Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the ranking member of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Halloween and scary costumes are the order of the day. What is going to be the scariest costume of them all? The schoolteacher outfit with 60 children to teach? The small business suit with the bankruptcy notice? Or the elderly costume with its inadequate health care? Without a doubt, the desert camouflage uniform of the U.S. military is the scariest costume of all. Without flak jackets, traveling in nonarmored Humvees and without jammers to block incoming bombs, United States soldiers were sent to battle unprepared for the postwar hostilities they encountered and ill equipped to defend themselves. And all of us have a responsibility to all of them. But they are living a nightmare.

This is the consequence of rushing to war. Congress has been begging the administration for a comprehensive plan to stabilize Iraq and an exit strategy to bring our troops home. There has been no response. Instead, President Bush has presented us a bill that we are voting on soon demanding $87 billion, having not accounted in full for the $66 billion that was granted previously. The billions of dollars in this supplemental are not intended to get us out of Iraq. They are intended, in some respects, to keep us there, perhaps indefinitely.

Realize what $87 billion could buy. To get some perspective here or some real-life comparisons about $87 billion and

how it could benefit the American taxpayer:

$87 billion is more than the combined total of all State budget deficits in the United States. $87 billion is approximately the total of 2 years' worth of all U.S. unemployment benefits. $87 billion is more than double the total amount the government spends on homeland security. $87 billion is 87 times the amount the Federal Government spends on after-school programs.

The priorities of the President were those that in many respects were stripped out; but to add further insult to financial injury, billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent already on no-bid contracts for major U.S. corporations. In yet another tall tale from the administration, we were told that the funds for rebuilding Iraq must be in the form of grants to encourage other nations in the donor conference in Madrid the other day in rebuilding Iraq. Yet a total of $18 billion was pledged at the Madrid donors conference last week and $14 billion of that amount was in the form of loans. Therefore, there is no overarching reason for providing this money only in the form of grants.

It is fundamentally flawed logic to expect the American taxpayer to incur a debt for problems America has not created. We are not rebuilding an Iraq that we destroyed. We are rebuilding an infrastructure decimated by Iraq's former dictator. What we owe the Iraqi people is an opportunity for a democratic way of life, and it is not unreasonable to expect them to shoulder the cost. Freedom and democracy never come cheap. They are exorbitantly expensive in terms of money and sacrifice. The continuing propaganda from the White House regarding Iraq is distracting our attention from Afghanistan and other countries.

In my view, everyone should vote against this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I believe I speak for every Member of this side of the aisle when I say that I appreciate the efforts of the majority to bring this bill to the floor today under an open rule and in a bipartisan manner. I only wish that more bills of significant importance in this body and to the country were considered in a similar fashion. Today's rule is an open rule, and Members are permitted to offer germane amendments to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act.

As my colleague previously mentioned, the underlying legislation authorizes $7.1 billion in fiscal year 2004 for activities of the United States Coast Guard and $18 million for the Federal Maritime Commission. The level of funding that the House is providing to the Coast Guard is a 4 percent increase over the amount that was appropriated for the agency under the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004. The bill also provides the Maritime Commission with an 11 percent increase over last year's funding.

In addition to funding these two important Federal agencies, this bill amends current law affecting the Coast Guard's requirement to fire warning shots, inspect foreign vessels, and collect user fees. The legislation increases the number of commissioned officers in the Coast Guard as well as the number of active duty officers. The bill also improves our ability to respond to oil spills by requiring that oil- carrying vessels develop oil spill response plans. And my goodness gracious is that too long overdue for our Nation and, indeed, the world?

Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard is charged with the responsibility of patrolling the 12,452 miles of coastline in the United States. Nearly 2,000 of these miles are located in Florida, in my district, as well as that of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), and the Speaker pro tempore's, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), where the Coast Guard plays, as we so well know, an integral role in patrolling our shores and protecting our citizens. The increase in funding provided in the underlying legislation for this important branch of the United States Armed Services serves as a statement about the role of the Coast Guard in our global war on terrorism.

Reports have shown that America's ports remain susceptible to attack and infiltration by America's enemies. And it does not go insignificantly or symbolically mentioned that I, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), and the present Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), all three of us on the floor at this time, represent three major ports: Port Everglades, the Port of Palm Beach, and the Port of Miami. Those three ports alone handle more than 13.2 million tons of cargo. In all, well over 1.5 million shipping containers were processed by South Florida longshoremen during the last year.

Certainly these statistics highlight the pressing need to increase the number of customs agents working in America's ports, but they also suggest that the roles of the Coast Guard and the Federal Maritime Commission in protecting our ports are greater than ever.

Mr. Speaker, when Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, it not only reorganized the Federal Government, but it also recommitted itself to the security of America. The underlying legislation, which the House will consider later today, is an extension of that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), for yielding me the time. I oppose this closed rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I wondered to myself last night as the Committee on Rules majority Republicans passed yet another closed rule which stifles debate and shuts off meaningful contributions from all of the Members of this Chamber, what is the problem? Congress has only had since January 3 of this year to complete work on the 13 annual appropriations bills, the so-called ``must pass'' bills that Congress works on every year. In case anyone is unclear, so far Congress has passed three of the 13 appropriations bills that must pass before September 30. Defense appropriations, done. Homeland security, done. And, of course, the bill which funds this very institution, Congress, done. Everything else, military construction; veterans affairs; labor, health and human services; commerce, judiciary; education, all just kind of out there somewhere in this vacuous air inside the Beltway.

And the sad part? No one to blame but the party in control. Despite the fact that just yesterday I heard a Member of the other body blame former President Clinton, I do not think the American people are buying that. The fact is the last time there was single-party control of Congress at the beginning of President Clinton's administration, control of Congress and the White House, all 13 appropriations bills were passed by September 30.

We had a balanced budget, and, oh, yes, we had budget surpluses as far as the eye could see.

My, how times have changed. Well, thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, my good friends, the Republican Congress. Now, we have debt in our Nation as far as the eye can see, and, in many respects, disdain from a large portion of the rest of the world.

In my view, the majority is the modern day reincarnation of Nero. The majority fiddles while the Nation burns, or, to put it another way, we are drowning in a sea of red ink.

It will surprise no one, then, that I think we should not pass this rule. We should not pass the underlying legislation. We should stop working 2-day workweeks like we did last week, and we should stay here and finish our work; yes, work maybe even 7 days a week, until we do what the people have elected us to do. What a crazy suggestion.

Enough already. Let us get to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged at this time to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend and colleague on the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, the points that have been made are echoed all throughout this Chamber.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been much reaction, and justly so, to the virulently anti-Semitic remarks of outgoing Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir at the recent Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Summit in Malaysia. His remarks, crude, insensitive, and untrue, have been roundly condemned by many world leaders--though certainly not enough who were at the OIC Conference. Unfortunately, the publicity over his remarks has overshadowed another speech by a Muslim leader, Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdullah Gul. That speech is more tolerant and farsighted. It speaks well of Turkey's current government and the policies it seeks to enact. Foreign Minister Gul argues that Islam, tolerance, and modernization are compatible, and highlights the Turkish experience. I believe the speech is well worth our colleagues reading, and I am pleased to bring it to their attention.

Speech by His Excellency Abdullah Gul, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, Delivered at the

OIC Business Forum During the 10th Summit of the OIC Malaysia, 15

October 2003

Excellencies, distinguished guests, it is a particular

honor and privilege to take part in this Welcoming Dinner

among such a distinguished group of guests and speakers.

I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to

the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute for this well-

thought occasion to discuss such a topical subject.

Tonight I will briefly share with you Turkey's

understanding and practice of the relationship between Islam

and Modernization, and the challenge we face as Muslim

societies.

Let me start by challenging the choice of a word in the

title of our dinner; ``Islam versus Modernization''. I would

decline to see Islam and modernization as competing concepts.

The Turkish experience and many other efforts in the Muslim

world in political, economic and social development rest on

the belief that it is perfectly possible to advance a society

in all fields while Islamic faith and culture continues to

play an important role in people's individual lives.

Our challenge is to prove that traditional and moral values

can be in perfect harmony with the modern standards of life.

Not only that. Our values can contribute to and strengthen

the modern world. They can even be enriching for modern

societies.

Excellencies, distinguished guests, I acknowledge that the

contemporary Muslim societies, at times, have had temporary

difficulties in coping with the universal developments in the

fields of politics, economics, science and technology.

Yes, they have not always attained the highest standards of

democracy, equality, or social rights yet.

However, the good news is that there is a growing awareness

of the shortcomings and a desire to overcome them.

There are even positive steps in this direction. Today's

meeting is an example of this healthy debate. These are all

important indications.

I am confident that the new generations of Muslims, the

youth, have the consciousness and the capacity to attain a

glorious future which will surpass their history.

Their history as cultivated, tolerant, developed and good

governed people.

Peoples which have developed sophisticated legal systems,

free trade networks, health institutions and schools.

Excellencies, distinguished guests, leaving aside the

theoretical discussions on the issue, I would like to take

this opportunity to brief you on our own experience. Our

experience as a government, less than one year old.

To many people, it seemed like a paradox: A government that

was formed by a party known to be based on moral and

traditional values was implementing a most spectacular

economic and political reform campaign in Turkey; reforms

that even astonished the liberals at home.

There was nothing to be surprised about. We had put in

front of us a mission to accomplish: We were to prove that a

Muslim society is capable of changing and renovating itself,

attaining contemporary standards, while preserving its

values, traditions and identity.

We acted on the premise that highest contemporary standards

of democracy--fundamental freedoms, gender equality, free

markets, civil society, transparency, good governance, rule

of law and rational use of resources were universal

expectations. We believed that Turkish people and other

Muslim nations fully deserved to have these expectations met.

We believed that our societies could only benefit from the

realization of these standards. And indeed, Muslim societies

have the necessary historical background and moral and

spiritual strength to adapt themselves to modernity.

We believed that encouraging political participation,

increasing transparency and accountability would make regimes

stronger in the long run. The result would be self-confident

and cohesive societies which have an interest in peace and

harmony.

Our strength came from being eye to eye with our people.

The big support we got during and after the elections showed

our strong ties with our grassroots. Our experience has

differed from the others by not relying only on the elites.

We began our reform from the very day we formed the

government: We decreased the number of ministries from 35 to

23, thus making the administration more streamlined and

efficient.

This was followed by a Public Administration Reform project

aimed at the decentralization of most public services. This

would give the Central Government more time and space to

tackle the global issues while at the same time speeding up

the delivery of the services.

The Penal Code, the Civil Code and the Press Law are all

being further modernized.

During the eight-month times Turkish Parliament adopted

there major political reforms packages. These were related to

the process initiated by the previous governments to upgrade

the Turkish legislation on fundamental rights and freedoms in

conformity with Europe.

Through the reforms and other measures, my Government

achieved the following:

Fundamental rights and freedom were extended to the most

liberal standards. Some residual restrictions were removed.

Additional facilities were provided for the fulfillment of

cultural and religious rights.

The principle of zero tolerance to mistreatment and torture

became the basis of the relevant laws and their

implementation.

The civilian nature of the administration was consolidated

in keeping with the European standards.

We became party to international conventions against

corruption.

Full transparency of public expenses, including the

military, was secured.

Capital punishment was formally abolished. This decision

was further consolidated by the ratification of the relevant

Conventions.

Economic reforms complemented the political ones. Priority

was given to the rational and effective use of our resources.

Having told all these, I do not mean that everything is

perfect in Turkey. I believe that social and political

development is a dynamic process. It can always be improved,

bettered, deepened.

The important thing is to give the societies the

possibilities and instruments to renew themselves.

The important thing is not to ignore the social

expectations and sensitivities.

On the other hand, we know that there is no single or a

simple formula to achieve this goal. We need to act in

recognition of our peculiarities and different historical

experiences.

Yet, as Muslim societies we share a common core that is

rich and beneficial. This core is fully compatible with what

we see as universal values.

These values are ``universal'' because no one can claim

monopoly over humanistic values that are the common

inheritance of civilization. Islam has made highly

significant contributions to this common civilization.

Finally, I would like to reiterate my belief that the

maladies of the Muslim societies can be cured. Shortcomings

can be overcome. Institutions can be reformed.

However, the problems that inflict some of the Western

societies, like racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism,

materialism, violence, drugs, etc. seem to me most difficult

to cure. This is another important challenge that should be

tackled by all. May be as a theme of another meeting like

this one.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 106, a concurrent resolution that recognizes the 350th anniversary of Jewish life in the United States. The resolution encourages all Americans to celebrate September 2004 as American Jewish History Month.

I am proud to represent notable Jewish American artists, musicians, doctors, spiritual leaders, entrepreneurs, lawyers, inventors, and authors that reside in South Florida. I wish to celebrate and honor 350 years of Jewish life in America with my Jewish friends, and, through this resolution, commemorate this landmark event with the Jewish community nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, the success of the American Jewish community is testament to the basic American rights to liberty, opportunity, and inclusion. These men and women of Jewish descent have substantially transformed the Nation and its communities.

American Jewish culture has played a critical role in the multi- dimensional evolution of this country. In part because of Judaism's emphasis on social justice and in part because of Jews' experience as a marginalized minority, Jews led many of the protest and social justice movements of the 1960s and 1970s. In turn, Judaism continues to respond to changes in American culture; feminism, environmentalism, and other social movements have influenced how many Jews practice their religion.

The story of Jews in America is also the story of America itself. Thus, it is only fitting that this Congress recognize the enormous contributions of the American Jewish Community to our Nation by designating an American Jewish History Month.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member, for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. Not only does this second rule prohibit further amendments to the supplemental, but it also shortchanges the substance of debate on a bill that costs $87 billion: $200 million per congressional district that will not be used to build schools, provide health care or improve the Nation's infrastructure.

My objection to this rule is as much about substance as it is about process. It is as much about the needs of the American people as it is about the needs of the Iraqi people. It is as much about democracy as it is about tyranny. As we deliberate an $87 billion supplemental appropriations request from the President, House Republicans are saying that we cannot ask questions. We cannot ask what the money is going to be used for and how we are going to pay for it. We cannot ask because the Republicans do not know. They do not know because the President will not tell them.

Mr. Speaker, if we allow the dictatorial Republican majority to decide what is worthy to debate, then the House will quickly become an insignificant Constitutional trophy sitting on the President's mantle.

Do my colleagues realize that the other body has been debating this bill for 15 days? Some Senators have spoken more, each one, more than all of the Members of the House, while the House has not spent 15 hours, and we have more than four times as many Members.

So I echo what Mr. Rush said last night: It ain't Christmas, it ain't New Years, and it ain't Easter. Why not work through the weekend and all the Members be heard? American troops will be working this weekend. Why cannot Congress? Our soldiers are fighting and dying, three last night, while Republicans are cutting and running.

When Democrats ask questions about cost, strategy, and accountability, Republicans label us as unpatriotic. As I see it, the only unpatriotic thing about

this debate is the majority's abandonment of the House's Constitutional responsibility to, as Mr. Madison put it, have a will of its own.

As written, H.R. 3289 gives the President carte blanche to spend nearly $87 billion before he has explained how he spent $79 billion we appropriated a few months ago. As I said yesterday, we have seen what happens when we relinquish our oversight authority and fail to hold this administration accountable ahead of time for its actions.

Last night, when America was sleeping, Republicans on the Committee on Rules dredged out the familiar formula of pushing their self-serving agenda by oppressing debate, deliberation and dialogue. There is an acronym in the United States Armed Forces that best describes what Republicans are saying to the American people today: The soldiers say BOHICA, B-O-H-I-C-A. Bend over, here it comes again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the ranking member, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and bill. Anyone who has read a newspaper or watched a news program can hardly argue that American troops need and deserve additional support. I have voiced my support for an amendment to this bill, several as a matter of fact, but more specifically one offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). That amendment will increase imminent danger and hardship duty pay for our military. It would increase the family separation allowance and add funding to a program that assists disabled service members who are returning to civilian life. The Spratt amendment will also eliminate the fees currently charged to hospitalized service members and several other vital themes for our military. That amendment was not made in order.

However, because of my support for the members of the armed services, I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of this massive supplemental blank check, at least not until this administration is forthcoming in answering the questions that Congress has asked again and again and again. My good friend, the dean of the Florida delegation, the chairman of the appropriations committee and my good friend, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations on yesterday both

averred that they were unable to answer in detail how 79 billion taxpayer dollars are being spent. That is unconscionable, and not to mean that we did not have general understanding as to how the money was spent; but we as persons with oversight responsibility have a responsibility to have a detailed analysis.

Thirteen months ago when we were debating a resolution on the use of U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq, at that time I offered an alternative war resolution, one with some definitive conditions. It called on the President to provide Congress with a comprehensive plan for the long- term cultural, economic, and political stabilization in a free Iraq. When I presented my resolution, I said, ``The young men and women of our Armed Forces are already fighting a war on terrorism. Before we expand their role and send them even deeper into harm's way, I want assurances that we have a plan for maintaining stability in the region once we declare victory.''

Mr. Speaker, I gave that speech on September 23, 2002. More than a year has passed. More than 320 U.S. troops have lost their lives in Iraq, and hundreds more have been wounded. I am still waiting for an answer. The only thing we have been told by this administration is that the next installment, this one, is going to cost American taxpayers $87 billion.

We have already seen what happens when we relinquish our oversight authority and fail to hold this administration accountable ahead of time. There are far too many questions that need to be answered before we abrogate our responsibilities to the American taxpayer and simply hand over nearly $87 billion. For instance, where is the comprehensive strategy that will ensure our goals for the Iraqi people will be met?

How long will it take to implement that strategy? How much is it going to cost the American taxpayer? And, finally, exactly how did this administration spend the $79 billion we already appropriated for this war? And just how much more are we going to do by way of supplemental without benefit of authorization, without benefit of clear understanding, without benefit of oversight responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2998, and am proud to say that I am one of 239 Members who have cosponsored this bipartisan legislation. I commend my colleague from Florida, Bill Young, for working with such diligence to bring this important legislation to the floor.

In 1958, Congress initiated a system of charging hospitalized members of the armed forces for subsistence costs. H.R. 2998 will exempt members of the armed forces, hospitalized as a result of armed conflict or engaged in hazardous service, from incurring this charge.

Although the FY 2004 Defense Authorization bill does put this exemption in place for 2004, H.R. 2998 amends Title 10 to make this exemption permanent. It is simply unfair and unjust that this additional burden is placed on the brave men and women who serve with such honor and distinction. This is, truly, the very least we can do for these brave men and women. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this important change to Title 10.

Offered By: Mr. Hastings of Florida

Amendment No. 1: At the end of title II of the bill, add

the following new section:

Sec. XX. It is the sense of Congress that the President

should establish and implement a plan of action to achieve

security, relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction in Iraq.

Such a plan should articulate the United States interests

involved, define United States objectives, and provide a

strategy for achieving the objectives, including a listing of

each Federal department and agency involved in achieving the

objectives and a detailed description of the responsibilities

of each such department and agency related thereto.

Offered By: Mr. Hastings of Florida

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. XX. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used for--

(1) the construction, refurbishment, maintenance, or

operation of any educational facility that discriminates on

the basis of religion, national origin, race, color, or

gender;

(2) the construction, refurbishment, maintenance, or

operation of any educational facility that segregates

students on the basis of any of the criteria described in

paragraph (1);

(3) the payment of the salary of any educational

administrator or teacher who demonstrates, encourages, or

condones disparate treatment of students on the basis of any

of the criteria described in paragraph (1); or

(4) the purchase of any educational material, or

establishment of any educational curriculum, that promotes

anti-Semitic, anti-western, or anti-democratic values or

beliefs.

Mr. Speaker, on March 21, 2003, President Bush reported to Congress, ``consistent with the War Powers Resolution,'' (emphasis added) as well as P.L. 102-1 and P.L. 107-243 and ``pursuant to'' his authority as Commander in Chief, that he had ``directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.''

While declaring the beginning of war with Iraq, the Bush administration neglected to prepare for its aftermath. At that time, he should have also delineated his post-conflict reconstruction strategy because winning the peace is often harder than fighting the war.

The United States should not have waited for the end of the war to begin planning Iraq's post-conflict reconstruction. ``Conflicts today,'' retired four-star General Anthony Zinni has said, ``cannot be divided into two separate phases, the shooting and the peacekeeping parts. The war plan for the combat and the aftermath has to be `seamless.' ''

Not having had a clear strategy to shape Iraq's political landscape at the outset of war has had negative implications for the success of the United States-led postwar efforts. From this failure by the Bush administration, we learned that the United States must have military and political strategies in hand before armed intervention.

To make sure that future presidents do not again fail to protect United States military personnel during post-conflict reconstruction involvement, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 should be expanded to demand a clear strategy for winning the war, as well as winning the peace. In its amended form, it will include a post-conflict reconstruction strategy in its list of required reports to Congress.

Successful post-conflict reconstruction does not begin the day after. It begins the day before.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce a resolution calling on the U.S. Postal Service to honor the Fisk Jubilee Singers with a commemorative stamp.

The Fisk Jubilee Singers are true heroes in the fight for civil rights and racial equality in education. Their heritage goes back more than one hundred and thirty years to just after the Civil War. These singers are part of a unique group of former slaves who made it their passion to achieve the kind of education that they did not have access to before emancipation. Their spirit has been felt all across this nation and around the world, and it is my honor to stand before you today to tell you about the legacy of the Fisk Jubilee Singers, whom I hold near to my heart.

The Fisk School was founded in Nashville, Tennessee, just after the end of the Civil War. This school was intended to transcend the racial divide, with the founders of the University opening the doors of education to all persons, regardless of their race. Recently emancipated slaves, ecstatic at the limitless possibilities for freedom offered by learning, took it upon themselves to create in the Fisk School an educational institution that would give to them a sense of profound moral purpose in the great American democracy. The sale of slave paraphernalia paid for the opening of the school, and in 1867 the Fisk School became Fisk University, now the oldest university in Nashville.

Fisk University's accomplishments in the advancement of educational opportunities for African-American's is far too long to mention here. I will tell you briefly that some of the most honored African-American artists, thinkers and activists attended or were involved with Fisk, including W.E.B DuBois, Booker T. Washington, Charles Spurgeon Johnson, James Weldon Johnson, and Thurgood Marshall, to name a few of the more distinguished African-Americans. Indeed, Fisk University played an enormously profound role in the advancement of black learning and culture in America. I am both humbled by and proud of the time that I, too, spent at Fisk University. Many of the values I hold dear to my heart today I learned from my colleagues and professors at Fisk.

It was in 1871 that a group of students at Fisk University formed a choral group that they named the Fisk Jubilee Singers.

Mr. Speaker, the Fisk Jubilee Singers have made a lasting contribution to racial equality

and black culture in America. They introduced the spiritual as a musical genre, and demonstrated a truly unique commitment to their education. It is time that we in Congress honor their incredible achievements in such a manner that all of America will come to know of their commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to pass my resolution encouraging the Postal Service to issue a postage stamp commemorating the legacy and achievements of the Fisk Jubilee Singers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I also thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for participating and allowing this to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2075, a bill to name the Riviera Beach U.S. Post Office in honor of Judge Edward Rodgers. Eddie was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and moved to West Palm Beach, Florida, in 1950, where he met his bride and now-deceased wife, who was also a friend of mine.

Although he studied political science as an undergraduate student, he became a teacher schooling soldiers at segregated Roosevelt High School in West Palm Beach. Before being promoted to assistant principal, Eddie found himself in the position of arguing before the school board for equal pay for black teachers, but support was not there. The tyranny of segregation at that time caused him to go to law school at Florida A&M University where I had the good fortune of meeting him and his wife and his children. They all came to law school together.

The reason I know that story very well is I was in Judge Rodgers' class, one of six of us that graduated in that class from Florida A&M University. He went on to become Palm Beach County's first black prosecutor and then Palm Beach County's first black Court of Competent Jurisdiction judge. He would serve in the civil, criminal, and probate courts before retiring in 1995, after 22 remarkable years on the bench.

His accomplishments are numerous, and I have outlined some of them which I will include for the Record. He retired in 1995 and then really did not retire because he went on to seek elected office in Riviera Beach and went to work to restore his hometown, which he loves so much, as president of the Riviera Beach City Council.

Eddie Rodgers is a man that is known for his compassion, for his fairness, and his strength. He is a man that is respected and loved by his peers. In the entire community of Palm Beach, throughout the State of Florida, and this Nation, he finds himself a loved individual. I am honored to recognize a humanitarian activist, a former colleague, but most importantly, a great friend by naming the Riviera Beach Post Office in his honor. I obviously would urge the adoption of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the original sponsor of the bill has arrived, I would like to yield this time to her if she is ready, and then I will speak, time permitting, after her.

With that in mind, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), my good friend, and the good friend of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tremendous support of H.R. 1882, a bill to name an Orlando, Florida, Post Office after Arthur ``Pappy'' Kennedy.

I am especially pleased because the bill recognizes the accomplishments of a political trailblazer for all of us in Florida, and, especially for African Americans. I am further pleased by virtue of the fact that among the great things that Arthur ``Pappy'' Kennedy produced, children of his that are friends of mine, including one of them, his son, who is named Arthur as well, is my chief of staff in my office here, where I am privileged to serve in the United States Congress.

While Pappy may not be with us today to see this honor bestowed upon him, I know that his son and daughter and six grandchildren and 11 great grandchildren, and I note that some of them are with us today, share in the joy and excitement of this historic day.

As previously mentioned, Pappy was born in River Junction, Florida. I know where River Junction is; most Floridians do not. The reason I know about little towns is I am from Altamont Springs, Florida, which is 10 miles north of where Pappy made most of his career. At the young age of 10, he moved to Orlando where he would attend high school and become a pioneer in breaking down racial barriers. Throughout his life, Pappy Kennedy spoke up for those who could not speak for themselves, motivated others to improve their lives and was a tireless advocate for the poor and oppressed.

In 1976, as previously mentioned, he became the first African American to be elected to the Orlando city council. His popularity amongst the voters was obvious by virtue of the strength of the vote that he pulled in his election and then in his reelection, the largest victory to date of any Orlando commissioner. His election to the city council ended a string of unsuccessful attempts by African Americans to gain representation in Orlando's political arena. His election also paved the way for many women to successfully run for political office in Orange County. While serving on the council, he led the fight for single-member districts in Orlando. That change in election procedure resulted in the number of African Americans serving on the city council to double and others to go on to serve on the county commission and school board and the State legislature.

Interestingly, the change in election procedure that he so tirelessly fought for actually placed his political future in jeopardy. Yet despite the risk, Pappy's popularity prevailed, and he served on the city council for a total of 7 years. In addition to politics, he was a civic activist in the truest sense. He helped organize the former Orlando Negro Chamber of Commerce and was an active volunteer for the United Negro College Fund, the NAACP, Meals on Wheels and the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Kennedy also served as president or chairman of the Jones High School Parent-Teacher Association, the Orange County United Appeal, the Orange County Heart Fund and the Orange County Easter Seal campaign.

It has been said that the true success of a leader must not only be measured by what he or she accomplishes while they are in a position to lead, but also in the size of the footprint that they leave behind. The footprint Pappy Kennedy left remains visible today in Orlando and throughout the State of Florida. The walls broken down by Pappy Kennedy in 1976 helped open the doors of public service for African Americans throughout Florida. As someone who worked to break down the walls of racial injustice with Pappy Kennedy, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), Carrie Meek and others, it is an honor and privilege to speak on the floor of the House of Representatives today in support of this bill.

His life was one filled with political, religious and civic activism of the highest level. He inspired many, including myself, and the bill that this body is considering today is an appropriate tribute to a true American hero. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1882.

If the gentlewoman will yield, I can assure her that I will work tirelessly in that effort and the previous naming of a post office is of a post office in a very similar condition in Riviera. I rather suspect that they should be brought to the quality of all of the postal services, and the gentlewoman, myself and other members of the Florida delegation I am sure will do everything we can, especially for the one for Arthur ``Pappy'' Kennedy.