army, to every airman in the Air Force, to every sailor in the Navy, to every Marine, to every member of the National Guard or the Reserves, to every brave member of the Coast Guard, thank you. Thank you for your service and thank you for your sacrifice. Thank you all for serving the cause of freedom. Every American should observe the moment of silence asked for by this resolution and reflect upon all of our Armed Forces and all that they have done to protect our freedoms, our liberty, our democracy. And following that moment of silence, we should also personally thank every service member that we meet in our everyday lives. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very important resolution.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as has been discussed here today certainly, the Jackson- Vanik restrictions were made as an amendment to a 1974 trade bill actually to punish the Soviet bloc nations for their despicable human rights record. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Jackson-Vanik restrictions were placed on all of the former Soviet Republics, including the Ukraine. In recent years, the world has watched as the Ukraine has embraced democracy and freedom through their Orange Revolution. The Ukraine has been a great ally in the war on terror. The Ukraine has clearly taken appropriate steps to open their society and economy and becoming an important member of the community of free nations. The Ukraine should be free of the onerous restrictions, because they have met each of the tests laid out by the law. In fact, the Ukraine has been granted an annual waiver from these restrictions each year for nearly a decade. Mr. Speaker, my district is home to many people of Ukrainian descent. In fact, southeast Michigan, I believe, has, if not the largest, certainly one of the largest Ukrainian populations in our entire Nation. These people are great Americans. They are great patriots. For years they have fought against Soviet oppression of the Ukrainian people and on behalf of freedom. They now embrace democracy and freedom that has come to their homeland, and they know it is both appropriate and very necessary for this Congress to act on this issue. It is time for us to recognize the friendship of the Ukraine as well as permanently remove them from the restrictions of Jackson-Vanik. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very, very important legislation today on the floor.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1096, which commemorates the lifetime innovations of Thomas Edison. This legislation will ensure the preservation of Thomas Edison's laboratory in New Jersey. Edison set a tremendous example for all Americans to follow, and, through this legislation, Americans of future generations will be able to learn from the lessons he taught us. Before Thomas Edison opened his lab in New Jersey, he called Port Huron, Michigan, his hometown. That town has done a fine job in its own right to preserve the memory of Thomas Edison, and I am proud to represent it in the House. In 2004, Port Huron rededicated the Edison Rock as part of the 125th Anniversary of the invention of the light bulb. The event featured the actor Mickey Rooney who starred in the 1940 movie ``Young Tom Edison'', which chronicled Tom's formative years. I think the Edison Rock is a fitting tribute--not only because it is very big and very heavy--something like 62 tons--but because, like most rocks, it is very old. That's significant. In order to rank the importance of Thomas Edison's achievement of the first, practical light bulb you have to go back a long, long way-- In fact, you have to go back to the very beginning--to the Bible and the Book of Genesis, where it says: ``And God said, let there be light--and there was light. `` Of course, God meant there was sunlight--and don't get me wrong--that was a great start. But the only problem with sunlight is that it lasts only when the sun is out. It wasn't until thousands of years later when Thomas Edison said,-- ``Let there be light''--and finally we had light during the other half of the day. The significance of this invention can never be exaggerated. Electric light was the spark that ignited the Industrial Revolution and all the technological breakthroughs that followed. America's work ethic is also part of Edison's extraordinary legacy. Although Edison was undoubtedly a genius, he never thought of himself as one. In fact, he always claimed that his inventions were the product of hard work. ``Genius is one percent inspiration, 99 percent perspiration'' was one of his most famous quotes. Thomas Edison actually struggled for years and built more than 6,000 prototypes before he came up with the successful design for the light bulb. He made us believe that through hard work, anything can be accomplished. Edison gave us many gifts--the light bulb--the phonograph--the motion picture camera--as well as hundreds of other inventions that have shaped our modem world. The phrase--``Good old American ingenuity'' describes the ``can-do'' spirit of our nation--our ability to take on any problem and come up with a solution. Edison was the personification of American opportunity. He didn't grow up as a member of the privileged class. He was just an average American, who through a lot of hard work and a little inspiration became one of the most famous and influential people in history. And so he gave us many gifts--the light bulb, the phonograph, the motion picture camera as well as hundreds of other inventions that have shaped our modern world. But possibly his greatest gift to us was his representation of the American spirit. For when we think of Thomas Edison, we believe that anything is possible. Edison's ability to take on the most difficult problems of mankind-- and come up with an invention that could make everyone's life better is a source of American pride. We believe that American know-how and American ingenuity are among the characteristics that make our nation great. That's why I'm confident in our nation. I'm confident in our ability to do whatever it takes to assure the safety of our nation and the success of liberty. And it's our nation that continues to bring the light of liberty to the world. And finally, we believe that you can grow up in Port Huron, Michigan--or thousands of other communities across America--and in everyone of them you have the opportunity to reach for greatness.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Speaker, today this Congress is being asked to raise the amount of money that the FEMA flood insurance program is allowed to borrow from $18.5 billion to $21.2 billion. Now, obviously, we all understand that the disaster of Katrina was unprecedented in the history of our Nation. And our Nation responded by appropriating unprecedented funds to deal with this catastrophe. But at some point enough is enough, and today I rise to express my concerns about the fairness of this program. I have a very difficult time allocating any additional funds to the FEMA flood insurance program because of the way that program is treating the people of Michigan. FEMA is currently going about a remapping of communities in my State that will bring thousands more of my constituents and perhaps tens of thousands across the State of Michigan into the flood plain. This will force those with federally guaranteed mortgages to purchase FEMA flood insurance. Mr. Speaker, let me share a few numbers with you and ask you to determine for yourself whether or not Michigan needs to pay more into this insurance pool. Since 1978, that was the year Michigan actually opted into the program, the people of Michigan have paid premiums totaling over $138 million; and in that same time, FEMA has paid outside claims totaling less than $38 million. So since 1978, as you can see through this chart, Michigan has subsidized this program to the tune of over $100 million. And the people of FEMA seem to agree. In fact, there was an article I think last week in the Detroit Free Press which quoted FEMA spokesperson Eugene Kinerney saying this about Michigan's participation in the program. He said, ``You guys subsidize other policies in other parts of the country, absolutely.'' That is what FEMA said. So in what appears to me to be a grab for even more of our money, along comes FEMA saying, even though you have never had a flood, you live in a flood plain and you need to purchase insurance, even though the Great Lakes are at historically low levels; even though my State of Michigan has only had claims totaling 27 percent of what we have paid into the program; even though only eight other States received a lower percentage in their premiums than Michigan. If a private insurance company tried to do this same thing, they would be hauled in front of our State insurance commissioner and have to beg to keep their license. I refuse to support any more legislation that enables this type of irresponsible management that seems to be the norm in the FEMA flood insurance program. In fact, one of my constituents who is a township supervisor in a township called Clay Township, this is a community on St. Clair River going in to Lake Huron; this is a community that is going to be hit very hard by this remap, I asked him, what do you think about FEMA remapping our area? He said, why would FEMA want to come here and raise the elevations when our water levels are at low levels? Well, they are broke, are they not? I know this: my district is along the shore of Lake St. Clair, the St. Clair River and Lake Huron. We also have many rivers and tributaries, and they occasionally flood, but not as often as the amount of these claims paid shows. We also look down at the water, not up like they do in places like New Orleans. We do not need any more of my constituents forced into this program, and we do not need others across the State of Michigan forced into it either. In Michigan we are struggling economically. We have been hit by an economic hurricane of higher energy costs, low-cost foreign- manufactured goods, and competition from lower-wage States, many of which are recipients of the subsidy that the people of Michigan provide to the FEMA flood program. We have the highest unemployment in the entire Nation, and our citizens can absolutely not afford to continue to pay higher costs for insurance that they do not even use. Yet once again we are being asked to subsidize the insurance payouts to people in other States. Before we allow this to happen, FEMA must show the methodology behind this program and show how it makes sense. I think this is an issue of basic fairness; and until that time, I will not support any expansion of the program; and I urge my colleagues to do the same.