Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to offer an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 that addresses the plight of Iraqis who have worked for the United States in Iraq and whose lives have been placed in grave danger for their service.

Under the Status of Forces Agreement signed in November 2008, there is not ONE mention of Iraqis who have worked with the United States, which I find to be most unsettling.

And while the December 2011 date for withdrawal of our troops seems far away, there is another benchmark of August 2010, when nearly 50,000 troops will be withdrawn from Iraq, which will limit our ability to protect U.S.-affiliated Iraqis at risk.

These U.S.-affiliated Iraqis have risked their lives to work alongside our troops, diplomats, and aid workers to help build a more stable and Democratic Iraqi committed to peaceful pluralism among both factions and sects. They are considered to be ``collaborators'' or ``traitors'' by Al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent groups and many have paid the ultimate sacrifice for their work at the hands of these terrorists.

I am increasingly concerned that the Obama administration has turned its focus away from this crisis. As we drawdown U.S. troops in Iraq, the thousands of Iraqis who work for our government and live on our bases will no longer have the security of our military once we are gone. The United States cannot turn its back at this critical juncture.

An organization that I have had the privilege to work with over the past several years, The List Project to Resettle Iraqi Allies has done a remarkable job on this front in advocating for and providing pro bono representation to these courageous Iraqis at risk.

The List Project's founder and executive director Kirk Johnson recently published a report entitled ``Tragedy on the Horizon: A History of Just and Unjust Withdrawal.'' It is a report that I would encourage all of my colleagues to read.

In particular, the report discusses the withdrawal of British troops from southern Iraq two years ago and states, ``militias conducted a systematic manhunt for Iraqi employees of the U.K. In a single incident, 17 interpreters were publically executed, and reports surfaced of others dragged to their deaths behind cars through the streets of Basrah. To imagine this as an isolated experience ignores this history of withdrawal, a bloody and predictable churn of violence upon those who `collaborated' with the departing power.''

Time is of the essence. We must put in place a plan to ensure that those Iraqis allies who have helped our country are protected. We have a moral obligation to do this, and we still have time to avert a crisis--but not a lot of time.

Turning our backs now would be fatal for our Iraqi allies and would set a negative precedent for other theaters of war in particular Afghanistan where we need to win the loyal collaboration and hearts and minds of the population.

This week marked a turning point, in that the number of troops in Afghanistan exceeded those in Iraq for the first time since 2003. Reports now suggest that Afghans working as interpreters for the United States are increasingly facing the same lethal risks endured by our Iraqi employees.

We will be hard-pressed to find more help in Afghanistan if the United States is seen as quick to abandon its friends.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution recognizing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora on its 35th anniversary.

CITES was created in 1973 to ensure that international trade in wild plants and animals does not threaten their survival. CITES entered into force on July 1, 1975 and thus will celebrate its 35th anniversary on July 1, 2010. Launched with a few signatory nations, CITES has now 175 parties that have an international obligation and responsibility to protect our planets' endangered animals and plants. Nearly 5,000 species of animals and 28,000 species of plants are protected by the Convention against over-exploitation through international trade. Adherence to these protective measures has proven to have benefited the conservation of animals and plants worldwide.

Unfortunately, more and more species are at risk of extinction and international trade, both legal and illegal, has exacerbated the dangers. International wildlife trade is estimated to be worth billions of dollars per year and to include hundreds of millions of live plants and animals and derived products such as food products, leather and fur, ornamentals, medicinal, and timber. Such high levels of exploitation of and trade in wild animals and plants, together with other factors such as habitat loss, are capable of bringing some species close to extinction.

Between 1979 and 1989 more than 600,000 African elephants were killed for their ivory, cutting the continent's population in half. Nevertheless, poaching has continued with an estimated 38,000 elephants killed annually and 23.2 tons of poached ivory seized since 2007. As sea ice declines, polar bears will not be able to adapt to a terrestrial-based life resulting in increased mortality, reduced reproduction, increased human-bear conflicts, and overall drastic decline of populations. Several sharks have been severely depleted with declines as high as 99 percent in some areas as a result of the high demand for their fins and meat. Overfishing, increased consumer demand and inadequate enforcement of infractions have led to historically low populations of bluefin tuna.

Every two to three years the parties of CITES meet at the Conference of the Parties to review the status of species in danger of extinction and establish trade restrictions. The 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties was held in March 2010. Several proposals were submitted during the summit, some of them ensuring better protections for endangered species, others trying to downlist species and re-open trade. While proposals to downlist elephant populations in Tanzania and Zambia were successfully defeated, several proposals to establish stronger protections for the polar bear, eight sharks, the bluefin tuna and other species were unfortunately rejected. I am saddened to see that economic interests have prevailed over species conservation, risking to bring species close to extinction. This is unacceptable.

My resolution will congratulate the Convention on its 35th anniversary and recognize the important contributions it has made since its establishment in regulating international trade in endangered species and protecting endangered species worldwide. It will also applaud the Convention's recent leadership in protecting elephants in Tanzania and Zambia. Lastly, the resolution will urge all parties to the Convention to collaborate effectively to curb excessive exploitation of species for international trade and, in particular, to adopt stronger protections for the polar bear, sharks, bluefin tuna and other endangered species at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties in 2013.

Madam Speaker, the United States has a moral obligation to protect endangered species and their natural habitat. Wild animals are a very important part of our commonly held natural resources and contribute to the diversity and stability of our environment. We must continue to maintain a balanced and healthy ecosystem that allows for the coexistence of both human beings and the world's most incredible species.

I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting wildlife and environmental conservation across the globe by supporting this important resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of a good man and pay tribute to a dear friend, Judge Edward B. Davis. Judge Davis passed away on May 24, 2010; he was 77.

I had the privilege of serving alongside Judge Davis in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Judge Davis and I were attorneys in 1979 when we received the distinct and humbling honor of being appointed to the bench by President Jimmy Carter. My memories of serving on the bench with Judge Davis are lasting impressions that keep with me to this day.

Ned, as we so affectionately called him, displayed all the characteristics of a brilliant judge. He had a keen intellect that allowed him to see to the heart of a matter and render a verdict that was considered fair by all parties. Ned is remembered and envied as an evenhanded and empathetic jurist. No matter who came before Judge Davis, they were assured a fair hearing under the law.

Any judge can employ the law, but it was Ned's humanistic dimension that made him great. I like to say that he had a heart as big as he was tall. He served a cause bigger than himself, never allowing his personal beliefs to obstruct the clarity of the law and the best interests of his beloved home of South Florida.

Ned made sure that he always had a life outside his chambers, a goal that gave him perspective on the bench. He would often joke that being a judge was his ``second favorite job.'' A talented athlete, I always enjoyed hearing stories of his professional days with the Detroit Tigers. Sharing a drink after a long week to discuss family life with Ned are some of the memories that I hold most dear.

Madam Speaker, we have lost a giant of South Florida. Ned's presence will be sorely missed and is impossible to replace. He put forward a significant number of undertakings in Florida as a lawyer, judge, and citizen. Ned has passed, but he left a legacy we can all take part in. His contributions to society should serve as a reminder of our responsibility to others and our duty to leave a positive impression of our own.

My thoughts and prayers are with his wife of 52 years, Pat; three children, Diana, Ned, and Traci; five grandchildren; and two great- grandchildren at this most difficult time. I was fortunate enough to call Ned a friend. His family can be so proud to call him a husband and father. I will miss him dearly.

Madam Chair, I rise today to clarify why I was unable to vote on Thursday, May 27 and Friday, May 28 in favor of the so-called Murphy Amendment and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, respectively. I would also like to reaffirm in the strongest possible terms my support for repealing the law known as ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' which prohibits gay and lesbian service members from serving openly, as soon as possible.

As you know, Congressman Patrick Murphy's amendment, which passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 234-194, provides for a process to be set in place to implement the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell as soon as the Pentagon completes its review of the issue and President Obama, Defense Secretary Gates, and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, certify that repeal implementation will not negatively affect our military.

During the Rules Committee's meeting on Wednesday to consider amendments to the Defense Authorization bill, I openly declared my support for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and for Congressman Murphy's amendment.

Unfortunately, I had an official trip in my capacity as Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (U.S. Helsinki Commission) that was scheduled prior to the vote. The consideration of amendments to the Defense Authorization bill on the House floor was such that I was unable to vote. Had I been present and not on official travel, I would have voted in favor of the Murphy amendment's inclusion, as well as in favor of the final Defense Authorization bill.

I commend my colleagues, Congressman Murphy, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Levin, for their leadership on this repeal effort. As I have said time and again, Don't Ask, Don't Tell threatens our national security and costs us millions of dollars each year to kick out dedicated and highly-skilled service members because of their sexual orientation and to retrain new ones.

I am also heartened to hear that our colleagues in the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 to bring Senator Lieberman's companion amendment to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell to the Senate floor along with the Defense Authorization bill for consideration.

It is indeed a historic day for our military, the American people, and our nation. What should have happened 17 years ago is now closer than ever before. By passing the Murphy amendment along with the Defense Authorization bill, the House of Representatives has pledged to fulfill its promise of upholding the values for which the United States stands by allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the military.

As we celebrate this victory, we are reminded of the long battle that has brought us to this point. I would be terribly remiss if I did not acknowledge the hard work and sacrifices of countless service members and veterans, many of whose lives have been negatively impacted by this bigoted law, as well as those military and policy leaders, advocacy organizations, and everyday Americans who have taken a stand against discrimination.

Madam Chair, I am eternally grateful to the brave men and women in our Armed Forces who protect this nation and the American people each and every single day and look forward to Don't Ask, Don't Tell being repealed once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a giant in South Florida passed away. He was a dear friend of mine, Judge Edward Davis, and a dear friend of all in America that are in the constant quest for justice. I have not had an opportunity to speak with his wife Patricia, but I did mention briefly last night that I offer she and the family my most sincere condolences.

I intend at the appropriate time in the Congressional Record to commemorate Ed--and we call him Ned--by referring to the awesome career that he had and the significant number of undertakings that he put forward either as a lawyer or as a judge or as a citizen in Miami, Dade County, and throughout Florida and this Nation on behalf of the Southern District of Florida.

He will be sorely missed. He was an extremely tall and giant of a man with as big a heart as was the fact that he was tall. I will sorely miss him. The Southern District of Florida and all of their judges; Judge James Lawrence King and he were good friends. Ned and I went on the bench together at the same time, and it hurts me and it hurts our community that he is gone.

That said, Mr. Speaker, I will commemorate his memory more appropriately as time progresses.

Mr. Speaker, last evening I spoke on the House floor about the newly devised YouCut program and how it undercuts our representational responsibilities as Members of Congress.

I would like to revisit this theme, which has become a recurring one, given the Republicans' most recent efforts.

I repeat, government by referendum is not representation. Just because 81,000 people voted for a program in a Republican ploy doesn't mean that it is the will of the American people or informed policy.

Let me make it very clear: Referenda have their place, but in this, the world's greatest deliberative body, we are not in the position of needing to have that kind of ploy put forward here in this body. Republicans seem to think that online gimmicks are an effective substitute for good government.

What they fail to understand is that national policy cannot be made in a matter of minutes or within a few clicks of a mouse. Instead of worrying about friend requests, Republicans should contribute to meaningful debate. If they did, then they would have known that according to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, cutting funding for the Temporary Aid to Needy Families Program, as they attempted to do, would have resulted in 100,000 people losing their jobs.

This Chamber isn't going to be fooled or bullied or be controlled by the misguided ideological intention or misleading rhetoric of the few. Republicans have called for voter input on programs of national significance in the name of civic participation. But spreading misinformation is not in the best interests of the American people.

To the contrary, it is only in the best interests of the Republicans and their agenda. Not only are the summaries provided on YouCut, which I have called CutYou, inaccurate, they are specifically written to elicit a specific response.

As I have said, I do not fault my friends on the other side of the aisle for taking their upcoming election campaigns into consideration and doing those technological undertakings that they deem necessary for themselves. What I do fault them for is wasting the time of this Chamber with their ulterior motives and legislative tricks. They are playing with short-term decisions that have long-term consequences.

YouCut provides no effective way to change policy, does little to reduce our Federal deficit, does nothing to allow for people to talk about saving themselves, and hurts everyday Americans, especially the poor and the elderly, who probably, some of them, cannot participate in their poll for the reason that they don't have BlackBerrys and computers.

Instead of continuing to be the Party of No, Republicans should say ``yes'' to the American people and help pass the legislation that this Nation needs and deserves.

I urge my Republican friends not to undercut with their CutYou YouCut representational democracy and not just substitute selective, push polling, robotexting, tooting and tweeting for the work of the greatest deliberative body in the world.

Mr. Speaker, if you tuned in to last week's episode of YouCut, then you may recall that Republicans resorted to a legislative trick in an attempt to cut much needed funding from the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program. This cut would have been another break for the rich at the expense of the poor instead of providing financial support, job training, and child care subsidies to lower-income families with children. Fortunately, this measure was defeated.

This week, Republicans seek to stall the important business of the House yet again with a new list of proposed cuts.

While the YouCut program has been touted by Republicans as a partnership with the American people, a more fitting name for the program would be ``CutYou,'' because it can hurt everyday Americans while doing little to cut the Federal deficit.

What Republicans fail to mention is that the YouCut program is inherently selective and, therefore, biased. Neither online nor cell phone voters are able to vote to save a program rather than cut it. Further, the YouCut program conveniently targets only those who have Internet access and cell phones, which disproportionately leaves out both the poor and the elderly.

I will talk a little bit more about ``CutYou'' later on this evening.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart because of the loss of a very good friend of mine, Judge Edward Davis of the Southern District of Florida. He passed this morning. My love and condolences go out to Pat and the rest of the family for this tragic loss. I shall speak more at another time about my dear, good friend.

Additionally, Madam Speaker, while we are ``slick and tired'' of hearing people pontificate about this ecosystem disaster of apocalyptic proportions, there are questions that do need to be raised, not only for the entirety of the oil industry, but certainly for the United States Government in this particular case.

I would like the questions answered, and am proposing by way of a letter what steps are being taken to determine how much oil is underwater, where it is located, and what path it will take over the next decade.

What do we project the threat to be from a potential hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, and how is our government planning for the potential impact of such a possibility?

What are the potential long-term impacts if the oil plume stays in its location and-or begins moving through the loop current and Gulf Stream to various coastal locations?

Why have we not used our tankers that can suck in oil and water and pump out oil?

Why have we not asked Russia or Norway or China or Japan to use their submersibles in a meaningful way?

Interagency coordination is required. I happen to like Thad Allen. I think he is one of the better commandants that the Coast Guard has ever had, and I think he is doing an incredible job trying to coordinate. But what does the Federal Government's short-term, midterm and long- term response structure look like, and what agencies are in charge, is what I would ask him and anyone else involved.

What steps are being taken to coordinate long-term observations, impact analysis, mitigation research and research that is needed? Not BP's research, but our research. We have an institution, NOAA. They have modeling efforts to improve hurricane intensity forecasting and a sufficient amount of information that could be beneficial, and I am sure many are using it.

What is the government's plan to improve security at these oil facilities? Nothing has been really said to us here in the Congress directly regarding this.

But, now, Madam Speaker, I want to turn to my colleagues on the other side for the remainder of my time.

Earlier today, I spoke on the House floor regarding the Republicans' latest ploy to stall the important work of this body known as ``YouCut,'' which I like to call ``CutYou.'' Each week, a targeted pool of online and cell phone users are supposed to vote for one of five programs that they would like to see cut from the budget. Simply put, YouCut can and probably does undercut our representational responsibilities, which leads to undercutting our democracy.

Once we start getting into the business of government by referendum, we negate representation. Ask my friends in California and ask those of us in Florida what impact that kind of activity has had on our representatives.

The last time I checked, last week, there were 280,000 votes, and that doesn't constitute the will of the American people. That is what brings me to the floor.

Very occasionally, Democrats and Republicans get on the floor and say what the American people want. What the American people know is that we represent them, and therefore when we stand up and say that 280,000 people voted a certain way, or 81,000 of them voted to cut much-needed funding from the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program, that does not represent the majority of Americans.

Quite frankly, I think how this idea got started is that they need to rebrand themselves, and I don't fault them for that, and they are particularly good at messaging, and I don't fault them for that.

The simple fact of the matter is that somewhere along the line somebody decided, let's use us a mechanism to gather in these emails. Let's use us a mechanism to get these phone numbers. And then what do we do at campaign time? We turn it back around and go at them to make them intense and enthusiastic. And that is what people can do, so I have no quarrels with that.

I have no quarrels with their new program. What is it called? It is getting ready to be unfolded next Tuesday on their Web site. It is called ``America is Speaking Out.'' Well, the last time I looked in my office, America has spoken out an awful lot.

I don't know that we need too much more undercutting, and the poor in this country sure don't need an uppercut.

What Republicans fail to mention is that the ``YouCut'' program is inherently selective, and therefore biased. Neither online nor cell phone voters are able to vote to save a program rather than cut it. Furthermore, the ``YouCut'' program conveniently targets only those who have internet access and cell phones, which disproportionately leave out some of the poor and the elderly.

Instead of continuing to be the ``party of no,'' Republicans should say ``yes'' to the American people and help pass the legislation that this National needs and deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Endangered Species Day. I hope that events around the country continue to be successful. It is important to shed light on success stories about recovering species and the importance of continued protection of those at risk.

The protection of endangered species has become increasingly relevant in our country and around the world in the past century. In the early 1970s, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act to protect plant and animal life from reaching the brinks of extinction. This act has been further developed and amended since its original enactment to protect and preserve more species and the habitats they depend on.

To date, the Endangered Species Act has shown great progress and results. Almost 50 species have been recovered and delisted, while 23 other species have been reclassified from endangered to threatened. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Endangered Species Act has saved more than 99 percent of its listed species from extinction.

Endangered Species Day was created in 2006 to recognize the national conservation effort to protect our nation's endangered species and their habitats. Local zoos, schools, libraries, museums, and community organizations around the country have taken the opportunity to host educational activities and events to generate awareness about the importance of protecting endangered species worldwide.

In spite of these successes, we are still losing species at alarming rates. Worldwide, more than 16,000 species are threatened with extinction. Up to one-third of U.S. species are at increased risk of extinction, and more than 1,300 U.S. plants and animals have already been federally listed as threatened or endangered, and protected under the Endangered Species Act.

As a Floridian, I am particularly concerned about endangered species in the Everglades. Florida has the third highest number of endangered species in the nation. Of the 108 species listed under the Endangered Species Act throughout Florida, 65 of them are located in the Everglades. If we do not act fast, we may lose some of our most incredible species, such as the Florida panther, the woodrat and the manatee.

Madam Speaker, it is crucial to protect the diversity of our planet's species and educate ourselves about the issues and challenges affecting these species and their habitats. Wildlife conservation must continue to be one of our top priorities. I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating Endangered Species Day and continuing to promote wildlife conservation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Lena Horne Recognition Act, a bill to posthumously honor Lena Horne with a Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of her many achievements and contributions to American culture and the Civil Rights Movement. A symbol of elegance and grace, the legendary Lena Horne entertained America and broke racial barriers as a singer, dancer, and actress for over 60 years. Ms. Horne passed away in New York City on May 9, 2010 at the age of 92. My thoughts and prayers go out to her daughter, Ms. Gail Lumet Buckley, and the rest of her family and friends at this most difficult time.

Lena Mary Calhoun Horne was born on June 30, 1917, in Brooklyn, New York. Her path to international stardom would take her from Harlem's famous Cotton Club, where she was hired as a chorus dancer at the age of 16, to Charlie Barnet's jazz band, where she became one of the first African American women to tour with an all-white band, to Hollywood and Broadway.

In the 1940s, Ms. Horne was discovered by a Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) talent scout and moved to Hollywood to be an actress, becoming the first black artist to sign a long-term contract with a major studio. Despite her extraordinary beauty and talent, however, she was often limited to minor acting roles because of her race. Among many lost opportunities, studio executives cast fellow actress Ava Gardner as Julie in the film adaptation of Show Boat instead of Ms. Horne because they did not want it to star a black actress. However, she dazzled audiences and critics in a number of films, including Cabin in the Sky and Stormy Weather.

The struggle for equal and fair treatment was an inseparable and increasingly political part of Ms. Horne's life. During World War II, Ms. Horne toured extensively with the United Service Organizations (USO) on the West Coast and in the South in support of the troops. She was outspoken in her criticism of the way black soldiers were treated, refusing to sing for segregated audiences or to groups in which German prisoners of war were seated in front of African American servicemen.

During the period of McCarthyism in the 1950s, Ms. Horne was blacklisted as a communist for seven years because of her civil rights activism and friendship with Paul Robeson and W.E.B. Du Bois. Although she continued to face discrimination, Ms. Horne's career flourished in television and on nightclub stages across the country. It was during this time that she also established herself as a major recording artist. In 1957, she recorded Lena Horne at the Waldorf-Astoria, which reached the Top 10 and became the best-selling album by a female singer in RCA Victor's history.

Sharing the stage with such names as Count Basie, Tony Bennett, Billy Eckstein, Vic Damone, and Harry Belafonte, Ms. Horne rose to international stardom and toured the world. She also starred in musical and television specials with such giants as Judy Garland, Bing Crosby, and Frank Sinatra.

Ms. Horne used her talent and fame to become a powerful voice for civil rights and equality. In 1963, she participated in the historic March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, at which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his immortal ``I Have a Dream'' speech. She also performed at rallies throughout the country for the National Council for Negro Women and worked with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), of which she was a member since the age of two, the National Council of Negro Women, the Delta Sigma Theta sorority, and the Urban League throughout her career.

In 1981, Ms. Horne finally received the big break she had waited for her whole life. Her one-woman Broadway show, Lena Horne: The Lady and Her Music, was the culmination of her triumphs and struggles. It enjoyed a 14-month run before going on tour and earned her a special Tony and two Grammy awards.

Madam Speaker, Lena Horne was an extraordinary woman who refused to give up her dreams and used her beauty, talent, and intelligence to fight racial discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, we met the newest ploy of the Republicans, YouCut.

The rule under consideration was to grant deposition authority to the staff of Ed and Labor regarding the safety issues surrounding the tragic loss of life and limb of coal miners. Enter YouCut.

So-called 240,000 Americans voted on the Internet. The Republicans then chose to offer an amendment to the previous question so that we could not go forward on substantive business, and to cut poor people's opportunities.

First, this is not ``American Idol'' or ``Dancing With the Stars.'' This is America's legislature. For all we know, on YouCut, Osama bin Laden could be voting.

Please know that not a handful of organized ``gotcha'' Republicans are going to control this legislature.

Madam Speaker, on May 7, 2010 a good friend of mine, Emily England Clyburn, received a much deserved reward for her extraordinary service to South Carolina State College and our Nation. Her alma mater and beloved institution marked her distinguished career of public service with an honorary doctorate degree. Emily's honorary degree embodies her humanitarian spirit, a gift she shares as a lifelong librarian.

Emily's career began with her belief in earning a strong education. She graduated from Berkeley Training High School in Moncks Corner, South Carolina in 1956 before going on to receive her bachelor's degree from S.C. State in 1961. Here, she met her husband, U.S. Congressman James E. Clyburn. Mrs. Clyburn went on to earn her Masters in Librarianship from the University of South Carolina in May 1977.

Mrs. Clyburn employed her education by dedicating her career to libraries. She gave her students the gift of learning by establishing the first library at Fairwold Middle School in Columbia, SC. She worked at Simonton Elementary School in Charleston, SC and was assistant librarian at Burke High School. Mrs. Clyburn was also head librarian at the Naval Hospital in Charleston, SC and eventually went on to retire in 1994 after serving two tours as Assistant Librarian at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Columbia, SC.

Congressman and Mrs. Clyburn continue to support educational initiatives through the James E. and Emily E. Clyburn Endowment for Archives and History at their alma mater, S.C. State. S.C. State will honor Mrs. Clyburn's lifetime of achievement with the Emily E. Clyburn Archives and History Center in the soon to be constructed James E. Clyburn University Transportation Center, a lasting symbol to a woman who will leave an everlasting legacy.

Mrs. Clyburn has been bestowed many honors in her career, none more important than that of mother and wife. Since their marriage in 1961, Congressman and Mrs. Clyburn have dedicated their lives to a sense of purpose and the betterment of society and have instilled these same values into their three wonderful daughters, Mignon, Jennifer, and Angela. I'm certain these same lasting principles will also influence their two grandchildren, Walter and Sydney.

Madam Speaker, here is someone we can all look up to and be proud of--a strong woman who overcame the many boundaries of her time and a sterling model of how we should define true success by our ability to give back. Emily England Clyburn has accomplished far more than any honorary doctorate can appropriately signify. I am proud to call Emily my friend, her husband a colleague, and their service to this Nation extraordinary.