Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. E. Pat Larkins, Commissioner of the City of Pompano Beach, Florida, on the occasion of the dedication of the E. Pat Larkins Community Center. Commissioner Larkins has been a good friend to me and to the citizens of Pompano Beach for more than 20 years.

Born to a carpenter father and a mother who picked beans for a living, Pat has piled success on top of success throughout his life. In the process, he has made possible opportunities for African-Americans they would not have seen otherwise. In 1971, at a time when black-owned companies found it difficult to make headway in the construction industry, Pat Larkins helped start the Broward Minority Contractors' Association to promote the interests of African-American builders.

In 1985, Pat became the first black mayor of the City of Pompano Beach. In all, he has been elected 10 times, for a total of 20 years, during which he has also served three terms as Vice Mayor. Pat Larkins has been recognized numerous times as a fine citizen and an enormous credit to his city and to the people of Broward County, Florida. He is a great American, and I am proud to call him my friend.

Today's naming of the E. Pat Larkins Community Center is a fitting tribute to this excellent man. On behalf of my colleagues in the House of Representatives and all of the residents of Florida's 23rd Congressional District, I congratulate Pat for this honor and wish him health, happiness, and continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program, an international internship program that was highlighted in a Roll Call article last week. I have been a proud participant in the program since its inception seven years ago.

The Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program gives Australian university students the opportunity to intern in the office of a Member of the Congress. Each year, 12 students from all across Australia are selected to come to Washington to participate in the administrative and legislative processes that underpin the functioning of Congress as a democratic institution. Such experiences are invaluable opportunities for these students to gain knowledge and a deep understanding of the internal workings of the United States Government while bringing their own skills and backgrounds to their respective Congressional offices.

The Uni-Capitol Program selects undergraduates from 7 universities by matching the applicants with Members and Senators who share their views. The students who are selected come from a variety of academic disciplines, but all have an interest in learning about and promoting the U.S.-Australia relationship. The Program facilitates this by enabling the formation of genuine friendships and the exchange of views and ideas between the Australian interns and their respective offices. I have often enjoyed the interaction that has occurred between my Australian and American interns. This, my colleagues, is how we build relationships which will ensure that the U.S. and Australia remain friends and allies for years to come.

My office is currently hosting Sarah Dillon who is completing a double degree in law and international studies at Deakin University. She has been an exceptional addition to my staff and has provided us with an international perspective on constitutional governments, a passion for relieving suffering in Darfur, and the culinary delights of vegemite.

Sarah is participating with 11 other very qualified students. Andrew Brookes from Melbourne University is in Senator Christopher Dodd's office; Ryan Conroy from Deakin University is in Representative Sam Farr's office; Jenna Davey-Burns from Melbourne University is in Representative Louise Slaughter's office; Douglas Ferguson from the University of Canberra is in Senator Debbie Stabenow's office; Jessica Gurevich from Melbourne University is in Representative Mike Castle's office; Scott Ivey from the University of Western Australia is in Representative Loretta Sanchez's office; Saul Lazar from Deakin University is in Senator Chuck Hagel's office; Abbie McPhie from Melbourne University is in Representative Jerrold Nadler's office; Linda Nelson from the University of Wollongong is with the House Science Committee's majority staff; Marianna O'Gorman, from the University of Queensland is in Delegate Eni Faleomavaega's office; and Rachel Thomson from the University of Western Australia is with the Joint Economic Committee's minority staff.

I would also like to commend Eric Federing who founded and continues to direct this international internship program. Eric is a former senior House and Senate staffer of more than a dozen years, and I congratulate him on making his vision a reality. In the process, Eric continues to make a great contribution to the mutual understanding and appreciation shared by Australians and Americans, myself included.

I am proud that my office is part of this program, as I believe it provides a unique and important bridge between the United States of America and Australia. The program has been, and will continue to be, an extremely beneficial experience for all involved. I implore my colleagues to participate in this worthwhile program in the coming years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution honoring the memory of Coretta Scott King who passed away yesterday morning. In a lifetime of effort and tireless struggle, Mrs. King championed the principles of peace, integrity, and human dignity. Alongside her husband, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Mrs. King strove for civil rights, endured bombings on her home, and dreamed of a better life for her children. Because of her and so many others, my children and grandchildren are growing up in a world of greater opportunity.

After her husband was taken away tragically, Mrs. King, still shouldering the immense emotional burden of her loss, did not choose to withdraw from the world. She chose instead to continue forward with the work they had started and the legacy they had built. Only 4 days after the death of King, Mrs. King led a march of 50,000 people through the streets of Memphis. For her determination and courage, we are forever grateful.

Coretta Scott was born in Heiberger, near Marion, Alabama, on April 27, 1927. Growing up on her parents' farm, Coretta walked 5 miles every day to her one-room school in order to receive an education. As a young woman, she learned the lessons of struggle and perseverance from her determined mother. These lessons helped her excel and graduate as the valedictorian from Lincoln High School. Mrs. King then went on to enroll at Antioch College where her sister Edythe had been the first full-time black student to live on campus.

Mrs. King majored in education and music, pursuing the love she had inherited from her mother. By her graduation in 1951, Mrs. King decided to become a professional singer and accepted a scholarship to the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston. It was in Boston that she met Martin Luther King, Jr., a fellow student. They were married 2 years later. Their first child, Yolanda, was born in 1955, only 2 weeks before the Montgomery bus boycott. Three more children soon followed: Martin Luther III, Dexter, and Bernice.

During the campaign for civil rights, Coretta Scott King did more than support her husband, she worked as his peer; giving speeches in her husband's stead and traveling to Geneva on behalf of Women's Strike for Peace as a delegate at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva in 1962. Mrs. King maintained her passion for music throughout this turbulent period, often giving concerts on behalf of civil rights. In May 1968, only months after her husband's assassination, Coretta Scott King took up his place in the Poor People's March to Washington. That year, Mrs. King founded the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, the first institution built in memory of an African American leader.

Mrs. King was also instrumental in the establishment of the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Holiday. After personally leading an enormous education campaign and seeking an Act of Congress, Mrs. King oversaw the first national observance of the holiday to honor her husband in 1986. In 1974, she formed the Full Employment Action Council, a coalition of over 100 organizations dedicated to full employment and equal economic opportunity. In 1983 Mrs. King gathered over 800 human rights organizations on the 20th Anniversary of the historic March on Washington in the Coalition of Conscience. While protesting apartheid in 1985, Mrs. King and three of her children were arrested outside the South African embassy in Washington, DC. Nearly a decade later, she stood in Johannesburg as Nelson Mandela was inaugurated as the new President of South Africa.

Throughout her life, Coretta Scott King remained a devoted promoter of positive social change. Despite grief and constant sacrifice, she continued to lend her voice to issues of social justice, human equality, and democratic progress. Mrs. King advocated for a more open- minded global community.

The world is better because of Coretta Scott King. She affected countless lives and her voice will be deeply missed, especially by those who carry on her incredible undertaking.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is appropriate that we are providing for suspension of the rules, since we learned yesterday that the President has suspended the law regarding spying on American citizens. I heard one of our colleagues earlier say that it was the law. I would remind him that this House has passed no such measure permitting spying on American citizens, even babies know that.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has already noted, this rule will permit the House to consider nine pieces of legislation under suspension of the rules. While I will not oppose this rule and intend to support the nine bills to which the rule applies, and I say that advisedly, taking into consideration the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my distinguished colleague, who will explain in detail the circumstances regarding Labor-HHS and the drastic implications for the finances of certain agencies.

I am deeply concerned that the House is again operating outside the boundaries of regular order.

For the last year, my friends in the Republican leadership have consistently convened the House a mere 3 days a week, occasionally 4. They have regularly sent Members home earlier than anyone else in this country gets off work. Sure, I certainly, and I believe all of us, appreciate going home a few hours earlier during the week. But forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I am not the most sympathetic Member when the leadership cries legislative crisis time and time again over situations that it created.

There is a better way to run this body, and the Republicans continue to show that they are incapable of leading the House in an efficient and regular manner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, at this particular moment I am privileged to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I hope that the general body heard and understood Mr. Obey's explanation, the fact remains that it would devastate programs in this country that people are totally relying upon; and, more importantly, my friends who espouse their support of the military, put the military in a position of not being able to do advanced procurement and to live at restrictive levels. That is not right. Therefore, we need to pay particular attention to the continuing resolution.

I would urge Members to be prepared to come back for this particular measure, in light of the explanations offered by my colleagues Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and Mr. Obey.

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions

I thank my friend, the distinguished Rules Committee member from Massachusetts, for yielding me time.

Last night I made the statement in the Rules Committee that I would not participate in the debate. I do not intend when the debate begins to have anything to say, and quite frankly if I had the wherewithal, I would ask my colleagues on the Democratic side not to say anything as well. But I do know a little bit now, having served on the Rules Committee for a little while, about closed rules, and I know when we have closed rules, we restrict democracy.

We come here to advocate for democracy in Iraq, as rightly we should. But I come this morning to advocate democracy for the Members of the House of Representatives who have a different point of view that needs to be heard regarding this important matter having to do with our Nation. Like my friend and mentor, Tom Lantos, I feel that there will be division as a result of the resolution as filed. I quite frankly am a bit surprised that so many people in the majority who argue that the war should not be politicized have done an act, although subtle and nuanced, that is as political as most things that we do here.

I do not decry politics. That is what we do for a living. But when it comes to this Nation, we all have a responsibility to stand together. There is no one in this Congress that does not support the military of the United States in every aspect of what it has done. There is no one in this Congress that wants us to fail in achieving victory in Iraq and anywhere that terror exists in this world. We have a vested interest in that. We have a natural right to pursue that particular interest.

But to fashion a resolution that ignores the language that Mr. Lantos offered, that does precisely the same thing with civility all throughout it, I cannot imagine that we have passed yet another closed rule and that we have restricted a sensible, civil resolution offered by Mr. Lantos, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Hoyer.

In that light, I consider it to be the kind of act that is seemingly becoming the pattern with so many people in this House who represent so many constituents who are not being heard.

Mr. Speaker, in 20 seconds I put to the Chair a simple question: If this resolution is so simple and noncontroversial, why did it come through the Rules Committee? And is it not true that Mr. Lantos' resolution is also simple, and there was nothing to preclude the Committee on Rules from hearing the Lantos matter, had you chosen? And are you not the greatest exemplar of not having closed rules, Mr. Chairman?

I thank the chairman for not answering my question.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, at several points during my remarks I am going to refer to Ellis Island, and I am going to begin today by citing Emma Lazarus, who wrote the poem ``The New Colossus'' in 1883. Twenty years later, it was engraved on a bronze statue in New York in the harbor.

What Miss Lazarus said at the beginning of her poem is, ``Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, with conquering limbs astride from land to land; here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand a mighty woman with a torch, whose flame is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand glows worldwide welcome.''

She goes on to say, ``Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!'' With silent lips she cried. ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.''

Emma Lazarus understood the dynamics of America, as did those who went through Ellis Island and those of us that visit there to draw our strength in the diversity of this Nation.

Today, we come to put a cover over that torch and a blindfold on that lady and toss all of those magnificent notions of diversity and this great golden door right out into the Hudson. Or maybe it is the Potomac River that we do so today.

I rise to express my strong opposition to this restrictive rule, the second in as many days, for a xenophobic bill masked in catchy phrases, such as ``border control'' and ``homeland security.''

This restrictive rule blocks all but a select few from offering amendments to the underlying legislation. The chairman of the Rules Committee was in here a minute ago and said that they have made more Democratic measures, speaking of the entirety of the session, in order than Republican measures. Well, that does not hold for this particular party in part B, a very confusing process, I might add, which even the majority leader recognized.

Republicans are again allowing important and critical debates to happen behind the closed doors of the Republican Conference rather than on the House floor in the eye of the public.

What did you all talk about yesterday for all them hours that you could not bring this mess out here to the floor?

Under this rule, 18 of the 115 possible amendments, that would now make 33 of 130, could be considered or actually made in order. Two of those will be offered by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the author of the underlying legislation. As if that is not offensive enough, only four of the 18 amendments permitted in order in the rule will be offered by Democratic Members.

Then again, Democrats should not be surprised that our amendments have again been blocked from consideration. After all, President Bush, a Republican, could not even get his legislation proposal through the House Rules Committee.

President Bush, one day in July of 2001, in remarks at Ellis Island, in part said the following: ``The Founders themselves decided that when they declared independence and wrote our Constitution. You see, citizenship is not limited by birth or background.''

We have an amendment dealing with that here today. ``America at its best is a welcoming society. We welcome not only immigrants themselves, but the many gifts they bring and the values they live by. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants take the oath of citizenship every year.''

And I have had, me, I have had the pleasure of seeing them in tears, with their hands raised, on numerous occasions when I served in the Federal judiciary. And my colleagues in the Federal judiciary will tell you there is no greater feeling, except perhaps when we, in other roles as judges, are helping people to adopt a child, than to see a person adopt this country as their own.

``Each has come not only,'' President Bush says, ``to take, but to give. They come asking for a chance to work hard, support their families, and to rise in the world. And together they make our Nation more, not less, American. Immigration is not a problem to be solved, it is a sign of a confident and successful nation. And people who seek to make America their home should be met in that spirit by representatives of our government. New arrivals should be greeted not with suspicion and resentment but with openness and courtesy.''

I hope throughout the debate people hearken to the great commander in chief of this country.

At 6 a.m. this morning, 6 a.m., Mr. Speaker, those of us on the Rules Committee with our colleagues in the majority voted along party lines against the President and rejected an amendment that would have made the Kolbe-Berman-Gutierrez-Flake guest worker visa amendment in order.

Less than 24 hours ago, the chairman of the Rules Committee, my good friend from California, stood on this very floor noting that the Republican leadership was committed to debating the President's proposal during consideration of the underlying legislation.

Yet on two separate occasions when presented with opportunity to fulfill their empty promises, my friends in the majority balked. I guess old habits are hard to break.

We can only hope that encouraging the spread of democracy into the House of Representatives will be the Republican New Year's resolution for 2006. Later we are going to vote on spreading democracy in Iraq. I hope all of that works, but I sure would like to see more of it come to the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, this morning south Florida newspapers include a story about 20 Haitians being found last night in a boat just north of the district in West Palm Beach that I am privileged to serve. Upon boarding the boat, which had left Port-au-Prince roughly 10 days ago in search of safety from political turmoil, customs officials noticed that they had no food or water, and that the day before many of them had fallen dreadfully ill, including the children.

While the 20 hopeful immigrants were all taken into custody and will eventually be deported back to Haiti, I tell this story because it happens too often in the district that I am privileged to serve and in south Florida generally.

In the Southwest of our great country, they come on foot. In Florida, they come by boat. People go to extreme lengths and take enormous risks just to get here. Once before in Boynton when a group of Haitians had washed up on shore, I stepped over the body of a naked pregnant Haitian woman and I thought to myself, my God, what kind of courage does it take to try to get away from despotism, to try to get away from political turmoil, to get on a boat and come here the way that she and others that died in that event had done?

In no way do I or any Member of this body, that is Republican or Democrat, condone illegal immigration, but if Congress is going to have this debate, we ought to consider why people are willing to risk their lives to come to the United States. It is not always to bilk our social programs or to steal an American job, it is for all of the things that Emma Lazarus, and President Bush described her emblem being at the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, and President Bush speaking there, as I quoted earlier. It is for safety and for security and for a better life.

Building a fence around the country, which some have advocated, is not going to deter people from coming here illegally, but reforming a system which requires literally years to process work visa applications will. Authorizing more border security personnel also will not deter people from coming here illegally, but ending double-standard immigration policies will.

Yesterday I talked about how much hypocrisy exists inside our immigration measures. We have wet foot, dry foot, up foot, down foot, all kinds of policies that seem to come at the whim of whomever the director is at any given time, be they Democrat or Republican.

The system is broken. Nevertheless, the policy solutions in the underlying legislation will never end these failures because they do not even address them, not to mention the fact that they are not going to see the light of day. They are Black Flag dead in the United States Senate. Instead, they are extreme ideas aimed more at catering to the lowest common denominator of the majority's political base than providing practical, commonsense solutions to a real issue in America.

`` `Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she with silent lips. `Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.' ''

What she knows as she puts the new colossus before us is that this Nation's strength comes through that golden door, and many of the persons that we will talk about today as if they are objects have made more than valuable contributions.

Many of our ancestors who were brought here, others who were forced to come here, others who came of their own volition have gone on to make this Nation the great Nation that it is. I beg my colleagues to reject this restrictive rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and privileged to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) that doubtless has significant wisdom with regard to the matter we are debating.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), who has an extraordinary amount of experience in the area that we are debating.

Mr. Speaker, pretending that we are dealing with the problem is not dealing with the problem. This bill is going nowhere fast, end of story.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my distinguished friend and your fellow colleague from Georgia could not resist, I see he joined us. Maybe I could talk some ``Savannah talk'' and ``Brunswick talk'' to get him to understand that people come through those areas, too, as I am sure he is mindful.

Mr. Speaker, basically what we have here is enforcement, but none of the compassion that President Bush has been speaking about.

Let me tell you what the President said. I quoted him on Ellis Island, and he was eloquent on Ellis Island in July of 2001. But August 24, the same year, here is what the President said in part: ``And I remind people all across our country, family values do not stop at the Rio Bravo. There are people in Mexico who have got children who are worried about where they are going to get their next meal from, and they are going to come to the United States if they think they can make money here. That is a simple fact. And they are willing to walk across miles of desert to do work that some Americans won't do, and we have got to respect that, it seems like to me, and treat those people with respect.''

We ought to treat ourselves with respect and have comprehensive immigration reform, and not some piecemeal bumper sticker stuff that is not going to do anything other than give people an opportunity to go home to

say that we did something about immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what we are doing: We are going to create fear and confusion in the realm. And it is not all about 11 million illegal people, it is about a number of circumstances having to do with that knock on the door.

Defeat this rule.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, Mr. McGovern, my distinguished friend from Massachusetts; my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the State of Washington; and I were in 6 hours of hearings yesterday on something called border security, anti- terrorism, and illegal immigration, and we came here this morning at 7 a.m., ostensibly to pass out the rules necessary to hear that bill. Until 15 minutes ago, I was on this floor of this House waiting to hear that bill.

I ask my colleagues in the majority: Where is this terribly onerous, atrocious bill? Why do you not pull it? The reason that we are not taking it first, rather than what we are now patching up as pensions, and caution to America, what we are about to see is protection of CEOs with their golden parachutes while workers and their pensions are getting a brass shaft.

But that is not my point I want to make. What I want to say is we are getting ready to create fear and confusion, and there is substantial confusion on the majority side in light of the fact that they are shifting from this bill to that bill and not dealing with the things we need to do and get on out of here.

We do not need to do this immigration and border security bill, and I hope that your confusion led you to the same conclusion and that you will pull that sucker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my friend, for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough to advise both sides as to the remaining time?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive rule and the underlying legislation which is nothing more than a xenophobic attack on immigrants who were in search of a better way of life for them and their children.

The United States has long been a shining example of inclusion and diversity. Even in some of our darkest days of intolerance, we have always managed to rise above our differences and fuel the flame beneath the world's melting pot. By resolving these differences, we have cultivated a strong Nation of citizens from around the world.

That is why I find it so troubling that some here today are determined

to extinguish that flame with so-called immigration reform that does little to address current immigration challenges or make our borders safer.

Even worse is the manner by which this legislation is being brought to the floor today. Under the rule, part A, a meager 15 of the 130 amendments that were offered in the Rules Committee are actually made in order. That means that 115 amendments, 115 ideas, 115 voices are all shut out from debate under this rule, and you multiply that by their constituents.

Included in these 115 blocked amendments is an amendment offered by my good friend from south Florida (Mr. Meek) which sought to remedy some of the double standard immigration practices that apply to Haitian immigrants. Also blocked from consideration under the rule are the Sanchez-Conyers substitute and the President's very own guest worker visa program offered by Representatives Kolbe, Berman, Flake and Gutierrez.

I heard the chairman a moment ago say that we should have this guest worker program. Well, he did not put it in this rule, and all we had to do was do that to at least give some credibility to that argument. I was confused as I heard him. I did not know whose side he was on.

Clearly, the autocracy in this Republican-controlled body has reached an all-time high when a Republican President cannot get a vote on his own proposal.

I offered an amendment to the rule this morning at 7 a.m., barely 3 hours ago, that would have made the Kolbe-Berman amendment in order, but Republicans on the Rules Committee, except one, rejected my amendment and blocked this amendment from being considered by the House.

I understand that the House leadership has told many in the majority that it intends to consider the President's proposal on the floor sometime before the House recesses this week. If that is, in fact, the case then why did the chairman of the Rules Committee specifically tell his assembled Republican colleagues this morning to vote against making the President's proposal in order?

Perhaps it is because the majority do not want to consider what they cannot defeat or perhaps they have zero intention of ever considering the Kolbe-Berman amendment.

Whatever the reason, Mr. Speaker, if I had a dollar for every time the Republican leadership promised a Member something and failed to keep that promise since 1995, well, I would be a Republican. Words are cheap until they are backed up with action, and if anybody thinks that this part A is getting ready to have the necessary appropriations to undertake the meager measures on border security, then I have a bridge in Mr. Nadler's general area that I would like to sell them.

Our immigration laws are in dire need of revision. Everybody in this House knows, Mr. Speaker, that our immigration laws are broken. The current system is rife with double standards, quota limit, wet foot-dry foot, air foot-boat foot, student visas, just to name a few.

The bill before us today does absolutely nothing to address these shortcomings in the law. Instead, it is a harsh set of laws that favor heavy-handed enforcement in the guise of protection.

Mr. Speaker, my south Florida-based district staff, as I am speaking, work every single day, and today as I speak there are immigrants lined up throughout the halls of the office that I am privileged to serve, lined sometimes as many as 30 or 40 people deep snake through the hallways of that office. Some came here legally. Others arrived illegally. Regardless, all of them share the same American dream with one another and all of us. Our rich and diverse cultural backgrounds are our strength.

The underlying legislation, however, mocks that diversity and creates a system under which simply applying for citizenship would be risky. Arbitrary factors could deny naturalization on the basis of whether an alien is a person of good, moral character.

If this bill becomes law, anyone who has ever had an illegal presence in the United States will be arrested, convicted of a felony and jailed. Even those who seek asylum from honor killings, human trafficking, and forced prostitution would immediately be branded as felons and thrown into American jails.

This wide net of prosecution is also cast upon American citizens accused of helping, hiring or transporting potential immigrants. We have a wonderful and rich history of churches and philanthropic groups who serve as a lifeline for newly arrived immigrants who diligently seek legal status.

Business owners could also be fined and penalized for not verifying the citizenship of every worker through a new system of stringent checks that is an unfunded mandate at best. These checks would require approximately 7 million American employers to screen almost 140 million workers. These are the people who do not believe in big government.

We owe it to all who live here, whether born on this soil or not, the chance to contribute in a fair and meaningful way that protects our safety, provides for our prosperity and values our distinction.

Let me go back and say that there are people in this country, there are elected officials in this country whose parentage may very well have been brought here under certain circumstances, forced here under others, came here of their own volition, and likely were here illegally. Many of those persons are some of the stellar citizens in our respective communities. I look no further south than my district and can tell you the significant number of Cuban Americans and Haitian Americans that all of us ought be proud they are here and Jamaican Americans, the whole Caribbean basin, many from South America, everybody ain't in this category of 11 million people who we are getting ready to felonize.

We need look no further than our own families to appreciate the richness and diversity of this country. Most of us here today in this House are no more than two to three generations away from an ancestor who traveled to America by boat, plane or even on foot or were brought here by others to work for nothing. Many came at great risk and sacrifice. Thousands died on the way here. They journeyed here not for a free ride but for a better way of life, not for a handout but for a hand up.

I went a few months ago to the Statue of Liberty, and I had my grandson with me. We stood and we looked and he began to understand what it meant more and more. He is 11 years old, and I could see the pride as he thought of his many friends that he goes to school with that come from other countries and his understanding the need for tolerance that that great symbol signifies for this Nation.

As a nation of immigrants, it is beyond irresponsible to address this issue with such closed minds. It is time for us to undertake comprehensive illegal reform, and I urge my colleagues to reject this restrictive rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2

minutes to my classmate and good friend from New York (Mr. Nadler).

(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my good friend and classmate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

Washington, DC, December 15, 2005.

Members of the United States House of Representatives: As

you prepare to debate the rule on H.R. 4437, the ``Border

Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control

Act of 2005,'' the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes this

legislation due to its adverse impact on employers, and asks

that you reject House Resolution 610. The process that led to

the development of this legislation and its consideration on

the floor has been seriously flawed. The Chamber remains

strongly opposed to this legislation.

We have been urging Congress to fix our broken immigration

system for years, which would include securing our borders,

creating an employment verification system that is fast and

reliable, designing a temporary worker program that meets the

future demand for workers, and reasonably addressing the

legal status of the undocumented workers and their families

currently in the United States. With the notable exception of

border security, this bill, particularly the provisions of

Title VII, would make our dysfunctional immigration system

even worse.

The bill mandates that all employers of all sizes comply

with a new government-run electronic/telephonic verification

system to ensure that all employees are authorized to work.

The concept is based on past, very limited pilot projects,

and it is doubtful whether a new mandate of this breadth,

applicable to over seven million employers and over 140

million employees, can realistically be implemented,

particularly under this legislation's deadlines. These pilot

projects were limited to approximately 3,600 employers and

only new hires, while the legislation will also apply to

existing employees. Further, there have been many practical,

documented compliance problems under the program. While

improvements have been made, the extension of this program to

a much broader universe creates serious questions as to its

practicality in the real world. The proposal also includes

massive, in some cases uncapped, increases in penalties

against employers. Paperwork violation penalties are

increased 25 fold--up to $25,000 per individual.

Furthermore, the bill would now transform into a felony

with jail terms what until now has been a civil violation for

unauthorized presence in the United States subject to fines

and deportation. This provision is directly inconsistent with

the President's proposal, which recognizes the economic

contributions of these workers, and that there should be a

pathway for these workers to earn legal status. The debate

over the proper status of these workers should have been left

to the context of comprehensive reform initiatives.

The Chamber continues to support the concept of a workable

verification system as part of a comprehensive reform

package, but new laws that simply place more burdens on

employers through worksite enforcement alone are not the

answer. The Chamber has repeatedly called for legislation to:

1) provide for increased national security and control of our

nation's borders; 2) create an efficient temporary worker

program that allows employers to recruit immigrant workers

when there is a shortage of domestic workers; and 3) provide

legal status for qualified, screened undocumented migrants

now in the country. As the President has stated, all three of

these elements must be part of any initiative.

The Chamber has supported efforts to address these critical

issues, and is dismayed that the House rule essentially

forecloses any meaningful debate on these important areas.

Due to the critical importance of this issue to the business

community and our nation's economy, the Chamber will use the

vote on this rule in our annual How They Voted rankings.

Again the Chamber urges you to vote `no' on House Resolution

610, the rule on H.R. 4437.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten.

Mr. Speaker, the last paragraph of this letter states, ``The Chamber has supported efforts to address these critical issues and is dismayed that the House rule essentially forecloses any meaningful debate on these important areas. Due to the critical importance of this issue to the business community and our Nation's economy, the Chamber will use the vote on this rule in our annual How They Voted rankings. Again, the Chamber urges you to vote no on House Resolution 610, the rule on H.R. 4437.''

The Chamber's display is the same dismay that we have seen in a bipartisan fashion here. It is not that we do not need reform. But what is needed is comprehensive reform. And simply put, we are not reaching that with the legislation that we are making a rule on at this time. And we cannot do that, I might add, with a restrictive rule.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington State (Mr. Hastings) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Sometimes these rules cause confusion when there are two Mr. Hastings managing the rule. So in advance, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my good friend and I want to make sure that there is no confusion.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague has already pointed out the closed rule we are working on today is mandated by the fact that we are dealing with a trade agreement. So I take no issue with the type of rule, on this specific occasion.

However, as I said to Chairman Dreier last night, along with closed rules, trade agreements by our rules are supposed to come to the House floor with 20 hours of debate. I do recognize the limiting aspect with reference to the rule, and this trade agreement is permitted 2 hours.

Chairman Dreier pointed out, rightly I believe, that this U.S.- Bahrain trade agreement is one of the most noncontroversial agreements of this kind to come before Congress in a long time, and as I said, that may be so, but it is also not the point that I wish to carry.

We have had several more controversial trade deals come before the House in recent years where we were also given 2 hours of debate time. More recently, we saw that in two trade agreements. Trade deals should come to the floor under the 20 hours of debate that the law prescribes. If only 5 hours or 5 minutes is what is necessary to pass the bill, so be it, but I see a bad precedent being set. I ask my friends in the majority to let the House work its will, not so much on this bill, but certainly any other in the future that comes before us.

As to this specific trade agreement, as I have already said, it comes to the floor with the support from the administration and both parties in Congress. While I seriously doubt that free trade with the tiny island nation of Bahrain is going to be the rising tide that lifts our flagging economy, after all, trade with Bahrain accounts for only .03 percent of our total trade activity, I also will not try to stand in the way.

It should be noted, however, that despite its small size, Bahrain runs a trade surplus with the United States, joining most other countries in the world. So, what this agreement does is give us one more country the opportunity to sell more of its goods and services here, even more cheaply than it already does. Maybe one day soon, Mr. Speaker, we will find a country that the United States will run a surplus with, instead of the other way around. One can only hope.

I do have one other very serious concern with Bahrain, Mr. Speaker. Until recently, Bahrain continued to enforce the primary aspect of the Arab League boycott against Israel, which bars imports of Israeli- origin goods.

Simply put, the United States should not trade, and certainly not enter into free trade agreements with, nations that discriminate against America's closest and most trusted Middle East ally.

The kingdom of Bahrain now says they will relent. The kingdom now says that it ``recognizes the need to dismantle the primary boycott of Israel and is beginning to achieve that goal.''

Let us be crystal clear, Mr. Speaker. This change of heart is purely economic, and it happened just in the last month. I suspect that it has nothing to do with the fact that an economic embargo based on religion is wrong and an affront to basic human rights.

The fact that the country's parliament has rejected, in the last 6 weeks, the lifting of the embargo, and the kingdom has made it clear that it is not normalizing relations with Israel only further proves my point.

Whatever the reason, I am thrilled that Bahrain will work to end the long-standing ostracism of Israel by its neighbors. It is past time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 538. On the 10-year anniversary of his death, I believe that it is important to think back and honor the life of Yitzhak Rabin, for he was a great figure in the pursuit of worldwide peace and stability in the Middle East. During his two terms as Prime Minister of Israel, Rabin attempted to work and negotiate with then Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yassar Arafat to bring about a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Rabin's service to the nation of Israel began with his work in the Israeli Defense Forces. Rabin rose to the position of Chief of Staff, and under his command, Israel was able to successfully defend itself against its neighboring states during the Six-Day War. Following his retirement from the IDF, in 1968 Rabin was chosen to serve as ambassador to the United States. In 1973 he was elected to the Knesset. Only one year later, Rabin was chosen to be the leader of the labor party, eventually being elected Prime Minister of Israel. During the early 1990s, in Rabin's second run as Prime Minister, he made it a priority to solve the Palestinian conflict. His tireless efforts on that behalf led to the Oslo Accord. For his efforts Rabin was awarded the Noble Peace Prize.

As we all know, Prime Minister Rabin was murdered in Tel Aviv by a citizen who did not support his efforts towards achieving peace. I had the opportunity, along with President Clinton and several other Members of Congress, to attend his funeral in Israel. It was one of the most deeply moving ceremonies to which I have ever been.

We remember Yitzhak Rabin today as a great man who worked his whole life to protect and strengthen the free state that is Israel. His memory inspires us to continue the progress for global peace. It is crucial that his memory and influence is not forgotten a decade after his tragic assassination.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for yielding me time. I also thank him for bringing the real Florida orange juice to the 7 a.m. rules meeting this morning.

I oppose this closed rule, Mr. Speaker, and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I wondered to myself earlier this morning as the Rules Committee majority members passed yet another closed rule which stifles debate and shuts off meaningful contributions from Members of this Chamber.

What is the problem? Congress has only had since January 3 of this year to complete work on the 12 annual appropriations bills, the so- called ``must pass bills'' that Congress works on every year.

In case anyone is unclear, so far the President has signed only five of the 12 appropriations bills that must pass and become law before September 30. Defense appropriations? Not done. Military quality of life and Veterans Affairs? Not done. Transportation, Treasury, HUD? Not done. Of course, the bill which funds this very institution, the legislative branch appropriations legislation, well, we did that to protect our branch.

And the sad part? No one is to blame but the party in control. It is an irrefutable fact, the last time that there was sole Democratic control of Congress and the White House, all 13 appropriations bills were passed by September 30. We had a balanced budget. And oh, yes, budget surpluses as far as the eye at that time could see.

My, how times have changed. Now we have debt as far as the eye can see and disdain from much of the rest of the world. The people here are the modern day incarnations of Nero. The majority fiddles while the Nation burns.

More than 45 days have passed since Congress passed its last continuing resolution, 48 to be exact; and in that time, Republicans have managed to pass a measly three of the ten outstanding appropriations bills at the time of the last continuing resolution. In baseball, their batting average would be pretty good. But in the real world where salaries and promotion are based on accomplishments and contributions, getting done 30 percent of what you are supposed to get done is absolutely abysmal. In any other job in America, 30 percent would get you fired. It should here too, Mr. Speaker, and I hope America is paying attention.

So I ask, what in the world have the majority Members been doing over the last month and a half that they cannot get these constitutionally- mandated appropriations bills done on time?

We know that they have not dealt with FEMA. I have been trying to get them to deal with FEMA since the agency messed up Florida recovery efforts in the year 2004. And now look at where their neglect got us. Republicans have not dealt with the national security leaks in the Bush White House. They have not dealt with increasing access to health care or investing in affordable housing for low and moderate incomes. They have not dealt with unemployment in this Nation.

In fact, this morning the chairman of the Rules Committee said to us that we have ``full employment'' in this Nation. He identifies that as 6 percent. I guess there is no one looking for a job in San Dimas where he is from or the greater Los Angeles area.

So forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I feel it unnecessary to grant Republicans another 30 days to fix a problem that they, one, created on their own, and two, have shown zero ability that they are capable of leading our country in a responsibly fiscal manner.

The problem is not Hurricanes Katrina or Wilma or other disasters. It is not even the failing war in Iraq. The problem Republicans have is their beloved tax cuts that 95 percent of the people in this country barely benefit from. Their problem is themselves and their failed fiscal policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would inform my good friend from Florida that getting up for a 7 a.m. Rules Committee does not alter my temperament. The suggestion that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should have completed their work by September 30 is mandated by our responsibilities here in the House of Representatives. And I find it disingenuous to speak of the other body, which I heartily endorse what my colleague said with reference to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in this House of Representatives but the other body is controlled by the majority. The White House is controlled by the majority. And it is y'all that have it all. And so under the circumstances, it is your responsibility to have done it by September 30.

To answer the gentleman, what we would have done perhaps if we did not go home for Thanksgiving and take Thanksgiving dinner up here. The gentleman asks for another date or debate about this continuing resolution, doubtless what we would have been able to do is stay here and that may have lit a fire under some of the people in the other body who need to get their work done.

We have all sorts of problems in this Nation and there is no reason for us not to complete our work.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I join the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my colleague, in asserting that we should stay here and complete the task that is before us.

I say to my very good friend from Florida that your and my chairman of the Rules Committee speaking about closed rules in another time made the following statement, that closed rules are anathema to democracy.

When you argue that we are going to have time to do this, when we take the budget deficit matter up, what you are talking about is 1 hour on the rule, 1 hour on general debate, you say 2 hours, I will accept that, on general debate, 10 minutes in the motion to recommit, and that then is what 435 Members and five delegates have that they can deal with in terms of time.

The problems pointed out by my friend from Oregon are significant, and the things that you have heard me say in the Rules Committee, the things that disturb me and distress me most are these things having to do with education.

No one can tell me that they are not prepared to make the sacrifices for our children to have afterschool programs; and yet, what we are going to find in that program are substantial cuts. There are no afterschool programs in the counties that I represent.

In Medicaid, it is no secret what is about to happen. When we cut Medicaid, any way you cut it, you can slice it, dice it any way you want, States, get ready, because you are getting ready to have a significant problem with tax increases at that level.

What part of national sacrifice do we not understand? What part of closed rule that I heard so often in 1992 does the majority not understand that that does not give the Members of this body the opportunity to come forward with amendments that might make sense with reference to fiscal responsibility here in the House of Representatives?

Those are some of the issues.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield just for a quick correction?

Mr. Speaker, that is Worth Avenue in Palm Beach, not West Palm Beach. Our colleague Mark Foley represents that area, a Republican.

I represent Pahokee and Belle Glade, which are also in Palm Beach, and you are talking about no tax base. I just want to have that correction made.

In private schools.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Emergency Generators for Electric Needs (E-GEN) Act of 2005.

More than 3 million Floridians were without power following Hurricane Wilma, some for well over three weeks. Few had electric generators of their own, leaving them dependent on the ability of power and utility companies to efficiently repair damaged infrastructure and make any necessary repairs.

Tens of thousands of seniors in South Florida who were relatively well-off before Hurricane Wilma quickly became vulnerable when the power went out after Wilma. Many of the buildings where they lived were old, ill-equipped and unable to generate emergency power, placing their lives in immediate risk.

According to various dealers, the costs of portable emergency power generators typically range between $1,000 and $3,000 depending on the wattage. Industrial-sized generators can cost upwards of $50,000. For many residents and communities, these costs are not affordable. The E- GEN Act enables individuals and communities to become self-sufficient when the power goes out. Under the bill, 75 percent of the cost of the purchase and installation of the generator would be eligible for reimbursement in the form of a tax credit. The credit cannot be used in conjunction with other emergencies reimbursements.

For individual homeowners, the credit is not to exceed $2,500. For businesses, condominium associations, senior communities, and others, the tax credit is not to exceed $60,000. These credits are vital to alleviate the problems disaster victims face, especially the elderly and infirm, when utility power disruptions prevent the use of essential items such as lighting, refrigeration, elevators, medical supplies, and heating and air conditioners.

Threats of natural and man-made disasters are on the rise. These events require proactive mitigation to protect the public from even larger catastrophes until order is restored. Credits used to purchase emergency generators through the E-GEN Act will save the government money and effort ordinarily used to provide shelters and temporary housing for displaced residents. If we can keep people's power on after a disaster then we can also protect their health and emotional well- being, while also keeping them in the comfortable confines of their own homes, instead of laid out on some cot in a shelter.

A lack of power contributed significantly to the problems that existed in South Florida during and after the 2004 hurricanes and again following Hurricane Wilma. This legislation will help cover the costs for individuals, adult communities and businesses who want to purchase emergency generators but can't afford them.

I ask for my colleagues' support and urge the House Leadership to bring it swiftly to the House floor for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great disappointment that the House is being asked again to consider legislation under a restrictive rule. My good friend from Florida said that the will of the House will be expressed here today. I query him as to how that will occur under a restrictive rule.

Under this rule, only a limited number of amendments will be offered by a select few. There are many who will argue that this legislation, when considered, is noncontroversial. If that is the case, then why not make this an open rule?

Or perhaps the question ought to be, Why are we considering this bill at a time when the House should be considering legislation that increases veterans benefits, invests in affordable housing, and ensures that our country's neediest have access to affordable health care under Medicare and Medicaid? The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, none of these issues are being debated on this floor today because my colleagues in the majority are too busy cutting backroom deals that will cut Federal funding in each of these critically important areas as well as other areas of import. I just spoke with a group of foreign service officers who were pointing out to me some of the cuts that will take place in places where they are scheduled to go.

The majority knows that they are wrong on all of these issues, and that is why they do not want to debate us on them. So, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves at this moment on the floor of the House debating a bill that I would think my friends on the other side of the aisle would say reeks of hypocrisy and overarching Federal Government interference. Are not Republicans the ones who claim that they are the party of States' rights? Are not Republicans the ones who claim that States are more effective in regulating what happens within their own State? Are not Republicans the ones who claim that another Federal commission trumping State commissions already in existence is nothing more than unnecessary bureaucracy? Are not Republicans federalists?

But Republicans are not saying these things. Instead, some are trying to divert attention away from the things on a much larger scale that actually matter.

Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to say that a problem does not exist in the sport of boxing. My friend mentioned one Kid. Mention to him another, Kid Gavilan, who died in our area and of my good friend, Representative Diaz-Balart, a shoeshine man after fighting some of the better fights in two divisions with some of the better fighters in the world at some point. So there are a lot of things to be said from people receiving too many blows upside their heads. In the last decade, amateur and professional boxing has grown into a multibillion dollar business. Promoters, cable companies, and the sporting industry as a whole reap big ticket sales from the sweat and toil of young athletes.

Yet those who actually step into the ring often find an entirely different opponent outside the ring, as Kid Gavilan did. Many boxers find those who claim to be in their corner have made dirty deals and shortcuts that undermine a boxer's earnings and in some cases their health. Contracts are often broken or exploited. Injuries and adequate medical care are sometimes overlooked. These are important issues that should be dealt with, but not by this body and not in this manner.

The solution would seem to be a crackdown on State commissions that woefully fail to enforce their own rules and regulations. Better yet, maybe we need a national sports commission to regulate all sports that Congress all of a sudden wants to regulate.

First it was baseball; and we really did clean up baseball and steroids. That is gone. We do not have that as an issue any more. And now it is boxing. What next? The National Hockey League or the National Football League?

All of these sports in some ways are violent, and we hear stories every year about athletes being injured, paralyzed and even killed. What about the Ultimate Fighting Championships, where

they put people in cages and then knock each other's brains out? Or World Wrestling Entertainment business where a lot of people wind up after careers in that field with broken bodies because they missed the trick at a given point? Or even our own United States Olympic Committee? If we are doing this about corruption, I can think of few sports committees in history as corrupt as the Olympic Committees. However, that is not what we are doing today.

In the grand scheme of things, we have more important issues to deal with: a failing war in Iraq, skyrocketing prescription drug prices, our own citizens displaced by a recent torrent of natural disasters in my good friend from Florida's district and my district alone, and continuing unethical behavior from executive and legislative branches of our government, including national security leaks.

All of these issues and so many more need to be higher priorities in our work today, but this body is silent on all of them. On behalf of the American people, I say, speak up. The silence is deafening. It is time that my friends in the majority stop wasting our time with bills that neglect those in need and divert attention from the failures of this body over the last decade. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation that does little, if anything, to promote the general welfare of our great Nation.

One of the arguments that was made is if we do not regulate this from a national level, what is going to happen is boxing will go on venue shopping. I pointed out yesterday that Ali fought the Thriller in Manila and in addition to that fought the Rumble in the Jungle, so if we regulate it from the Federal level, what is going to stop them from going abroad to rope-a-dope?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of one of the most important figures in our Nation's history: Mrs. Rosa Parks. In 1955, this courageous and gallant young lady took a stand. Or more correctly, took a seat, on a public bus in Montgomery, Alabama. Her refusal to give up her seat to a white man may have resulted in a disorderly conduct conviction and a $14 fine. But her refusal to move to the back of the bus ignited a flame that started a revolution. She brought forth change among the American people. The consequences and significance of her stand makes her a true hero in American history.

We always hear how Mrs. Parks refused to give up her seat because she was tired from a long day of work, but this is only a half truth. Yes, she was tired. But Rosa Parks' weariness came not only from a hard day's work, but also from years of discrimination that she and our people faced daily due to the racist and segregationist laws of our country. She knew that blacks were required to give their seats to white passengers if there were no more empty seats. But Rosa Parks made a conscious decision to fight. All of us here today, white, brown, black and blue, are better off today because Rosa Parks said, ``No.''

Rosa Parks' arrest served as a catalyst for a massive 381 day boycott of the public buses in Montgomery, which was led by another great individual, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. During this time, African Americans would carpool, walk, bike, taxi, or do whatever else they had to do to get to their various destinations. They did everything, but ride the bus. Despite the harassment that everyone involved in the civil rights movement faced, the boycott continued and was successful. Resolution was finally achieved in 1956 when the case was brought to court, and the segregation of buses was ruled unconstitutional. As we all know, what Rosa Parks jump started in 1955, eventually led to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights act of 1965.

During her lifetime, Mrs. Parks worked for the equality of not just black people, but all people. She was elected secretary of the Montgomery branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, unsuccessfully attempted to vote many times to prove her point of discrimination, and founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development, an organization which aids in the social and educational development of our youth.

Rosa Parks demonstrated that one person can help so many other people by standing up for what they believe in. While we grieve her death, we also celebrate her life. We must remember her actions inspired others to dream more, learn more, and do more. With that, we all become more. A great man once said, ``All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common; it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.'' Great leaders of the time, such as Rosa Parks, were tired of the inequality, and tired of the disparity that African Americans were facing at that time.

She challenged; she led; she served; and she inspired. Rosa Parks died with honor and principle. We have, but no other option, to live our lives in a manner which honors and mirrors the virtues she pursued with absolute courage and bravery.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel. Not in recent time have we heard such a repugnant statement made by an international leader. And I stand here today with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to declare that the United States Congress will not sit idly by while Iran threatens Israel with anti-Semitic, racist, and dangerous threats.

Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has sought to live in peace with its neighbors. It has signed peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, and continues to seek a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

On the contrary, Iran continues to seek instability in the Middle East. For Iran's dictatorial regime, instability is power. Its actions combined with its anti-Semitic and anti-Western statements seek to accomplish nothing more than incite hate and violence in the region. President Ahmadinejad's comments represent Iran's long-term goal of violently destroying Israel. Most despicable about these statements is that Iranian leaders make them ``in the name of Allah.'' They attempt to manipulate the text of the Koran from its words of peace into directives of extremism and intolerance, tainting the world's views of the religion.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Iran are calling out for freedom from the tyrannical regime which holds them hostage. While it is not the role of the United States to free the people of Iran, it is certainly our job to support them--and we will when they and their leaders choose democracy over autocracy and instability. Until then, the United States will never stand by when Iranian threats are levied at Israel or any other democracy in the world. The world can always count on that.