Floor Statements

Good morning, Madam Speaker. You know, it's simple: If America is the greatest country in the world, then all our children should have health care. That's what Democrats believe.

Today, we're going to pass the CHAMP Act to provide health insurance to an additional 5 million children here in America, the children of the working poor. Who are the working poor? They're the people, one- half of them women, who work in service industries, who work in retail. They're laborers, they're the self-employed. Their employees don't provide health insurance, and they can't afford it. They barely make ends meet.

Now, with this bill we will move a long way toward the goal of providing universal health insurance for all American children, and I think that's a good idea. Now, during the course of the day you're going to hear lots of arguments, arguments about processing and why this wasn't fair or done in the right way. You will hear arguments about cost. But let me tell you, at the end of the day, that is all just empty rhetoric and rationalizations. Because the fact is, if America is the greatest country in the world, then all our children should have health insurance. Period.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding, also for his outstanding leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I operate from a very simple premise, and that is this, that if America is the greatest country in the world, then all of our children should have health insurance.

It's that simple. This bill does that. It covers 5 million additional children of the working poor; and it gives them health care, dental care and access to mental care health services. That's what's needed in this country.

It's amazing to listen to the scare tactics of Republicans. It's almost amusing.

First, they start talking about illegal aliens. No, that's not what this bill is about. They said, well you are going to kill our private insurance. These are working poor people. They don't have insurance.

They said, well, it's $100,000 families. No, it's the existing eligibility limit. Then they say, well, you are going to create a massive new entitlement program. No, it's a grant program with bonuses for States that do a good job of insuring more people.

Finally, they resort to Hillary care. We are all supposed to be scared.

We are taking this issue very seriously, because we understand that there are working poor people in America that work every day. Half of them are women. They work in the service industries, they work in labor jobs, and those jobs do not offer health insurance. That's why we are here.

We are here because when they don't have health insurance. Their children don't get screenings. Their children don't get check-ups. They can't get treated for asthma. When their children are in severe pain, they go to the emergency room, and that costs more money.

I will give you example from my district. Deamonte Driver, he had a toothache, tooth decay. It would have cost $80. He didn't get it. The tooth became infected. The infection traveled to his brain.

Two surgeries costing $250,000 were attempted to save his life. They were unsuccessful. Deamonte Driver died. We need to prevent these types of tragedies in America.

I am appalled when I think about it, that if a third-world Communist country like Cuba can offer health insurance to the families of factory workers, we have to be able to do it here in America, the greatest country in the world.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking my colleague, Patrick Kennedy, for his leadership on this issue.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3123, the bill which I have cosponsored which would extend the ability of Liberians living in the United States to maintain their temporary protective status designation allowing them to legally remain in the United States, which has become home for many of these Liberians displaced by conflict and civil war in their native country.

Founded by freed American slaves, with a flag and a Constitution based on our own, Liberia has always had a special relationship with the United States. In fact, I used to live in a little community in Warren County, North Carolina, called Liberia.

But Liberia has had a troubled history in the past few decades. From 1989 to 1997, civil war in Liberia has claimed the lives of almost 150,000 people and displaced 850,000 more.

In August of 2003, the U.N. Security Council established a U.N. peacekeeping mission of up to 15,000 soldiers. Although peace has allegedly been restored, these 15,000 troops are still in Liberia today.

Based on the election of Ellen Sirleaf-Johnson in 2005, the Department of Homeland Security decided that conditions in Liberia were such that temporary protective status for Liberians currently living in the United States should end.

This is illogical. Many of the roughly 3,500 Liberians in the United States today on temporary protective status have been living in the United States

since 1991, over 15 years. They own homes, pay taxes and are pillars of the community.

This Saturday I sat with a gentleman who had a 13-year-old daughter. He said, she's never been to Liberia. She only knows America as her home. Many of their children are like this. They've never known any home other than the United States.

That alone would be good reason to grant this extension. But the fact is that Liberia still has 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers stationed there. Less than 2 weeks ago, Liberia's former House Speaker and a former top military commander were charged with treason for attempting to overthrow the Liberian Government in an alleged coup.

The Sirleaf-Johnson administration is performing admirably in rebuilding Liberia's crippled economy. But there are no jobs or homes for returning Liberians.

Many in the Capitol city of Monrovia lack running water or access to electricity, and waterborne illnesses like hepatitis A and typhoid fever are common.

Eighty percent of Liberians are unemployed. The Liberian Government has pleaded for an extension of temporary protective status, saying it is not ready to accept the return of these Liberians.

Unless we pass this bill, we'll make illegal immigrants of those responsible, hardworking, taxpaying Liberians that fled violence and war in Liberia to seek peace and safety in the United States.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this excellent bipartisan bill supporting an extension of temporary protective status for these Liberians.

I urge my colleagues' support for this measure.

Good evening, Madam Speaker. To varying degrees, Americans realize that it's time to end this war. You hear frustration; you see almost rabid anger. Americans understand we have a failed policy in Iraq. It's not working. 3,600 American troops have been killed; 2,700 U.S. troops have been wounded; 50,000 Iraqis have been killed. This administration is pursuing a failed foreign and military policy.

Now, let me be quick to note: This doesn't mean that our military has failed. Our military has in fact performed very admirably. They have done so despite the inept management of this administration, which has failed to provide them with the adequate armor that they need. Yet our military has fought on. But, again, it is the wrong policy.

First of all, we need to redefine our notions of winning and losing. This is the wrong war, it is in the wrong place, and it is being, as I indicated earlier, handled in the wrong way.

A lot of people are afraid to pull our troops out because they will say we will have lost. No, we will not have lost. We will have been pursuing the wrong policy. It is almost like the British redcoats facing the U.S. revolutionaries in the American Revolutionary

War. They were fighting in the wrong way. We are doing the same thing. We have to face the facts.

Supporters of the war are also saying look, we can't get out because the result will be a catastrophe. Note to the administration: It is already a catastrophe. What we need to do is change direction, with the hope that we can actually fight a war on terrorism and save American lives.

We can't continue to try to mediate Iraq's civil war. It is time to redeploy our troops, to bring them back home. We have in fact a civil war in Iraq. Both sides dislike our military presence. Iraqi insurgents are willing to kill themselves and become martyrs for their cause. We don't really understand this phenomenon. How can you beat an enemy that is willing to kill himself before you do? It doesn't work.

This is not a war in which killing more insurgents will result in ``victory.'' In fact, the National Intelligence Estimates indicate that our presence in Iraq is counterproductive. Iraq has more insurgents now, more militants, more terrorists, more jihadists, if you will, today than they did when we deposed Saddam Hussein. Iraq has become a haven for terrorists, and our military engagement is not reducing the number of insurgents. They are increasing.

Our continued presence in Iraq, more than 4 years, leads many Iraqis to the perception that what we really want to do is control their oil resources. This perception undermines any attempt to promote freedom and democracy. They think we just want the oil.

We have done one good thing through this Congress. We passed a resolution in this House that says we will have no permanent bases. That is the type of message we need to be sending, that we are not there to control your country. But what should we do in the overall battle against terrorism and in Iraq?

First of all, how about some diplomacy? Why is diplomacy always last? From Korea to Iran, here is what we do. We call them names first, and then we, finally, years later, say, well, maybe we ought to talk. Let's try talking first.

It is time this administration took diplomatic engagement to a higher level around the world. We need to take it seriously. We need to abandon this go-it-alone policy.

How about supporting Muslim efforts to promote peace? I think there are countries in the region, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, who have a vested interest in promoting peace. Let's give them a chance to promote peace. They have the greatest stake in having a peaceful region. There are also international religious leaders who could perhaps mediate a peace. What we do know is that the United States lacks the credibility to promote peace or mediate peace in this region.

Let's turn to the U.N. Why don't we ask the U.N. to promote a peace process in Iraq while we pull our troops out? We need a permanent United Nations emergency peace force. I have introduced such a bill. A permanent U.N. entity that would work in these areas of conflict, both in Iraq, in the Middle East, in Africa, the Sudan, Chad, and on and on. We can use the UN as a vehicle to promote peace and save the lives of American men and women who are in the Army and in our military.

Also we need to introduce the concept of humanitarian aid. Now, we do some, it is true, but how about leading with diplomacy and humanitarian aid? Put a new face on America's foreign policy. More humanitarian aid, building schools and building hospitals, says to the world that Americans really want to be your friend, as opposed to troops beating down your door, going door-to-door.

We also need to keep in mind, although we withdraw our troops, we have not abandoned Iraq. We need to continue to support reconstruction aid. But let me be quick to add, we need reconstruction aid with a lot more congressional oversight. This idea that Halliburton and other companies are just making billions and billions in profits and we don't see anything coming up from the ground in Iraq is unsatisfactory. We need humanitarian aid, we need reconstruction aid, we need congressional oversight to go with it.

In conclusion, we really need to spend our money more wisely to fight the real threat that we have. We know the threat is not in Iraq, the threat is in Afghanistan. What should we do?

First of all, we need greater emphasis on intelligence, to break up these small cells. The attacks we have seen in Britain and elsewhere are done by small cells. We need to interrupt weapons transfers, because that is what is causing the problem. We also need to interrupt these terrorist camps. We need to use our Special Forces intelligently to fight the real war that we have.

Bring our troops home, initiate diplomacy, humanitarian aid, reconstructive aid. We need a sound foreign policy. We don't have it with this administration. But with this Congress continuing to press the fight, we are going to have it.

Madam Chairman, as Chairman of the Environmental and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, I rise today in strong opposition to language contained in the report that accompanies the Farm Bill Extension Act of 2007 (H.R. 2419). The report references a ``sense of the committee'' amendment that farm animal manure should not be deemed a hazardous substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). The Farm Bill Extension Act does not contain any legislative text discussing whether manure is a hazardous substance under these statutes.

I am strongly opposed to this report language because it would exempt releases or threatened releases of hazardous components of manure from CERCLA and EPCRA.

Large animal feeding operations can be significant sources of pollution. According to the EPA, animal farming operations generate approximately 500 million tons of waste each year, three times more raw waste than is generated yearly by people in the United States. This waste, which is usually untreated by operations, produces hazardous substances such as phosphorous, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide.

Phosphorous has contaminated local drinking water supplies, requiring additional treatment and resulting in increased costs to ratepayers. The City of Waco Texas for example is spending more than $54 million for capital improvements to address taste and odor problems caused by excessive phosphorous released by cow waste.

I also attach a letter from the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, dated July 23, 2007, that discusses the negative impact that such an exemption would have on the quality of our Nation's drinking water supplies.

If hazardous substances from livestock waste are exempted from CERCLA, states and local governments would be denied the ability to protect their valuable water supplies and to recover costs associated with cleaning up these hazardous substances from drinking water sources.

If hazardous substances from livestock waste are exempted from EPCRA, toxic release information would be withheld from communities and emergency responders. Many of the large feeding operations release large volumes of hazardous air pollutants, such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. A number of studies have determined health problems among animal feeding operation workers and residents who live near these operations, including bronchitis, asthma and antibiotic-resistent bacterial infections.

This exemption is unwarranted because CERCLA already includes a specific exemption for the normal application of fertilizer. Only those livestock operators who excessively apply manure to the land to get rid of it, rather than use it to fertilize crops, have potential liability.

We should not allow these large animal feeding operations to escape liability for causing pollution to our communities and pass the costs onto community water systems and rate payers.

Livestock waste should not be exempt from the environmental protections that CERCLA and EPCRA provide.

Association of

Metropolitan Water Agencies,

Washington, DC, July 23, 2007.

Subject: Oppose CERCLA Animal Waste Exemption in Farm Bill.

Dear Representatives: As the House of Representatives

prepares this week to consider legislation to reauthorize the

Farm Bill, we urge you to reject language that would exempt

components of animal waste from designation as a hazardous

substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Enactment

of such an exemption would bring about serious consequences

for the quality of America's drinking water supplies.

During last week's markup of the legislation, the

Agriculture Committee adopted an amendment expressing the

``sense of the committee that farm animal manure should not

be considered as hazardous substance'' under CERCLA. This

follows the introduction earlier this year of legislation in

the House and Senate that would specifically exempt animal

waste and its components from the law.

As representatives of community drinking water systems, we

believe it is important to note that animal manure itself is

not currently considered a hazardous substance, pollutant or

contaminant under CERCLA. Moreover, the law already contains

an exemption for the normal application of fertilizer that

includes manure.

However, phosphorus and other CERCLA-regulated hazardous

substances that are known to compromise the quality of

drinking water are commonly present in animal manure. If

Congress were to provide a blanket CERCLA exemption for

animal waste, consolidated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)

would be free to discharge manure containing such hazardous

substances into the environment without regard to its impact

or liability for its damages. As a result, the costs of

additional treatment to make water potable would be forced

upon community water systems and their ratepayers, unfairly

shifting the burden of cleanup away from polluters.

Later this year, Congress will celebrate the 35th

anniversary of the Clean Water Act, landmark legislation

modeled on the belief that all Americans must share the

responsibility of maintaining the health of our nation's

water supply. Exempting CAFOs from their fair share of this

duty not only threatens to reverse the water quality gains

that have been realized over the recent decades, but would

also set a dangerous precedent encouraging other polluters to

seek waivers from our environmental laws.

Again, we urge you to oppose a blanket exemption for animal

waste and its components from the important requirements of

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Our continued engagement in Iraq is obscene and pointless. We went into Iraq to thwart the development of weapons of mass destruction, then to effect regime change of a ruthless dictator, then to promote the establishment of a democratic government, then to our currently sad assessment that we cannot leave because it will result in a catastrophe--and now we find ourselves serving as policemen in the middle of a civil war.

The Administration can no longer deny, after 3,611 American soldiers dead, over a thousand American contractors dead and over twelve thousand wounded, an estimated 50 thousand or more Iraqis dead, and 12,014 Americans severely injured and countless American families disrupted, that to continue down this path is both irresponsible and tragic.

We cannot resolve the Iraqi civil war. We cannot prop up a government that refuses to lead, and despite Vice President Cheney's fondest wishes, we will not be able to control Iraqi oil. It's past time to bring our troops home.

What about the aftermath of our leaving? The Shiite and Sunni in turn will have to look at each other and ask, now that the United States is gone what do we do? They can either continue killing each other or work for peace. The United States must disengage militarily, but we cannot abandon the Iraqi people. After our departure, the United States must work to assist Iraqis and the Muslim countries in the region to develop a peace process. I am confident the Iraqi people want peace, and neighboring countries don't want the sectarian conflict to spread across the region. Currently, we are an impediment to peace.

The United States should continue to provide humanitarian support and aid for reconstruction for schools and hospitals, with increased Congressional oversight. We must also support an Iraqi peace process, brokered by the parties in the region or respected 3rd

party religious leaders or the U.N. However, the United States does not have the credibility to broker such a process. It is time for the United States to get out of the way and become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

It is time for United States to bring American troops home from Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Environmental and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, I rise today in strong opposition to an amendment that was offered earlier today by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) to cut funding to the Superfund program. The Superfund program addresses public health and environmental threats from uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances.

According to the Center for Public Integrity's May 2007 report entitled ``Superfund Today,'' the Superfund program is desperately short of money to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites, which has created a backlog of sites that continue to menace the environment and quite often the health of nearby residents.

According to the EPA, one in four Americans live within 4 miles of a Superfund site.

Mr. King's amendment introduced earlier today would decrease funding for the Superfund program by $160 million. This is reckless when previous EPA Inspector General reports have indicated a shortfall of at least $175 million for remedial action projects. EPA's rate of construction completions at National Priorities List sites has dramatically decreased in recent years, from an average level of 86 per year during the years 1997 to 2000, down to 40 sites per year during years 2002 to 2006, and most recently EPA projected only 24 cleanups in 2007.

These sites present a serious risk to human health and the environment. For example, at the Libby, Montana Superfund site, where a plume of asbestos from a nearby vermiculite mine has enveloped the town, more than 200 people have died from asbestos-related diseases, according to EPA estimates. Cleanup at this site, begun in 2000, has not yet been completed.

Let me congratulate Chairman Obey and Chairman Dicks on their decision to reverse the years of budget shortfalls for the core EPA programs that protect public health. I thank them and their staff for working closely with the Energy and Commerce Committee to increase the funding for these programs that are badly in need of funding after years of inadequate budget requests from the Bush administration.

This amendment by Mr. King is shortsighted. Every Member that has a Superfund site in his or her district or State that votes for this amendment could be voting to delay cleanup at that site. At many of these sites, citizens are exposed to uncontrolled hazardous substances. Rather than cutting the funding, we need to support the well-considered funding level in H.R. 2643 for the Superfund program to expedite cleanup of these sites, protect drinking water sources, and allow sites to be redeveloped to spur economic development and create jobs.

I strongly urge all Members to vote against the King amendment later today.

Madam Chairman, today I rise to express my concerns with Government Accountability Office, GAO, management's response to the GAO employees' petition seeking a union election.

It should be noted that applicable law strictly prohibits the GAO management from expressing any personal view, argument, opinion, or statements relating to a union election except to: publicize election and encourage employees to vote; correct the record with respect to any false or misleading statement; or inform employees of the Government's policy relating to labor-management relations and representation as long as these statements do contain a threat or reprisal or promise of benefit and are not made under coercive conditions.

Despite these restrictions, Comptroller General Walker was quoted in a January 23, 2007 publication as stating that he ``will present to the employees [his] views on the advantages and disadvantages of unionization.''

Shortly after this statement was published, attorneys for the union sent a letter advising Comptroller General Walker of his obligation to remain ``neutral'' during the employees' deliberations regarding unionization.

The GAO's General Counsel responded acknowledging GAO management's legal obligation to maintain strict neutrality during a union organizing campaign.

Further, the Comptroller General met with me shortly before I sent a letter to him regarding his response to the union organizing activities.

In that meeting, the Comptroller General tried to discourage me from sending the letter, and promised not to interfere with the unionization effort. I informed Mr. Walker that I appreciated his assurances but that would be sending the letter all the same.

I have the letter dated February 23rd of this year, and signed by a bipartisan group of 19 House Members and 3 Senators with me and wish to submit it for the Record.

I am sorry to say that despite these assurances, and since the union filed the election petition on May 8, 2007, the Comptroller General has made additional statements that are at odds with his obligation to remain neutral.

I am very concerned that I have received reports from GAO employees that Mr. Walker has used his staff meetings to make statements that are seen by employees as a breach of GAO management's neutrality obligation.

For example, they report that Mr. Walker has urged employees to ``get all the facts'', that a union could ``make things different . . . seriously impact agency decision-making'', and ``slow things down.''

He refers to the GAO employees who seek to form a union as a ``vocal minority in GAO'' and that ``[d]ue to union organizing efforts, labor law prevents [him] from helping employees unilaterally. Both of [my] hands are tied due to the union organizing efforts. . .''

By implication, Mr. Walker asserts that if employees reject union- representation, Mr. Walker will ``help'' them.

Mr. Walker's statements are not neutral. I find it hard to believe that GAO analysts need to be reminded to ``get all the facts'' and the very purpose of a union is to ``impact'' the employer's decision- making.

Further, it cannot be clearer that the reference to potentially ``slowing things down'' is intended as a negative reference about unionization.

I rise today not only to call on Mr. Walker to stop interfering with GAO employees' right to organize and petition for a union election, but to call on my colleagues to stand together with these GAO employees who serve Congress and the public.

Let us do all we can to help these dedicated public servants get a vote on their union election petition this summer.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have a very simple amendment here today. It would basically restore $18.4 million for hydrogen technology, which would bring the account up to the level that the administration, through the Department of Energy, recommended.

This amendment is supported by the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Caucus. I would note the leadership, particularly Mr. Larsen, in crafting this amendment, also the work of Mr. Inglis of South Carolina and Mr. Dent as part of the Caucus.

There are some who would say that hydrogen is too far away. In fact, hydrogen is emissions-free and it is here today. GM has 100,000 vehicles ready to go. Honda has vehicles ready to go. BMW released vehicles last year. There are buses, motorcycles, all of which are being fueled by hydrogen fuel cells. Japan is talking about 50,000 vehicles by 2015. We need to keep pace. We need to put the money into hydrogen technology.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

As an old trial lawyer, I know when to stop. Thank you, gentlemen, for the acceptance.

Mr. Chairman, I relinquish the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Wynn of Maryland

Amendment No. 27: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Sec. 503. Of the amount made available for Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy for the Department of Energy,

$213,000,000 shall be made available for hydrogen

technologies as authorized by section 974 of the Energy

Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16314).

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to Dr. Josephine Elizabeth Seaton Franklin. This remarkable woman is celebrating her 80th birthday July 1, 2007. As a founding member and first president of Theta Rho Omega Chapter, Alpha Kappa Sorority, Dr. Foster has had a monumental role in the Chapter's scholarship work and community service.

Through the Josephine Elizabeth Seaton Foundation, the Theta Rho Omega Chapter has provided funds for academic scholarships. The Chapter has given more than $90,000 to scholars and community service projects. Dr. Franklin is a native of Cleveland, Ohio and holds a master degree and doctorate degree in education. Throughout her lengthy career, Dr. Franklin has continued to demonstrate a love of education. She has taught in Virginia, Michigan and Chicago. Dr. Franklin's steadfast commitment to others undoubtedly exemplifies her generosity of spirit and dedication to countless educational and humanitarian causes.

Dr. Franklin's birthday on July 1st is special because this gracious and admirable woman has devoted herself magnanimously to helping others. She is recognized by her community, her friends, and her loved ones as a pillar of strength and compassion. Dr. Franklin's effort to make the world a better place is truly admirable.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentlelady, the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, for her leadership over the years on this very important issue.

The amendment I am introducing this evening would require that the Small Business Administration study the feasibility and desirability of providing financial incentives to encourage prime contractors to meet their goals for subcontracting with socially and economically disadvantaged businesses.

Specifically, the amendment would commission the SBA to study different

types of financial incentives that could help or encourage prime contractors to meet their goals set forth in their subcontracting claims for the utilization of small business companies owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.

Ironically, you heard earlier this evening about the problem of prime contractors failing to utilize small minority and economically disadvantaged businesses. Given the constitutional constraints that we as legislators have in legislating mandates for achieving these goals for minority and disadvantaged businesses, I believe that we must come up with creative and viable alternatives that can help encourage greater participation in the Federal contracting process by these businesses.

One such method to encourage greater participation by small minority and economically disadvantaged businesses would be to devise a means of rewarding prime contractors who meet their small business contracting goals rather than penalizing them. This is similar to the incentives placed in contracts for meeting deadlines and staying within budget.

My amendment would simply require that SBA study and report to Congress about different types of financial incentives that could be implemented that would encourage prime contractors to meet their goals for increasing opportunity for socially and economically disadvantaged businesses. This would allow us to encourage DB participation rather than attempting to penalize contractors who fail to meet their goals. This is an approach that offers more carrot and less stick.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady, the chairwoman of the committee.

I thank the gentleman for his kind comments and for his support of the amendment, and, of course, I thank the gentlelady for supporting the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation because it is time to take a stand against the violence, the violent acts that flow from prejudice. This is not about the thought police, this is not about sermons on morality, this is about the status of our civilization, and it is about our humanity.

As human beings, we have the right to be safe from physical attack, no matter our race, our religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. In other words, human beings have the right to be safe from attacks based on who they are. No one should have to be afraid because of who they are.

We need to pass this legislation to ensure that this principle is embodied in our law.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Would it be permissible to have my amendment considered at the end of the amendments?

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Boyda of Kansas

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 1868 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to H. Res. 350, that amendment No. 2 may be offered out of order.