Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 175, a resolution acknowledging African descendants of the transatlantic slave trade in all of the Americas and recommending that the United States and the international community work to improve the situation of Afro-descendant communities in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The early history of the Americas is plagued with immeasurable acts of violence and inhumane cruelties. The establishment of the transatlantic slave trade is merely one of numerous blemishes that remain a part of our troubled past. From the late fifteenth through nineteenth centuries, an estimated ten million Africans were abducted, bound and shipped as human cargo to the Americas.

These men, women and children were used to build the foundation of nations spanning Latin America, North America and the Caribbean. Words can hardly do justice to the struggle these individuals faced on a daily basis. Working endless hours through unbearable conditions, African slaves constantly fought a losing battle to survive. Though disbanded several hundred years ago, the legacy of this institution remains imbedded in our societies even today.

African descendants throughout the Americas have historically suffered from societal and governmental marginalization. In the United States, African descendants experience disproportionately high infant mortality, illiteracy and poverty rates. As a nation, we have worked to fight against these racial disparities, yet they continue to persist.

Only recently have similar trends been analyzed and acknowledged in Latin American and Caribbean countries. This fight is ongoing both at home and abroad. We must extend our reach beyond domestic policy to advance an international discussion of racial issues.

Though America aspires to lead the world in the realm of economic policies and technological innovation, it constantly falls short of promoting racial equality. As pioneers in all other industries, it is our duty to be at the forefront of all efforts geared towards amending the social and economic disparities that continue to haunt African descendants in the Americas.

The largest number of Afro-descendants living outside of Africa can be found in Latin America and the Caribbean. These individuals share in our early history and suffer from the residual effects that are evidenced in our own communities. It is equally our responsibility to aid and assist Latin American and Caribbean nations' efforts to overcome their institutionalized racial disparities. Our common past will forever link our futures.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution serves as a reminder of the history shared amongst the Americas. The emancipation of all men, though boldly declared by many nations throughout the nineteenth century, remains to be realized. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution as a necessary step in addressing the racial inequities that persist in North America, Latin America and the Caribbean.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive rule. At a time when America's role in international affairs is greater than it has been in over 60 years, it is reprehensible that the majority is trying to block all but a select few from offering amendments to improve the underlying bill.

Yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee, 70 amendments were brought to the committee. Seventy amendments, Mr. Speaker. Predictably, under the rule, barely 50 percent of those amendments were actually made in order. And of the 39 amendments made in order under the rule, only nine of them are Democratic amendments. In stark contrast, Republican Members will be permitted to offer 24 amendments under this rule, almost three times as many as those on this side of the aisle will be able to offer. And of those 24 amendments, two are downright inflammatory and completely unnecessary.

For starters, as public support for the war in Iraq wavers, Republicans are pulling out every political maneuver they can to regain the support of the American people for a war that has not uncovered any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and certainly not made us any safer today than we were 3 years ago. Later today, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) will offer an amendment in direct contrast to language that her committee unanimously included in the underlying legislation regarding the war in Iraq. The bill rightfully urges the President to develop and provide to Congress a plan for the establishment of a stable government in Iraq that will permit a decreased presence. Three years after this war began and 1,700 American casualties later, the Ros-Lehtinen amendment would provide the President with the same blank-check, open-ended support that got us into this mess in the first place. Have we not learned anything?

Additionally, the rule also fails to make in order amendments offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) regarding Haiti. While I am not 100 percent supportive of any of their approaches toward bringing about peace and stability in Haiti, doing nothing should not be an option. Congressional silence in improving the lives of Haitians and Haitian refugees is completely unacceptable. I am deeply disappointed that the Republican leadership has blocked the House from debating the issue today.

Realize, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the underlying bill is generally a decent bill. As a member of the Helsinki Commission and as the president of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's parliamentary assembly, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for the bill's commitment to the United States' role in the OSCE and the OSCE sphere, including authorizations for OSCE religious tolerance and anti-Semitism awareness programs.

The underlying legislation includes crackdowns on the trading of nuclear material on the black market, establishes the Rangel Fellowship Program to encourage minority recruitment at the State Department, reexamines our export control laws, reaffirms Congress' position that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and calls for a crackdown on terrorist activities in the Gaza strip and West Bank.

Despite all of these positive measures, Mr. Speaker, I am most concerned about what the bill does not do regarding the Sudan. The underlying legislation includes a sense of Congress that the United States should work with the International Criminal Court to bring to justice those accused of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. I support this provision but am deeply disappointed that nothing exists in the bill that will actually bring an end to the genocide in Sudan. When will the United States say enough is enough and do the right thing to end the heinous act of genocide in Darfur? Our inaction in Rwanda cost the lives of nearly 1 million and our absence in Darfur has permitted instability to manifest itself into murder and ethnic cleansing. I ask, at what point did we decide that the life of an African is worth less than the life of anyone else? We must place ending genocide anywhere in the world above anything else. Frankly, the ignorance in the House about this particular issue is appalling.

Mr. Speaker, when history judges this Congress and this President, we will be judged not only by what we do during these trying times but also by what we have neglected. America must act responsibly not only in helping to facilitate democracy in the world but also in combating poverty, disease, famine and hunger in the world's poorest countries. In all of these areas, despite the honest efforts of a few, we are failing. Blocking Members from offering amendments that speak to these and many other issues of critical importance to the United States' role in the world today is irresponsible. I urge my colleagues to reject this restrictive rule and take into account my concerns throughout consideration of the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, my good friend and classmate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

I will be asking members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Ros-Lehtinen amendment on Iraq as a separate, freestanding bill with an open amendment process instead of just another amendment to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House have very strong opinions on the war in Iraq. We also have many different viewpoints on our Nation's continued role in that country. But regardless of our individual positions on this conflict, we all support the courageous men and women who put their lives on the line every day.

Any vote on Iraq significantly impacts these brave Americans and should not be taken irresponsibly, and it should not be taken for blatantly political purposes. The Ros-Lehtinen amendment, which came to light only yesterday when it was submitted to the Committee on Rules, is a good example of exploiting the current situation in Iraq purely for partisan gain. The original version of this amendment submitted to the Committee on Rules accused opponents of the President's plan, whatever that is, of supporting a ``cut-and-run'' Iraq policy that is a ``craven surrender to terrorism.'' This inflammatory language has now been removed, but it still appears that the sole intention of this amendment is to polarize Members of this House on a crucial question of national security.

Under this rule, Members can only vote up or down, take it or leave it, with no opportunity for amendment or any position except that of the amendment's author.

If we are going to discuss and vote on the U.S. presence in Iraq, it deserves a thorough and respectful debate. We owe our brave young men and women more than a divisive and meaningless sense of Congress resolution.

Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent consideration of the Foreign Relations Authorization bill, and it will not affect any of the other amendments that are in order under this rule.

I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I do need to have an explanation. I am not familiar with this process, and I do not know whether there has been an agreement reached, and I am trying to learn the answer to that.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a concurrent resolution to commend the Philadelphia Coalition for its principled, open, and integrated approach to eradicating racism and intolerance, and for its determination to confront the past and work toward the future.

On June 21, 1964, three brave, upright, and honorable men--James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner--all members of a coalition of civil rights organizations known as the Council of Federated Organizations, drove to Neshoba County, Mississippi to investigate the racially motivated June 16, 1964 burning of Mount Zion Baptist Church in Longdale, Mississippi and the assault on its members. After meeting with members of the Mount Zion congregation, the three civil rights workers were pulled over by a sheriff's deputy in Philadelphia, Mississippi. They were detained on suspicion of burning the same Mount Zion church--a church that, according to later testimony, was burned by Ku Klux Klansmen specifically to lure Mr. Chaney and Mr. Schwerner to Neshoba County. This false charge was clearly fabricated and represented a deliberate attempt to intimidate the young advocates. Unfortunately, it was only the beginning.

What transpired next would change the county, State, and Nation itself. At 10:30 p.m. that night, the men were released and ordered to leave town. However, on the road back to Meridian, Mississippi, Mr. Chaney, Mr. Goodman, and Mr. Schwerner were tailed and subsequently overtaken by a mob of white men. The throng, comprised of law enforcement officials and Ku Klux Klansmen, pulled the three men from their car, drove them to an empty gravel road, and brutally murdered them.

This unconscionable, unprovoked, and vicious attack was coordinated by Edgar Ray Killen, an active member of the Ku Klux Klan. Yet Mr. Killen was not initially brought to justice. He was tried in 1967 for the murders he coordinated, but was not found guilty because one jury member refused to convict a preacher. The truth is, however, that an all-white jury was never going to convict a white man of a racial crime in Philadelphia in 1964, particularly one involving the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan was revered, and even during the 2005 trial, former Philadelphia mayor Harlan Majure stated that the Ku Klux Klan was a ``peaceful organization'' that did much good for Mississippi.

For 41 years, after orchestrating the murder of these three men, Mr. Killen walked the streets of Mississippi, free from prosecution and legal repercussions. For 41 years, the families of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwemer lived in an America that had not afforded them justice. For 41 years, these murders served as a poignant reminder that without action, racism and prejudice will persist, even in this great country.

In March 2005, however, all that began to change, as a task force of city, county, and tribal leaders joined together to form the Philadelphia Coalition. The Coalition was charged with commemorating the lives of the three slain young men. But the Philadelphia Coalition did not merely coordinate a public commemoration, they took a stand for justice, integration, and equality. Demonstrating that it is never too late for justice to be served, the Coalition successfully lobbied for Mr. Killen to be re-tried for the murders he orchestrated. On June 21, 2005, 41 years to the day after his heinous crime and as a direct result of the efforts of the Philadelphia Coalition, Edgar Ray Killen was convicted on three counts of manslaughter.

The real success of the Philadelphia Coalition, however, was not the legal battle. Their true achievement was to strike at the heart of the bigotry and intolerance that Mr. Killen and the Ku Klux Klan represent. Mr. Speaker, the Philadelphia Coalition, significantly, is a multi- racial task force. The Coalition actively integrated black, white, and Choctaw Indian men and women into its ranks. This organizational model of ethnic understanding and racial tolerance, more so than their legal triumph, can and must serve as a model and example for individuals and organizations not only in Mississippi, but throughout the United States. It is imperative that today we learn from their example and that we commend their actions.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 191, a resolution to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the conclusion of the war in the Pacific and to honor veterans of both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters of the Second World War. It is-profoundly important that we remember the sacrifices our troops made in those terrible times. But more than remembering, we must convey the gratitude due to those soldiers who risked their lives in the defense of the innocent, the protection of freedom, and in the name of our great country.

To build a prosperous future, we must work to appreciate our past. It has not always been a peaceful one. From our country's founding over two centuries ago, American soldiers have engaged in many battles to defend our Nation and our way of life. Whether the call has been the defense of democracy, the ending of tyranny, or the protection of innocent civilians all over the world, American soldiers have answered with dignity and honor. This resolution reflects a will to remember the countless sacrifices of our soldiers in one of the most terrible wars of our history.

Aristotle wrote, ``We make war that we may live in peace.'' Never was the need to engage greater than for President Roosevelt's America some 65 years ago. The spread of Nazism led our troops over the Atlantic into the first of what would soon be two major theaters of war. Our Armed Forces crossed the Atlantic to join the allies in an assault of Germany. Then, after the atrocious attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, they crossed the Pacific to engage the Japanese. These dark times witnessed monumental loss of life and called for the greatest levels of sacrifice, both from the troops and the families they left behind. Yet our spirit never wavered, and this country survived one of its greatest tests.

Mr. Speaker, we owe so much of this survival to the quality of our troops. They protected us then as they always have--with honor, courage and resilience. As we enjoy the freedoms afforded to this great Nation, we must remember and celebrate the achievements of our veterans. We are forever grateful for their gift of peace. This is a gift we will never be able to fully repay, but one that continues to engender respect and gratitude. It is the spirit of gratitude that gives birth to this resolution, and in that spirit I am privileged to offer my full support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my fellow citizens to engage in a National Weekend of Prayer and Reflection (in recognition of the genocide occurring in Darfur, Sudan). Our Congress on July 22, 2004 and the Bush Administration on September 21, 2004 has condemned the acts in Darfur as genocide and Congress has appropriately provided humanitarian assistance in Darfur. Today, the House is urging our nation to observe a Weekend of Prayer and Reflection to recognize the atrocities in Darfur. This Weekend of Prayer and Reflection would spread awareness to communities and religious institutions, promote constructive discussion, mourn the lives lost in these dreadful acts, and ultimately call for an immediate end to the genocide.

The current crisis in Darfur began in February 2003 when two groups, The Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), revolted against the Sudanese Government. Since then, the Sudanese government has actively imposed government restrictions and perpetrated violence against their civilians in order to crush this rebellion. The human rights violations which ensued in Darfur are numerous. The Janjaweed militia, backed by the Sudanese government, has committed grievous war crimes, such as rape, child abduction, the destruction of food and water sources, and denying humanitarian assistance to the Darfur region. An estimated 1.9 million people have been displaced and more than 213,000 people have been forced into neighboring Chad. Some observers project that up to 300,000 people have been killed over the past 2 years alone.

The United States has been a leading donor of humanitarian assistance in Darfur. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided an estimated $615 million in humanitarian assistance for Darfur since February 2003. USAID has also established a Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) for Darfur. This monetary assistance is extremely important, but the United States must also make a symbolic stance to condemn the human rights violations in Darfur.

Mr. Speaker, every individual is entitled to the preservation of his and her human rights and human dignity regardless of one's religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or region of birth. The United States has a moral obligation to end the violence in order to curtail the human rights violations in Darfur. Congress must raise awareness and educate our society in order to promote understanding and initiate action. The people of the United States must not only take time to reflect on this tragedy and recognize the ongoing suffering, but we must also call an end to the genocidal acts. I hope all my colleagues join me in supporting the goals and ideals of a National Weekend of Prayer and Reflection for Darfur, Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 71, a resolution supporting the establishment of a Caribbean- American Heritage month. This resolution is admirable and deeply appreciated in its recognition and celebration of the Caribbean- American community and of the contributions that community has made to every sphere of American life.

The American spirit is a tapestry that weaves cultures together, one in which people of all traditions and walks of life convene to better protect and educate one another. The Caribbean-American people are an invaluable part of his tapestry, and their influence has stretched to every field of American society, culture and politics.

The State of Florida is especially indebted to the Caribbean-American community, enjoying one of the largest and most flourishing Caribbean- American populations in the nation. The contributions of this community to Florida's economy, educational system, politics and culture, and indeed to all areas of our society, are of the greatest importance to our state and to our country.

I am so privileged to represent people of virtually every single Caribbean heritage. From Lauderhill to Miramar to West Palm Beach to Oakland Park, I am honored to work on behalf of all of these communities and many more.

As early as the 17th Century, Caribbean men and woen journeyed to find new lives in America. Our regions have endured similarly difficult pasts. We shared a struggle against slavery, we shared a fight for independence, and now we share the strong ties built on social equality and democratic government.

Mr. Speaker, the United States has been profoundly shaped by the achievements of its Caribbean-American citizens. Whether in technology, science, the military, fashion, politics, government, business, education or journalism, the achievements of Caribbean-Americans have been immense and invaluable.

Some of the most revered figures in American art have come from the Caribbean-American community: actors, musicians, politicians, authors, educators and so many others. All of them have played central roles in the cultural development of this country.

This resolution enjoys strong bipartisan support including mine because it is critical for this body to acknowledge and appreciate those who contribute to America's unique and highly respected culture. I am proud to lend my support to this most excellent resolution, I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to report on the successes of the fourteenth annual session of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly which convened in Washington, DC over the first five days of July. Over 800 parliamentarians and staff were in attendance, making it one of the largest assemblies in the Organization's history, and one of the most productive.

The theme of this year's session, ``30 Years since Helsinki: Challenges Ahead'' reminds us of the agreement that founded the OSCE, and the ideals which must guide us through the tests of the future. The Washington Declaration, a compendium of resolutions adopted at this year's session, is a testament to the excellent progress that has been made in central areas of social, economic, and human rights policy. The OSCE has maintained its position at the forefront of some of our world's most critical concerns; eradicating human trafficking, ensuring fair elections, combating social prejudice, and maintaining stable economic relationships between all nations.

Members of both branches of Congress play a central role in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Our delegation offered a resolution entitled ``Combating involvement in trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation and abuse by international peacekeeping forces'' that was adopted into the Washington Declaration. The practice of human trafficking is an affront to humanity, and must not be tolerated. According to the most recent Department of State estimates, between 600,000 and 800,000 people are trafficked across borders each year worldwide, including 14,500 into the United States. Combined with trafficking within countries, the total figure is estimated at between 2 and 4 million. The OSCE, as the world's largest regional security organization, is uniquely positioned to take on this critical issue.

During this year's session, the U.S. delegation made major progress in international trade. Representative Ben Cardin, Ranking Member of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, spearheaded a resolution urging the Mediterranean Partners to work with the Arab League in order to rescind the trade boycott of the State of Israel. The boycott has existed for almost half a century, and it is clear that a healthy economic relationship between the United States, Israel, and the Middle East will be central in the fight for a stable and more peaceful world.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve as the current President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, and delighted to have been elected to a second term. The U.S. delegation was at the forefront of efforts to preserve the quality of the OSCE's election monitoring activities, the battle against anti-Semitism and efforts to set codes of conduct for peacekeepers and international representatives.

We were also privileged to welcome you, Mr. Speaker, and Secretary Rice, to address the Assembly and I am pleased to report that the conference was a major success.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask for unanimous consent that the statement of the Honorable Canadian Senator Jerry Grafstein be added to the Record immediately following this statement. Senator Grafstein was elected to a second term as Treasurer of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, a clear endorsement of his dedication, prudence and fine leadership. I thank him for his kind words, and I thank the whole Canadian delegation for their admirable contributions to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and all four of the underlying pieces of legislation that it encompasses. For those who did not hear me the first time, I said four pieces of legislation under one closed rule.

This is a quadruple coupon day in the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker. Four opportunities to shut off democracy for the price of one. What is perhaps most offensive about the rule is the fact that not one amendment was made in order for any of the four bills. Let me repeat that: Not one amendment was made in order for any of the four underlying bills.

Closed rules are an affront to our democracy. We should stop it now. My outrage and the outrage of all on this side of the aisle is as much about process as it is about policy. Pure partisan politics never produces sound public policy. And patronizing corporate interests to pad one's campaign coffers has no place in the people's House. Yet, that is all the majority seems interested in doing.

The political score Republicans are seeking to settle with their barrage of anti-working-class legislation is not going to be fulfilled by stifling debate and blocking Democrats out of the process. Republicans are calling this the OSHA fairness package. Fair for who? There are only losers with these bills, Mr. Speaker, and the biggest victim is the American worker. All four of the underlying pieces of legislation represent a buffet of rollbacks in our laws governing working conditions.

Mr. Speaker, do we have an overwhelming epidemic in this country of ridiculous and overzealous workplace lawsuits that I do not know about? The judicial process for violations and workplace health and safety standards has been in place for nearly 30 years. It is fair, and most importantly, it protects the rights of workers. Yet, two of the underlying bills affecting OSHA standards are coming as a direct result of recent court rulings that Republicans and their corporate friends do not agree with. The other two are aimed at stacking the OSHA commission with anti-worker commissioners and creating a system where only those who can afford legal representation will be permitted to file a complaint with the Workplace Safety and Health Board.

Mr. Speaker, I do not like the new policy of this Congress which can best be described as ``when the courts rule against you, legislate against the courts.''

Why are we stifling Members from offering thoughtful amendments? Just one example, if I may. The ranking Democrat on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a man who served in this body for 30 years and is known throughout the country as a champion for working- class Americans, Republicans denied him the opportunity to offer a substitute to one of the underlying bills that came out of his committee.

Had the majority made the Miller substitute in order, the House could have done something today that would have actually benefited working- class Americans. We could have had a real debate about increasing the minimum wage to a meager $7.25 an hour.

Realize, this is an amount that while above the current level of $5.15 is significantly below the much needed living wage that is needed to pull someone making the minimum wage 40 hours a week above the poverty line. In blocking the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) from offering his amendment, Republicans are again proving that they are anything but the people's party. Perhaps the majority is blocking what it knows it cannot defeat, or better yet, perhaps the majority is just protecting its members from taking a vote that will show their true colors. Shame on them and shame on this body if it allows this assault on American workers to continue. None of us in this body would want to live on $5.15 an hour. None of us would want to work three jobs just to make ends meet. None of us would want to work three jobs and still have no health care. Yet, that is what we are asking, no, requiring millions of our fellow citizens to do.

When the opportunity to increase the minimum wage presents itself, Republicans blocked House Members from voting on it. At least in the other body, while the leadership opposed an increase in the minimum wage, they at least permitted a vote. Protecting the rights of those most in need is the cornerstone of our great democracy. I refuse to remain silent while those on the other side of the aisle seek to dismiss this cardinal American value.

I urge my colleagues to reject the closed rule and oppose the underlying pieces of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a champion of worker rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

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

Mr. Speaker, I kind of question whether a closed rule is fair, but I hear the chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

First, I heard several times that the matter of the minimum wage is not germane to the four measures included in this one rule. The simple fact of the matter is that an amendment was offered at the Committee on Rules last night and that amendment was voted down on a party-line vote. So at least a discussion during the period of the rule allows the germaneness of the question having to do with the minimum wage, not so much of the substance of the base bill.

I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question, Mr. Speaker, so I can amend the rule and allow the House to vote on the Miller-Owens bill to increase the Federal minimum wage. This amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules, as I just said, last night, but was defeated on a straight party-line vote.

My amendment to the rule would provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring H.R. 2429 to the House floor for an up-or-down vote. This bill will gradually increase the minimum wage for Americans from the current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour after about 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, it is time we in the House started helping American workers instead of taking away their rights as the four underlying bills in this rule do. I think one of the best things we can do to help working families is to increase the minimum wage. It has been nearly 10 years since this Congress has voted to increase the minimum wage, an increase that was signed into law by President Clinton in August of 1996. Since that time, the value of that increase has eroded by 20 percent. A full-time minimum wage earner is working 40 hours a week, makes about $10,700 annually, an amount that is $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.

Clearly we are way overdue for another increase. Somehow we have had time to implement numerous tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, but we have turned our backs on those who work the hardest and are paid the least, those who struggle to make ends meet every day.

I think it is time this Congress developed a conscience and started helping those who need help the most.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can help these 7.5 million American workers who directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the lives and endeavors of eight brave soldiers who perished in the April 24, 1980 rescue attempt of American hostages in Iran. Their courageous, and ultimately fatal, effort was an extraordinary example of bravery and sacrifice. They risked their lives for the sake of the freedom of others. It is important that we remember them and commemorate their effort, not only for the sake of their memory, but for ours as well. These American heroes provide us all with examples of sacrifice and commitment to country, with models of bravery and strength whose attitudes we may attempt to emulate.

On November 4, 1979, a mob of Iranian students, calling themselves Imam's Disciples, seized the United States embassy in Tehran. Out of 90 embassy employees, 66 were taken

captive as hostages. By mid-November, 14 of the hostages--the women and African-Americans--had been released, but 52 remained.

President Jimmy Carter initially attempted to diffuse the situation through diplomatic and economic means. He froze Iranian assets, ceased oil imports from Iran, and expelled numerous Iranians from the United States. Unfortunately, these measures proved unsuccessful, and when the Iranian government issued a set of demands for the release of the hostages, President Carter approved the plan for a secret rescue mission called Operation Eagle Claw. In his words, ``I ordered this rescue mission prepared in order to safeguard American lives and protect America's national interests, and to reduce the tensions in the world that have been caused among many nations as this crisis has continued.''

On April 24, 1980, six C-130 transport planes set off to rendezvous with a group of nine U.S. military helicopters at a remote desert location, southeast of Tehran. Each vessel carried American soldiers ready to do whatever it took to rescue their fellow Americans.

Unfortunately, the rescue was not meant to be. Two helicopters broke down and one was damaged upon landing at the rendezvous point, and the mission was forced to abort. As if the hostages not being saved on that night was not disappointing enough, the real tragedy followed immediately thereafter. One of the helicopters clipped a C-130 transport as it took off. Tragically, the helicopter crashed, killing eight United States servicemen and injuring four others.

Mr. Speaker, these servicemen embarked upon their mission with one objective: to leave no man behind. It is imperative that today we do the same. We must honor the fallen soldiers and their memory. We must learn from their bravery and their determination. We must preserve the memory of each and every one of the courageous men who lost their lives in this valiant effort. In short, Mr. Speaker, we must never forget the sacrifice they made for their fellow soldiers. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a concurrent resolution in support of the goals and aspirations of the International Polar Year. The International Polar Year will allow scientist to create a benchmark for the Polar Regions and study this remote area of the world through all the seasons.

The International Polar Year (IPY), co-sponsored by the International Council of Science (ICSU) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), will run from March of 2007 to March 2008. The IPY will afford an opportunity to engage the upcoming generation of scientists and focus public attention on the importance of the Polar Regions and how much the cold ends of the sphere we all live on really do influence us.

I was recently in Norway and had the opportunity to talk about the significance of the IPY. The recognition of this important issue in all parts of the world further emphasizes why this resolution and issue is so important.

Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution lends Congress' support for the International Polar Year. Past worldwide initiatives have yielded unprecedented exploration and discoveries in many fields of research and fundamentally changed how science was conducted in the Polar Regions. Now, decades later, technological developments such as earth observation satellites, autonomous vehicles, and molecular biology techniques offer enormous opportunities for an unparalleled expansion of our understanding of these complex systems.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this concurrent resolution. Encouraging the studying the Polar Regions is crucial as it will lead to a greater understanding of how this area of the world affects the rest of the earth's ecosystem and in turn, human society. This concurrent resolution furthers that goal. That is why I look forward to working with my colleagues and moving this resolution forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my heartfelt congratulations to the City of Lauderhill for its recent honor as one of the National Civic League's ten All-America Cities for the year of 2005. This award, which is presented every year to the ten cities that most represent civic excellence, is a true tribute to the great residents of the City of Lauderhill and the State of Florida. I am proud to stand before this body and honor this great Florida city, which I am so privileged to represent.

Each year, the National Civic League crowns its winners of the coveted All-America Cities Award--the Nation's longest running and most prestigious civic recognition program. The National Civic League is a leading proponent of citizen democracy. Founded in 1894 by government reformers such as Theodore Roosevelt, the National Civic League is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to building community and promoting political reform at the local level.

The All-America City award recognizes American cities for their civic excellence. The award honors communities, such as the City of Lauderhill, in which citizens, government, businesses and nonprofit organizations demonstrate successful resolution of critical community issues. Since 1949, more than 4,000 communities have competed and only 500 have been designated All-America Cities. The cities honored by the National Civic League highlight the successes of communities across America and serve as examples of how to work together to overcome obstacles and achieve tangible results.

In order to be named an All-America City, finalists must present three innovative community programs to a nine-person jury. These presentations addressed a wide range of social and community issues, including youth, education, poverty, affordable housing, race relations, and others.

The All-America City award has been called ``a Nobel prize for constructive citizenship.''

Mr. Speaker, no city exemplifies the idea of constructive citizenship more than the City of Lauderhill. Now in its fourth decade of progress, Lauderhill is meeting the challenges of the future through planned development with a focus on quality of life.

The City of Lauderhill was first incorporated in 1959 with approximately 100 residents. Lauderhill grew by nearly 30,000 residents between 1970 and 1980 and now encompasses over seven square miles with a population of over 50,000 people. The business community is as diverse as its residents, with citizens from virtually every Caribbean nation from Haiti to Jamaica and every place in between. Lauderhill recognizes that its residents and business owners are key assets of the community. We are blessed to have informed, active and concerned members working for the betterment of the City and its residents.

The City of Lauderhill is well known for its innovative efforts to improve the quality of life, including health and social services programs, recreational activities and events for the appreciation of culture and the arts. Lauderhill puts a premium on improving human and social services through strategic planning, expanding existing resources and creative financing techniques.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Lauderhill, Florida have brought credit and honor not only to themselves and their city but also to the people and State of Florida. The City of Lauderhill is worthy of the praises of the people of Florida as well as the Members of the House of Representatives. It is a city truly worthy of emulation and worthy of the title All-America City.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my heartfelt congratulations to the City of Pompano Beach for its recent honor as one of the National Civic League's ten All-America Cities for the year of 2005. This award, which is presented every year to the ten cities that most represent civic excellence, is a true tribute to the great residents of the City of Pompano Beach and the state of Florida. I am proud to stand before this body and honor this great Florida city, which I am so privileged to represent.

Each year, the National Civic League crowns its winners of the coveted All-America Cities Award--the nation's longest running and most prestigious civic recognition program. The National Civic League is a leading proponent of citizen democracy. Founded in 1894 by government reformers such as Theodore Roosevelt, the National Civic League is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to building community and promoting political reform at the local level.

The All-America City award recognizes American cities for their civic excellence. The award honors communities, such as the City of Pompano Beach, in which citizens, government, businesses and nonprofit organizations demonstrate successful resolution of critical community issues. Since 1949, more than 4,000 communities have competed and only 500 have been designated All-America Cities. The cities honored by the National Civic League highlight the successes of communities across America and serve as examples of how to work together to overcome obstacles and achieve tangible results.

In order to be named an All-America City, finalists must present three innovative community programs to a nine-person jury. These presentations addressed a wide range of social and community issues, including youth, education, poverty, affordable housing, race relations, and others.

The All-America City award has been called ``a Nobel prize for constructive citizenship.''

Mr. Speaker, no city exemplifies the idea of constructive citizenship more than the City of Pompano Beach. From its humble beginnings as a small settlement on the shores of the Atlantic to its current size of over 25 square miles, Pompano Beach now boasts over 100,000 full time residents.

The City was at one point the southernmost railroad station of the famous Florida East Coast Railway. It was not until the railway was built that South Florida was finally linked to the rest of the Nation. The first train arrived in the small settlement of Pompano on February 22, 1896. At that time, the town consisted mainly of farmers and a handful of railway employees and professionals. Since then, the city has grown quickly, with farmland in the west and a peaceful beach town atmosphere in the east. These two areas merged successfully in 1947 to form the present day City of Pompano Beach.

The diverse population of Pompano Beach, with its thriving Black community, is its biggest asset. Pompano Beach combines the lifestyle of a quiet seaside community with the benefits of a major metropolitan area. Its high quality of living, as well as its commitment to improving the lives of its citizens, has led to a quickly growing population.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Pompano Beach, Florida have brought credit and honor not only to themselves and their city but also to the people and State of Florida. The City of Pompano Beach is worthy of the praises of the people of Florida as well as the Members of the House of Representatives. It is a city truly worthy of emulation and worthy of the title All-American City.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I join all our colleagues in asking us to come to our senses with reference to dealing with matters pertaining to the homeless. We talk an awful lot, and correctly so here in this institution, about homeless people and veterans. The connection seems

to get lost in this particular argument that a significant number of the homeless are people who are former soldiers who once protected all of us in this country.

I shudder to think what is going to happen psychologically to some who are presently in Afghanistan and in Iraq when they return home. I suspect that we will see them, not all, but a lot of them, on corners, like we see some of the Vietnam veterans and we saw some of the Korean veterans and some of the Desert Storm veterans.

All of us want to assure that the homeless are properly cared for. Now, then, to say that the money to take care of them should come out of an intermodal system that is vital to our Nation's transportation is a bit disingenuous and, in many respects, is harmful to our overall structure.

Let me ask everybody to think about September 12, after the devastating impact of terrorism here on September 11. The entire air system of the United States of America was grounded. I have not heard the argument here from many of my colleagues on either side of the aisle that transportation, the intermodal system, becomes a national security matter.

Assume for the moment that those that would have Amtrak not operate, and I am not here to suggest that there are not necessary reforms within that rail system, and I believe we all know what they are, and I think a lot of us know how to help them achieve it, but as a national security matter, if by chance we did not have a passenger rail system of consequence in this Nation and we suffer yet another attack like we did on September 11, then we add to our interstate highway system the number of things that need to be transported and individuals who have necessary business.

I cannot begin to tell you the number of Congress people that had to go up that corridor on Amtrak to do the business of this Nation. Please look at it realistically. Do not do the homeless this way and do not do Amtrak this way. Let us come together in a bipartisan fashion and do something that we have not done well around here, and that is work together to better Amtrak and to assure that no one in this great Nation of ours is homeless.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member and the chairman of this committee. I recognize the constraints that they have operated under and we can go forward from there. But there comes a time when we do have to address consequential problems with reference to our actions.

In this particular instance, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and myself have seen fit to join hands and bring this amendment before the body because we know that this continues to be a concern and a serious problem in our Nation.

Two years ago, President Bush proclaimed June as National Home Ownership Month. In doing so, he pledged his support to help, and I quote him, ``every citizen, regardless of race, creed, color or place of birth, have the opportunity to become a homeowner.'' Yet despite the administration's rhetorical commitment, more than 3.7 million fair housing violations continue to occur each year.

The Fair Housing Initiative Program and the Fair Housing Assistance Program play critical roles in fighting housing discrimination. Fair housing organizations and other nonprofit groups use Federal funds to provide vital services directly to communities. Grants are used for education and enforcement programs that educate consumers about how to recognize and report housing discrimination and to conduct investigations and testing of complaints of housing discrimination.

Despite this obvious need, funding for fair housing activities in fiscal year 2006 has been cut by more than 15 percent. This unnecessary cut will reduce services and leave many potential homeowners with no programs to advocate and enforce fair housing policies on their behalf.

The Green-Lee-Hastings amendment restores funding to fiscal year 2005 spending and levels the playing field for all who seek home ownership. Owning a home embodies the core American values of individuality, responsibility and self-reliance. Owning a home creates neighborhoods that promote growth and stability throughout our communities.

In my view, restoring this essential funding for fair housing activities ensures the American dream can become a reality. For the last 5 years, we have been about the business of a housing boom, and during that same period of time, 3.7 million discrimination acts a year have taken place.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my significant concerns about the Foreign Operations bill for fiscal year 2006. The substance of the underlying legislation will be addressed later in my statement.

Madam Speaker, while the rule is similar to that of other appropriations bills, I am extremely disappointed that the majority has blocked our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) from offering an amendment that would have provided $1 billion in emergency funding for the Veterans' Administration. All of our colleagues here in the House know that the Bush administration and the Republican majority, by their own admission, have underfunded the Veterans' Administration by $1 billion. Without the emergency funding proposed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the VA will shortly run out of money, leaving veterans, and there are 86,000 of them coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, with nowhere to turn. But because my friends in the majority on the Committee on Rules did not make the Edwards amendment in order, the House will not have an opportunity to consider this critical amendment now. Shame on all of us.

Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation has some admirable provisions yet, in several areas, it falls far short of meeting the United States' near and long-term policy needs.

The majority's excuse that the budget constraints prevent greater generosity is just that: an excuse. The simple fact of the matter is that the Republicans' reckless and irresponsible

economic policies have left the United States with little room to meet our important international and domestic obligations.

Realize, I think that it is appropriate that we have funding allocated to fighting the plagues of our time, HIV and AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. I applaud the current appropriations and encourage this body to continue supporting these efforts until these diseases have been completely eradicated.

I am also appreciative of the assistance levels for the Middle East. This past April, with the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), I had an opportunity to visit Israel and the Palestinian territories, and we met with officials from both sides of the conflict. I found them at that time to be committed to the pursuit of a fair and just peace and dedicated to ensuring an equitable resolution to the many issues that divide the Israelis and the Palestinians. The United States must continue to show its commitment to Israel, our most reliable ally in the Middle East. This legislation does just that. Further, we must be engaged in the region and reward positive efforts by the Palestinians with appropriate levels of assistance.

I am also pleased to note that the United States is the leading donor of humanitarian assistance to Darfur, with $350 million appropriated in this legislation. This assistance is important, but not nearly enough. Frankly, the Bush administration has been neglectful of the realities on the ground, even while acknowledging that genocide is taking place. There should be no action on earth that compels us to act more than genocide. However, the House continues to refuse to move the Darfur Accountability Act, which provides for sanctions against the regime and authorizes the President to use force, if needed, to save the lives of innocent civilians.

Is there a reason vastly more compelling than halting genocide that is forcing the United States to merely shake our finger in admonishment at the Sudanese Government? The world long remembers those instances in which the United States failed to take action to prevent genocide, and I fear that this is going to be another one of those times.

Despite all of the positive provisions in the bill, Mr. Speaker, there are several aspects of this bill that project the wrong message to the global community. At a time of intense international hostility toward many aspects of United States foreign policy, we should not be compounding the problem with a ``sore loser'' attitude and a lack of commitment to protecting human rights.

Allow me to expand. Section 528 of the underlying legislation withholds 25 percent of funding to the World Bank's International Development Association if it fails to continue implementing some procurement reforms that are supported by the United States. Once again, as with last week's United Nations Reform Act, Republicans are insisting on a my-way-or-the-highway approach. This is plain wrong. We will never reform these institutions by staying at home and complaining. We must accept compromise and continue to press for change while remaining a committed participant.

Mr. Speaker, typically, the foreign operations bill is one of the most bipartisan bills that this body passes every year. While I will most likely support the underlying legislation, I am greatly concerned by the overall amount of money appropriated in this bill. Later today, we will hear from the chairman and other Republican leaders who will claim that they did the best they could with what they were given. I do not doubt that, Mr. Speaker; and I applaud the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for the hard and dedicated work which they do for all of us. Nevertheless, the budget constraints which the chairman and others will speak of are the creation of the Republicans' fiscal mismanagement.

I am appalled that we have the money to provide egregious tax cuts to extremely wealthy people in our country; yet we do not have the money to meet our international humanitarian commitment. We have the money to provide billions in tax giveaways to the Bush administration's favorite corporate donors; yet we do not have the money to provide the necessary assistance to some of the poorest countries in the world. This is beyond shameful. It is negligent, and it leads many in the world to understandably question the seriousness of our rhetoric on human rights and the promotion of democracy.

Just once, Mr. Speaker, I would like to come to this floor with Republicans in the majority and President Bush in the White House and say, We do not have the money for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires because we have to fulfill our commitment to improving the lives of billions of people around the world, including millions right here in our own country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the Rules Committee.

What my colleague from Florida ignores is that we could do something today for those same veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations who has a great deal of dedication and skill in this arena.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Florida, the distinguished gentleman, amazes me with his logic. We gave the veterans $2 billion more he said last year. What does that have to do with today and the fact that there is a $1 billion shortfall? This shortfall that has come to the attention of people is a mistake. When can this administration say that we were wrong about something? The veterans need $1 billion and that is that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who has been denigrated for arguing this point over the last 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) was talking a moment ago about the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) either being lucky or being good, he chose that he was lucky during the last 2 years. However, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) spoke with hospital administrators, and that is how he got his information. And if somehow or another we were not so interested in hanging the picture of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairman somewhere rather than trying to figure out what hospital administrators need, all of us could be good.

I know this much: At the Veterans Hospital in West Palm Beach, Florida, veterans wait 6 months on occasion to get themselves treated, and I think that is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last night on a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Edwards amendment would provide additional badly needed health care funds for our Nation's veterans today. The Edwards amendment uses the supplemental authority provided in the 2006 budget resolution to correct the current $1 billion shortfall mistake in funding for the health care needs of America's veterans, including the approximately 86,000 new Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all of my colleagues are aware by now of the announcement last week by the Bush administration's own Secretary of Veterans Affairs that the VA is facing a $1 billion shortfall in veterans' health care. This is not news to this side of the aisle. We have known all along the funding was woefully inadequate. We have tried on numerous occasions to increase funding to care for our returning soldiers, but the Republican leadership has ignored our demands and has consistently rejected our many attempts to add money to the VA health care budget. Maybe now they will listen. Today, they will have a chance to show just how much they support our soldiers.

I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the foreign operations appropriations bill under an open rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Edwards amendment to help our brave returning veterans get the health care they need and deserve. However, a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of this amendment and, sadly, once again, this leadership will turn its back on our wounded veterans.

We make much of visiting veterans' hospitals. We make much of Veterans Day. All of these are appropriate undertakings. But when we learn that this administration has made a big mistake with reference to veterans in this Nation, we cannot muster here in the House of Representatives the oomph to do the things necessary for people that are putting their lives on the line for us and returning home in need of care.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.