Candice Miller

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts who referenced three editorial boards. I think it is important to note that these editorial boards are nothing more than paid scribes. They literally make their living by using the first amendment. But everyone knows that the Internet has negatively affected the cash flow of the institutional print media. It is the height of hypocrisy for the print media to use their right to free speech to opine against their competition on the Internet. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the advent of the Internet Age has brought about a host of new ways for citizens to participate in the political arena. Web sites, e-mail, and blogging have provided new avenues for political activists to reach out to potential voters, to raise issue awareness, to solicit contributions, and to mobilize the get-out-the-vote efforts. The Internet has also generated a more widespread flow of news information through not only mainstream media sources but also independent Web sites and blogs. Most importantly, it has created a completely new opportunity for all citizens to exercise their right to free speech by opining on the most important issues of the day as they see them, as the citizens see them. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, all of this activity is actually under attack today. When Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act in 2002, the law apparently was unclear on what impact it would have on political speech on the Internet. The Federal Election Commission interpreted the law to say that Congress did not intend to regulate the Internet when it passed BCRA. The bill's sponsors disagreed, and they sued the FEC in the courts. A recent appellate court decision will force the FEC to implement a rule that would cover Internet communications. If the Congress does not act now and make it clear that it does not want the Internet to be regulated, the FEC will adopt a new rule to regulate the Internet; and by passing H.R. 1606, also known as the Online Freedom of Speech Act, Congress can prevent this from happening. H.R. 1606, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude Internet communications from the definition of ``public communication,'' thus exempting Web sites, blogs, and online advertisements from Federal Elections Commission, FEC, regulation. This bill has very, very strong bipartisan support. In testimony before the FEC and before the Committee on House Administration, both liberal and conservative bloggers expressed their support for this exemption. Senate minority leader Reid has introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate and written to the FEC to express his belief that the Internet should not be regulated. The regulations proposed by the FEC could limit the ability of online activists to talk to campaigns, to give discounts on advertisements, to spend money maintaining their site, to link to candidates' sites, to advocate the election of a candidate, or to send political e-mails. The FEC would potentially grant some bloggers and online publications what is known as the ``media exemption,'' which would allow these bloggers to operate free of FEC regulation like any standard newspaper or news program. However, the rules were very unclear about how the FEC would determine who qualified for the exemption. Potentially, the FEC's rulings could become content-based restrictions on speech and on free speech. As we consider this legislation, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that the Internet is not like traditional forms of media. Unlike television and radio, activists do not require large sums of money to post their message on the Internet. Also, the number of people reached and the success of communication are not directly linked to the amount of money that is spent. In addition, the Internet is not an invasive medium. In other words, the recipients of communication are exposed to the communication only after they take deliberate and affirmative steps to find a particular Web site. Further, the Internet has generated a surge in grassroots involvement in the political process. Mr. Speaker, historically, Congress has regulated political speech only where it has the potential to cause corruption or the appearance of corruption. There has been no demonstration that the growth of the Internet has had a corrupting influence on politics. There is, however, ample evidence that the Internet has had a positive effect on our political system by encouraging young people, a whole new generation of people, to get involved in our political process. Any Internet regulations would be complicated and difficult for a lay person to understand. Bloggers and other online activists should not have to worry about accidentally running afoul of campaign finance laws when they are expressing their own opinions on the Internet. Regulatory proponents claim regulations are necessary to reduce the influence of wealthy interests. In fact, Mr. Speaker, these complex regulations, if enacted, would actually increase the influence of big money and politics, because then only the wealthy could afford to hire election attorneys to be certain that they were abiding by these very complicated regulations. The Committee on House Administration, under Chairman Ney's leadership, had a hearing on this topic back last September; and, at that hearing, several Members of Congress and of the committee, including myself, actually suggested that the Congress needed to step into this process to clarify Congress' intent on this issue instead of leaving it up to Federal agencies and the court system. Congress began this discussion by passing BCRA. By debating and voting on this bill today, the House will clarify once and for all its intent on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1606.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1606) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, we are actually being accused of abuse of power, as I understand it, for bringing up the Senate minority leader's companion bill.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I spent 8 years of my life as the Michigan Secretary of State. That was a job where I had a principal responsibility as the chief elections officer of that State. During that time, we made constant attempts to increase voter participation and voter turn-out, particularly among young people. And I believe this bill does that. Mr. Speaker, we must stand up for the right of freedom of speech and for the first amendment. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to applaud him for maintaining a size 36 over the years; and I will decline to share my dress size with the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 554, also known as the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, and sometimes fondly referred to, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) said, the Cheeseburger Bill. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is a Nation of freedom. Liberty, individuality, and personal choice are all critical ingredients. A recipe for self-reliance, individual responsibility, and choice has been handed down from generation to generation. That is why it is so distasteful to see a handful of greedy people trying to strike it rich by attacking the American food industry. The blame-obsessed legal system has increasingly tried to poison the restaurant business with frivolous lawsuits. Our food industry actually employs about 12 million people. It is the Nation's largest single private sector provider. It provides a legal product, and it provides it in a legal way. And now, because of the avarice of a few, it has become a huge target with a huge bull's-eye on its back. Mr. Speaker, most restaurants are small businesses that contribute to their community in literally countless ways. What is more, many of them are too small to defend themselves against out-of-control, deep- pocketed trial attorneys who want to file lawsuits against them, who see them as just another target, perhaps see them as just another ATM machine. I am proud to support this rule and proud to support H.R. 554, which prohibits profiteering from groundless claims about weight gain, to protect our vital food and restaurant industry, to help defend our economy and American jobs, and to support the fundamental tenets of our Nation: personal choice, liberty, and freedom. Mr. Speaker, I am obviously a pretty good customer of the restaurant industry, but I also recognize that with democracy comes responsibility, the responsibility of citizens to make the right decisions for themselves and the responsibility of a government to stop those who seek to hurt fine American businesses for a drive-thru, fast windfall. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the debate that we are having today on this issue. I rise in support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, when drafting the Bill of Rights to our Constitution, our Founding Fathers guaranteed the right of the people to keep and to bear arms in the second amendment, and for 217 years the second amendment has protected our freedom. But for years we have seen a nonstop onslaught of individuals and groups trying to erode this basic right. Now, unable to accomplish their goals at the ballot box, they are targeting arms makers in the courts for the illegal use of their product. Their attempt to force U.S. arms producers out of business would have a serious impact not only on our freedoms but on our national security as well. Let us for a moment just look at three of the companies that are targeted by lawsuits by the antigun fanatics. The Colt Company is a sole provider of the M-16 rifle carried by the men and women of our armed services. Beretta USA supplies the standard sidearm for all branches of the Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies across the country. The Sig Arms Company manufactures the sidearm carried by the Secret Service and the Navy SEALS. And if these companies are destroyed, where will our military and our law enforcement get the arms that they need to keep our Nation safe? From France, perhaps. Maybe we can buy them from China. This is why the Pentagon took the extraordinary step in sending a letter to each Member of this House urging the passage of this important legislation. The aim of these lawsuits is to deny law-abiding Americans from exercising their Constitutional rights to keep and to bear arms. This must be stopped. Instead, we should severely punish criminals, not law-abiding companies or citizens. And if we do not do so, what is next? Are we going to sue the Louisville Slugger Company if a criminal hits somebody with a baseball bat? Enough is enough. It is time for common sense. It is time to protect the jobs of the workers of American firms. It is time to protect our rights under the second amendment of the Constitution, and it is time to ensure that the men and women of the armed services and our law enforcement have access to the best possible firearms to protect our Nation.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the American airline industry is struggling, absolutely struggling in the face of very high fuel prices, of pension costs, and fierce competition. Delta and Northwest Airlines have recently filed for bankruptcy protection under chapter 11. United Airlines also recently got a bankruptcy court to severely discount the value of its employee pensions. Clearly, the airline industry needs some help, and they need some leadership. But an article that I read yesterday forces me to question the leadership of certain executives in the airline industry. Gary Wilson is the chairman of Northwest Airlines, a role where he is supposed to be providing leadership to his company. Northwest Airlines is currently subject to a work stoppage by mechanics and cleaners over wage concessions and job reductions. And now Northwest has approached their pilots and their flight attendants asking them to take significant wage cuts. Earlier this year, Northwest Airlines stopped funding their defined pension benefit program, only funding their employees' 401(k) program, and I am sure that the 401(k) was also buying plenty of Northwest stock. And what was Chairman Gary Wilson doing during this time with his 4.3 million shares of company stock? He was selling that stock. Mr. Speaker, today, in the Detroit Free Press, there is an article, and the title is ``Northwest Airline Chief Sold Shares Just Before Bankruptcy.'' The article says: ``Less than a month before Northwest Airlines Corporation filed for bankruptcy, its chairman sold nearly a third of his remaining shares.'' Gary Wilson was not showing faith or confidence in the company that he is charged with leading. Instead, he was dumping his stock before his company went under. And I wonder if the employee 401(k) was selling, or even if it was allowed to sell at the same time. Mr. Wilson sold his shares at an average of $5.45 per share, and just yesterday that stock was trading for 84 cents per share. Northwest Airlines is a major carrier in the Detroit, Michigan, market; and it serves my district. We have been hearing all summer long that Northwest was in trouble and that it could be forced to file for bankruptcy protection. Well, what took so long? One has to wonder if the bankruptcy filing was delayed simply so executives like Mr. Wilson could sell their stock to make sure they got their money before the company went out. That is not leadership; that is cowardice or worse. The employees and the customers of Northwest deserve better. And while Northwest has been asking employees to make concessions in their pensions, they have not been asking the same of their executives. In fact, this past July it was reported that the supplemental pension plan that covers the company's CEO was not subject to a pension freeze. That pension was slated to give the CEO nearly $1 million a year if he retired at the age of 65. That was reported again in the Detroit Free Press on July 16: ``Northwest Airlines to Freeze Pensions for Salaried Staff.'' Not affected by the freeze is the supplemental pension plan that covers CEO Doug Steenland, among others. In its last annual report, Northwest indicated that Steenland was on track to receive an annual pension of $947,417 a year if he retires at age 65.'' And ``The airline has said that such generous pensions are needed to recruit and retain top executives.'' Well, based on those examples, I do not think Northwest has done a very good job of attracting the best executives. Mr. Speaker, we need strong airlines in this country. We also need competition. We need safety and quality customer service in the airline industry. Of course, employees need to know if sacrifice is needed in the face of increasing costs and competitive pressures, but so do executives. They should be setting the tone for the company, and they should lead by example. They should not cut and run in the face of trouble. What is happening at Northwest Airlines at its very highest levels is disgraceful.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule, and I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I did serve on the postal panel and the Committee on Government Reform as well. This is really the first real reform of the United States Postal Service since the 1970s. Mr. Speaker, America succeeds and America prospers because America evolves. Our Nation evolves. We are always striving to leverage our economic, our technological, and our political advancements to improve our entire Nation. Much of what might have been good in the 1970s is clearly not good enough for the 21st century, especially when it comes to communications; and the United States Postal Service, with a uniquely critical means of communicating in our Nation, unfortunately, is laboring under a business model that was built in an era that predates the Internet, that predates e-mail, and even fax machines. Any private sector business would have been put out of business. But the United States Postal Service today, and these are some staggering numbers, actually delivers 200 billion pieces of mail each and every year, it delivers to 130 million households, and it is the center of a nearly $1 trillion industry. But the competition is growing, of course. Revenues are at risk; its workforce, unfortunately, is aging, and so is its equipment. Yet these are all the same kinds of challenges that so many businesses today face. I was very proud to cosponsor and to update and to upgrade this legislation, which does all of that, for our Postal Service. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act modernizes the Postal Service's infrastructure and its financial framework; and at the same time, it also maintains its traditional benefit, the best benefit I think, and that, of course, is 6-day, universal service. H.R. 22 provides the postal office with firmer financial ground, and it mitigates the needs to constantly raise postal rates. It ensures those that live in America's rural communities that they still have very close access to a full-service postal center. What is more, equally as important, I think, is it preserves the right for collective bargaining for our postal workers. Our postal employees have a record of achievement of on-time delivery performance, and many of us, I think, were reminded of how much we take them for granted after the anthrax scare. In fact, I remember it was a commercial that was playing that was put out by the Postal Service that had that Carly Simon song in the background, Let the River Run, and it really, I think, was a very powerful ad that reminded us all of how important our postal employees are. The men and women of the United States Postal Service stood then and they stand now in harm's way sometimes, because they have dedicated themselves to serving all of us. They certainly deserve the right to bargain collectively to protect the financial future of their families. This bill also serves as the framework that will help the United States Postal Service to become a model, quite frankly, as a governmental agency to be both cost-effective and cost-efficient, to help them to create a business plan, to negotiate the best business practices with its customers, and it allows for them to focus on a term, customer service, that is not exclusively a concept that is exclusively in the private domain, it can also be in the public domain as well. This bill embraces concepts like work sharing, in which the Postal Service embarks in a partnership with private companies offering postage discounts to businesses who help the Postal Service prepare and move our mail, flexibility that the private sector enjoys and that they employee as part of its competitive business mix. This bill essentially allows the United States Postal Service to operate like a business, which will clearly benefit all Americans. So I do want to thank everybody who worked so very hard on this piece of legislation. It is a very important piece of legislation. I want to personally recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis), who just made some remarks earlier. I have watched him work tirelessly on this bill, as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who has been a leader in postal reform for a very long time. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a great piece of legislation which also demonstrates very clearly how bipartisanship can work very well on the floor of this House. It certainly has done that. I commend all of the Democratic Members who have worked very hard on this as well, and I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and urge them to support this critical piece of legislation as well.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I certainly appreciate the intentions of my good friend from Texas in his amendment tonight, but this amendment would do absolutely nothing to stop a stamp rate increase for next year. In fact, it seems very clear this amendment would have the opposite impact. In fact, it would trigger large increases in the postal rates. These rate increases would be caused by denying the Postal Service access to billions of dollars which are set aside in their escrow accounts, because the Postal Service will be forced actually to completely finance the escrow requirement as well as the annual health benefit premium for all of their retirees. This will not stop what we are all trying to stop, and that is a postal rate increase, which is really a tax. I guess you can call it a stamp tax, if you want, on the American people. This amendment is not fiscally conservative. In fact, if you are an individual who just mails a couple of letters a year, I suppose it does not matter if you have a tax increase, a stamp tax increase, of 1 or 2 cents a letter. However, think if you are a catalogue mailing company or a large user of the Postal Service. This amendment would also require the Postal Service to spend all of their savings released under H.R. 22 on paying the Postal Service's unfunded health care liability rather than giving the Postal Service some much-needed flexibility to use on other pressing issues. This underlying bill is based on the premise of making the Postal Service more cost-effective, more cost-efficient, making it run in a more businesslike, user-friendly type of way, and this amendment, I believe, is a step backward. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and also to support the underlying bill, which is a great bipartisan effort and a great bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act. These changes that were enacted in response to the horrific terrorist attacks on our Nation of September 11, 2001 provided critical tools to our law enforcement in bringing the terrorists to justice and to stopping future attacks, and the result of this law cannot be disputed. Worldwide we have captured or killed nearly two-thirds of the al Qaeda's top leadership. We have broken up terrorist cells in Buffalo, in Seattle, in Portland, Northern Virginia and in Detroit, my home State of Michigan. These tools have been critical in gathering knowledge on the activities and the targets of the terrorists. These tools have assisted in dismantling the terrorist financial network. And as I meet with constituents in my district they are continually saying what are we doing to help fight the terrorists? However, I have never heard from one man or woman in my district who has said that their constitutional rights have been violated by any aspect of the PATRIOT Act. And while I care deeply about protecting the civil rights of law abiding Americans, I do not care one iota about the civil rights of terrorists bent on destroying our way of life. Just yesterday over 300 Members of this House voted for an amendment that supported the capture and the detention and the interrogation of international terrorists. Mr. Chairman, today we face a new type of enemy, an enemy who preys on the innocent, an enemy who lives in the shadows, an enemy whose tactics are the tactics of cowards. And as we saw in London on July 11 and as we are seeing again today, the terrorists are still out there targeting the murder of the innocent. And in fact I will predict that other countries will follow the lead of America and what we are doing on the floor of this House today as they enact similar protections for their citizens against these murderers. And now is not the time to take away tools that law enforcement needs to protect us. Now is the time to send a message to the terrorists that the we are not backing down from the fight. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, in America, the road to opportunity is a fast-moving highway. Any American with creativity and simply a desire to work hard can achieve their dreams. Anyone can succeed. Anyone can start a business. Our road to opportunity has been an open road. But unfortunately, our government, sometimes with very noble intentions, is putting up red lights, stoplights and dead ends on the road to opportunity. The heavy burden of needless governmental regulation is slowing down hard-driving Americans, Americans whose diligence and hard work is needed to secure our Nation's economic future. Let us consider a few numbers for a moment. The regulatory burden on United States businesses is more than $850 billion each and every year. The Small Business Administration says that complying with all of the government's rules and regulations costs small businesses a staggering $7,000 per employee. American taxpayers spend an estimated $250 billion a year every year just trying to comply with the American Federal income tax code. This crippling over-regulation can destroy the entrepreneurial spirit. It is a hidden tax on our businesses and on our citizens. Simply put, the cost of doing business in America is quickly rising. And make no mistake, our foreign competitors are capitalizing on it. Our trade deficit is now an unbelievable $670 billion and growing. It is time for America to reopen the road to opportunity, and it is imperative that this Congress and this Nation enact a competitiveness agenda. It is unacceptable that the cost of frivolous litigation now exceeds $230 billion a year. That interpolates to $2,000 for every American household. Our citizens, business owners and entrepreneurs face enough hurdles as it is. Our government does not need to raise new ones. We need to focus on eliminating some of the ones we have. We must and will make America more competitive in the global marketplace. I know by working together we can do the right thing for the American people, for American business and for America's future. Let us remove the red lights, remove the stop signs and the dead ends and reopen the road to opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend the flag of the United States of America. Throughout the history of our Nation, our flag has stood as the ultimate symbol of our freedom. From Yorktown to Fort McHenry, from Iwo Jima to Baghdad, our troops have fought behind our flag in the defense of liberty. Their dedication and their sacrifice in defense of freedom demands that we take this action today. And who can forget on September 11, 2001, when firefighters in New York pulled our flag out of the rubble of the World Trade Center and hoisted it in defiance of terror? And who can forget the flag that hangs in the American History Museum here in Washington, D.C. that was draped over the scarred Pentagon as a show of our Nation's resolve? We should not, we must not, and we cannot allow the desecration of our national symbol as some form of protest. Some things in this Nation are sacred, and the flag is the most sacred symbol of all. The flag binds our Nation together and must be protected. Let us take this action together today. Honor the service and sacrifice of those who have fought behind the flag in defense of our freedom. And, Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned, 50 States have already passed resolutions indicating that they want to ratify this resolution we are debating today. Let the majority of Americans ratify their allegiance and pledge their allegiance to our flag.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, over 9 million innocent human beings were killed in the Nazi death camps. Over 3 million were killed in the Soviet gulags under Joseph Stalin. Over 1.5 million were killed by the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot in Cambodia. And how many have been killed at Guantanamo Bay? Zero. But that has not stopped a Democratic leader, a Democratic Senator, and the Democratic Party from drawing parallels between what is happening in Guantanamo and the horrors of Hitler or Stalin and Pol Pot. That message belies the suffering of the victims of those terrible atrocities. That message discourages our brave men and women in uniform, when national leaders compare their actions to those of the Nazis. That kind of rhetoric incites our enemies and hinders our efforts in the war on terror. I challenge every Democratic leader to denounce these ridiculous comparisons. Show our enemies that we are united in our actions against terror, and show our troops that we honor their service.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, American businesses are faced with increasing pressure from foreign competitors and skyrocketing health care costs. But they are also faced with the weight placed on them not by the marketplace or their competitors, but by the government itself. Burdensome, duplicative, and outdated regulations cost American businesses literally billions of dollars annually and stifle new job creation. Many of these regulations do little to improve workplace safety, protect our environment or improve the safety of our workers, but are simply on the books because no one has bothered to review their effectiveness. Common sense by the government must come into play to help relieve this burden and to improve the environment for job creation. We must do more to make American companies more competitive in the global marketplace and to give our job providers and our workers much needed relief. We must and we will do more.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, shortly after the conclusion of the Civil War, a group of veterans began a tradition known as Decoration Day. The day was set aside to decorate the graves of the men who had perished during battle, and it was believed Decoration Day was always during the month of May because flowers needed for the occasion were finally blooming. Two centuries later, Decoration Day is now Memorial Day, but two core traditions remain: we honor those who died protecting our Nation, and we still do so in May when the flowers are blooming. Today, as our Nation spends it third consecutive Memorial Day at war, we remember the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice defending the precious gift of liberty. We honor the people who have left behind husband, wives, children and parents, as well as the riches and celebrations of life, to fight for the freedoms of all Americans; and we should remain always remindful of that symbolic tradition of Decoration Day, that flowers will bloom, a beautiful America will bloom from the sacrifices made by our fallen veterans. Mr. Speaker, we give thanks for the service of our veterans; and to those who served and paid the ultimate price, we give our deepest thanks.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank our great chairman of the Committee on Armed Services for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it is totally unnecessary. In fact, no one who has ever studied at a war college, no one who is a combat commander, no military strategist, no one who really wants to achieve victory, would ever support what this amendment is asking those of us in the House to support here today. Besides, we already have a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and that is when we have achieved victory, that is when we have helped to deliver freedom to the Iraqi people, and that is when we have secured a foothold for liberty in the Middle East. My question is this: Did we ask General Eisenhower for a plan for the withdrawal of the forces from Europe before the war was won? Of course not. And I would ask this: Did we ask General McArthur for a plan for withdrawal in the Pacific before the war was won? Of course not. Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense to telegraph our plans to the enemy. In fact, that would be an incredibly dangerous thing for us to do. But our enemies should know this: America will not cut and run. And to the Iraqi people, I would say this: liberty, democracy and freedom are coming, and the men and women of the American Armed Forces, God bless them, will help you achieve all of them.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my concerns about a character assassination. This is a 21st-century form of McCarthyism being perpetrated by the Democratic leadership in the United States Senate. I was deeply troubled by the Senate minority leader's statement on the floor of the Senate on Thursday about His Honor Judge Henry Saad of my home State of Michigan. Judge Saad, whose nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court of the United States Court of Appeals has been obstructed by the Democrats in the Senate, was unfairly and unjustly targeted by the Senator during the debate about filibustering. The minority leader publicly alluded to Judge Saad's confidential FBI file. He intimated there was something troubling or at the least disconcerting in the file. These FBI files are raw. They have not been fully vetted, and every judicial nominee has one. What is most troubling to me is that the Senate minority leader either knew, or should have known, that this was a low blow. He either knew, or should have known, that Judge Saad cannot even see his own file. He cannot even defend himself. The Senator is smearing a man who is not allowed to respond by the Senate's own rules. That, of course, is hitting below the belt. Mr. Speaker, the Senator is instituting a modern-day version of McCarthyism. I ask him to stop smearing and to start leading.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 627 will designate this post office in Hamden, Connecticut, as the Linda White-Epps Post Office. Linda White-Epps lived a life that is very fitting for this high honor. Mrs. White-Epps was a breast cancer and women's health advocate in her community ever since she personally overcame a bout with breast cancer in 1990. A result of her battle with the dreaded disease, she founded a group called ``Sisters' Journey,'' a nonprofit organization that provides support to survivors and anyone affected by this dreaded disease. She was also a member of both the local NAACP executive board and the local Boys and Girls Club Board of Directors. In 2001, she was elected to the Hamden City Council. That same year, she was named a ``Point of Light'' for her work on behalf of women's health issues by the Points of Life Foundation, a national volunteer organization devoted to community service. Mr. Speaker, sadly, though, Linda White-Epps' form of cancer relapsed more than a decade later and she passed away in 2003. Over the years I know she became very close with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I want to commend my distinguished colleague for her work on this bill. This Post Office will help citizens of Hamden, Connecticut to remember their dear friend, Linda, as well as her contributions and her charitable life. Linda White-Epps' grandfather was a letter carrier, making this honor of a Post Office all the more fitting and meaningful for her family. I strongly support this resolution and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 627) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 40 Putnam Avenue in Hamden, Connecticut, as the ``Linda White-Epps Post Office''.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 266.