Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 181, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 11, the House passed version of this bill, I would like to express my appreciation for the efforts of Chairman George Miller for his instrumental efforts in ensuring passage of this vital legislation. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will strengthen protections against discrimination and safeguard the civil liberties of our Nation's employees.

Through the passage of this legislation, we correct the injustice that occurred following the unlawful discrimination against Ms. Lilly Ledbetter. After nearly 2 decades of service to the Goodyear Tire and Rubber facility in Alabama, Ms. Ledbetter discovered that she was the lowest-paid supervisor at the plant, despite having more experience than several of her male colleagues.

When Ms. Ledbetter sued her employer, a jury found that she had been the victim of unlawful discrimination. The Supreme Court agreed, but nonetheless upheld Goodyear's appeal on the ground that Ms. Ledbetter was barred from challenging the discriminatory payments. The Supreme Court's reason was that the time limit for bringing her claim had passed as the initial discriminatory decision had occurred 20 years earlier. In dismissing Ms. Ledbetter's claim, the Supreme Court overruled a previous law under which every discriminatory paycheck was a new violation that restarted the clock for filing a claim.

The Supreme Court's decision put workers who were subject to discrimination at an extreme disadvantage. As Ms. Ledbetter's case shows, it is very difficult for employees to discover pay discrimination, and workers may not discover pay discrimination for many years after they are discriminated against. Under the Supreme Court's decision, many victims of this deplorable practice would be left without recourse.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision encourages employers to keep a discriminatory pay decision secret for 180 days, allowing them to pay the discriminatory the rest of a worker's career.

Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons the Supreme Court's decision rendered much of our civil rights law virtually unenforceable. This was a decision that affected not only gender discrimination, but also discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity and sexuality. I am therefore proud to support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, a bill that I first introduced in the 109th Congress.

Many of us share the belief that the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina was disorganized and inadequate. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, was far too slow to respond and evacuees were left stranded in massive shelters with egregious standard-of-living conditions.

Sixteen months following the devastation wreaked by Hurricane Katrina, more than 13,000 residents who were displaced by the storm were still living in trailers provided by FEMA. Eighteen months after Katrina, half of the homes in New Orleans still did not have electricity. Shortly thereafter, FEMA informed Congress that 60,000 families in Louisiana still lived in 240 square foot trailers--usually at least 3 people to a trailer.

The sluggish and derisory reaction of our Federal Government to disaster victims affects me personally. In 2004, four hurricanes ravaged my home State of Florida, all of which literally destroyed parts of the counties in my district. In the immediate and long-term aftermath, our communities saw FEMA's shortcomings. More than 18 months after Hurricane Wilma struck in 2005, citizens were still residing in trailers labeled on the outside ``FEMA.''

The lack of natural disaster preparedness efforts and temporary housing options for disaster-stricken citizens only exacerbated an unbearable situation. Deficient recovery responses have led to elongated recovery rates in my district and across this Nation.

Two main problems--increasing the availability of temporary housing in times of national emergencies and improving training and preparedness for national emergencies--must be resolved to ensure that the humanitarian catastrophe that occurred in the gulf coast and continues to happen today will never occur again.

We have an obligation to better prepare and more adequately respond to the needs of communities hit by natural disasters. We have a responsibility to ensure that basic needs of disaster victims are met immediately following the devastation.

My legislation establishes six National Emergency Centers throughout the United States. The Centers will be used, first and foremost, to provide temporary housing, medical and humanitarian assistance, including education, for individuals and families displaced due to an emergency. The Centers will also serve as a centralized location for the training and coordination of first responders in the instance of an emergency. In addition, the Centers will improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts between governments, private companies, not-for-profit entities, and faith-based organizations.

The National Emergency Centers will be located on military bases, with a preference wherever possible for those installations closed during the most recent Base Realignment and Closures, BRAC, round. I am proposing these sites because the necessary infrastructure to house, feed, educate, and care for evacuees over an extended period of time is already in place, thus limiting the cost and time needed to construct these facilities.

Madam Speaker, our Nation was not prepared for the disastrous hurricanes that struck Florida and the gulf coast in 2004 and in 2005. The establishment of National Emergency Centers will go a long way to ensuring that our response to national emergencies are not as disastrous as the disasters that created the emergencies in the first place.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and urge the House Leadership to bring this bill to the floor for its swift consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 52 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, my friend, Mr. Sessions. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent, Madam Speaker, that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 52 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009.

I really am honored and privileged to have the opportunity to present this rule to the body. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided among and controlled by the chairperson and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the chairperson and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, the SCHIP reauthorization bill of 2009 is a fiscally responsible way to revive our commitment to providing America's low- income children with the quality health care they need and deserve. The bill authorizes $32.3 billion over 4\1/2\ years to cover the seven million children who currently rely on SCHIP, and extends coverage to more than four million low-income children who are currently living without health care. The bill offers comprehensive and wide-ranging care that includes mental, dental, prenatal, and maternal health services.

The underlying bill also supports a multifaceted approach to increasing health insurance enrollment. It provides States with incentives to lower

the number of uninsured children and authorizes $100 million in grants for new outreach programs in schools and community-based organizations.

Additionally, the bill fights geographical health disparities by offering additional support to underfunded States that meet these enrollment goals, and improves reporting on State health conditions.

Lastly, this bill has provisions that ensure that SCHIP prioritizes children who legally reside in the United States. The bill prohibits new waivers that would cover parents, phases out SCHIP coverage for parents and childless adults, and includes measures that prevent payments to unlawful immigrants.

Madam Speaker, when all 50 States, the District of Columbia and five territories--and perhaps the sixth, the Northern Marianas, now that they're included--gave children health care under SCHIP, our government exemplified our Nation's commitment to equal opportunity. SCHIP has prevented millions of low-income children from suffering under our country's flawed health care system for over 10 years. And adequately supporting and expanding this valuable program is even more imperative during these hard economic times.

Madam Speaker, the '08 financial crisis exacerbated our longstanding health care crisis. Last year, skyrocketing gas and food prices and the plummeting job market made it difficult for lower and middle income-- indeed, for all Americans--to finance their everyday needs, importantly, including health care.

In a country where a large portion of people receive health care insurance through their employer, it comes as no surprise that when the economy and job markets plunge, the number of uninsured Americans soars, and children frequently pay the highest price. Even prior to last year's economic crisis, the number of children who depended on SCHIP and Medicaid was increasing.

Madam Speaker, the facts are clear: One in nine American children are uninsured. And this issue hits close to home. Florida was ranked 45th in the Nation in terms of overall health. Like other low-ranking States, Florida has a large uninsured population and a high rate of child poverty. In fact, Florida has the second largest number of uninsured children in the country.

Although these statistics are inexcusable, our current President's failure to address the alarming number of uninsured children in this country was and is an outrage. The President committed an egregious action, in my opinion, against our children when he repeatedly vetoed the bipartisan SCHIP Reauthorization Act of 2007. For many States, the annual funds allotted to State SCHIP programs were on the verge of depletion, and the welfare of millions of children depended on whether Congress and the President would agree to adequately finance SCHIP. President Bush's action sent a devastating message. The leader of the free world was willing to put the lives and welfare of millions of American children at risk.

Now, in this new Congress, and with a new administration, we have the power, the political will, and the opportunity to make a different choice. Like-minded Democrats and Republicans and independents understand that fighting the epidemic of uninsured people in this country is a fundamental component of restoring our economy. We know that SCHIP and other health care programs decrease costly emergency room visits and invasive medical procedures. We know that extending health care insurance helps to combat the social, economic and health disparities that continue to divide our Nation and hinder our progress. And we know that healthy children are better equipped to compete in school and help America compete in the global market.

Simply put, we cannot have a healthy economy without healthy people. And this must begin with our children. I urge adoption of this rule and passage of the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, my colleague and good friend on the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, my colleague on the Rules Committee, who is also going to be on the committee of jurisdiction real soon, and we are going to miss her on the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Ohio, the distinguished gentlewoman, Ms. Sutton, a member of the Rules Committee, also soon to be a member of the Commerce Committee and will be sorely missed on our Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to inform both sides as to the remaining amount of time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield for his first floor speech to a gentleman that is going to be on the Rules Committee real soon, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who, when this program had its inception in 1997, was an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my classmate and good friend,

the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, can you tell me again how much time each of us has?

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a new Member, the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Ohio (Ms. Kilroy).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to yet another of our new Members on the Democratic side, the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Kissell).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my classmate and good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), my good friend who along with his fellows in the area of Georgia have been champions for children's health insurance.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who knows this issue extremely well.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to one of the original sponsors of the original SCHIP legislation, the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, my good friend, Rosa DeLauro.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader of the Democratic Caucus, Mr. Hoyer, my good friend.

Madam Speaker, may I indulge you again to give us the remaining amount of time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, yet another of our new Members, providing new dynamics and new direction, Mrs. Dahlkemper.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield at this time 1 minute to a distinguished new Member who represents those 10 miles from my home, Orlando, Florida (Mr. Grayson).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman, my friend from Oregon, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Blumenauer.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I inquire of the gentleman whether or not he is their last speaker. I am prepared to close, and I will be our last speaker.

Madam Speaker, when I hear my good friend from Texas speak of regular order on this particular measure, it would presume, among other things, I guess, that

no one in this body knows that there is a significant number of children who are uninsured and that this measure, once offered in 1997, did begin the process that today we wish to continue and that still does not complete the task that most of us feel is necessary in order to insure all of the children in this country.

Madam Speaker, this is a good rule for a critically important bill. Although this bill cannot repair all of the flaws that are intrinsic in America's health care system, it undoubtedly serves as a strong and honorable prelude to facilitating comprehensive health care reform.

Mahatma Gandhi, among many things, said that you can learn about a country's condition by looking at its most weak and vulnerable people. The alarming rate of uninsured and poverty-stricken children in this country tells us that the richest country on Earth is in poor condition.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule so that we may support a bill that will give millions of children the basic right to health so that they can become leaders and productive citizens.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 54 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January 14, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I rise to express deep concern about Azerbaijan's cessation of local broadcasts of Radio Free Europe and Voice of America. After threatening for months to remove RFE/RL and VOA from the FM airwaves, Baku did precisely that on January 1.

The official justification for this unfortunate decision is that a 2002 Azerbaijani law restricts such frequencies to local broadcasters. The Helsinki Commission, which I chair, sent a letter on November 24, co-signed by Co-Chairman Senator Benjamin Cardin and Ranking Minority Member Christopher Smith, to President Ilham Aliev in which we urged him to reconsider. We pointed out that keeping Congressionally funded RFE/RL and VOA off the FM airwaves was an unwise and unfriendly move and that ending these programs was a poor way to start a relationship with incoming President Barack Obama. But Baku did not budge. Nor, might I add, have we even received the courtesy of a reply since November.

In fact, there are grounds for even graver concerns. Baku had pledged that only FM broadcasts would be ended. On January 6, however, Azerbaijani authorities tried to close down RFE/RL's Internet operation--which they had said would not be touched.

It is difficult to see these actions in any light other than a desire to restrict information available to the public. As the State Department said on December 30, ``These media organizations play a crucial role in supporting democratic debate and the free exchange of ideas and information. This decision, if carried out, will represent a serious setback to freedom of speech, and retard democratic reform in Azerbaijan.''

I concur completely. Azerbaijan's record on media freedom was poor before this, with heavy state influence on the airwaves, three journalists in jail and frequent criticism by the OSCE, Council of Europe and freedom of speech advocates. Now, Azerbaijanis without access to cable or the Internet--which means most of the listening audience--are cut off from objective, impartial sources of information.

Azerbaijani relations with the United States will surely be negatively affected by this decision. I regret that when President Ilham Aliev eventually meets President Barack Obama, they will have to spend time discussing why Baku has shut down U.S.-funded radio stations, instead of exploring ways to deepen the relationship between our countries.

The Helsinki Commission intends to examine U.S. international broadcasting in a future hearing and discuss ways of ensuring the continuance of this vital service. Meanwhile, it is my hope that President Aliev will find a way to keep RFE/RL and VOA on the air.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor my departing Chief of Staff, David Goldenberg. With great reluctance but immense gratitude, I bid farewell to David after almost 9 years in my office, nearly 2 as my Chief of Staff.

Madam Speaker, David will be sorely missed. His policy knowledge, political acumen, generosity of heart, and dedication to his work leaves an indelible impression, not only on myself but on all those members of my staff who work closely with him. David has served as a colleague, leader, mentor and, friend to much of my staff over the years, and it is on their behalf, as well as mine, that I honor him today.

David is reliable and good-natured, hard-working and humorous. His leadership in my office has been marked by charity and devotion, acceptance and affection. David has been an asset not only to Florida's 23rd District, and not only to the State of Florida, but also to the entire country, as an advocate of those policies that seek to uplift people and better their lives.

Madam Speaker, as David and his wife, Nami, move from Washington, D.C. to Chicago, I wish them much happiness and the best of luck in this new chapter in their lives. I only insist that they both return to Washington to visit me as soon as possible.

David, I thank you.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleague and good friend from Florida, Representative Ros-Lehtinen, and almost 20 bipartisan original cosponsors to introduce a very significant piece of legislation, the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2009.

This legislation is largely based on the recommendations presented in a 2007 National Science Foundation, NSF, report, Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative.

The report delivered a stern warning: ``Relative to the tremendous damage future hurricanes will inflict, the current federal investment in hurricane science and engineering is entirely insufficient.''

The state of science today is not advanced enough to inform us reliably about when or where hurricanes are going to strike or what their precise impact on our communities will be.

Since 2001, hurricane damage has cost our Nation almost $36 billion in economic losses per year. In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma accounted for over $160 billion in total damages and the loss of almost 1,500 innocent lives. Further, the impact from inland flooding and tornadoes, which can result from the onset of hurricanes and tropical storms, can be felt throughout the entire United States.

Currently, 50 percent of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of the coastline. As populations and economies continue to expand in these high risk coastline areas, the economic and societal costs will only increase when future hurricanes strike our Nation.

Our Government can ill afford to ignore the advice of its premier scientists and put our populations and infrastructure at risk. We need to nationally invest in new research to better prepare, respond and mitigate these disasters.

This comprehensive hurricane research bill will improve hurricane research dramatically in the United States. The bill authorizes $2.35 billion in critical hurricane research funding to help scientists study and better understand how hurricanes form and intensify, as well as enhance early warning systems, infrastructure durability standards, and hurricane tracking and prediction capabilities.

The entire Nation would deeply benefit from enhanced, coordinated hurricane research. Better intensity forecasting, long-range projections of hurricane activity, emergency management, and hurricane mitigation would be advantageous to everyone--from improving the ability of local communities to respond to hurricanes to reducing the Federal Government's share in recovery efforts by billions of dollars.

Madam Speaker, our Nation and my State of Florida in particular are all too familiar with the immense damage hurricanes can inflict. It is imperative that we take significant actions to increase Federal investment in new research to better prepare for, respond to, and mitigate the devastating impacts of hurricanes. Let us resolve to act promptly to address ways to prevent and respond to future hurricanes before the next hurricane strikes.

I ask for my colleagues' support and urge the House leadership to bring this legislation to the floor for its swift consideration. There is no time for further delay.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Critical Election Infrastructure Act of 2009.

This legislation is a necessary and vital investment in our citizens and the future of our democracy. This bill authorizes $1 billion to states and local governments over the next four years for the acquisition of additional voting systems and equipment, improving training of election administration officials, upgrading existing election equipment, and allocating additional election administration officials to polling places serving greater numbers of voters. This funding is essential to improve efficiency and fairness in the operation of polling places in federal elections.

President Dwight Eisenhower once said, ``The future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.'' In the 2008 Presidential election, an astounding 130 million people voted and, even more exciting, an unprecedented number of youth and minorities lined up at the polls to participate in the electoral process, many for the first time. While this increased turnout is emblematic of our nation's commitment to our future, in some parts of the country it caused undue difficulties.

For example, throughout South Florida and elsewhere in the country, hundreds of thousands of voters found themselves waiting on interminable lines, sometimes for over five hours. Five hours! Forced to stand in the heat and during Florida's famous afternoon thunderstorms with little food and water, voters are to be commended for their civic commitment. But American citizens should not have to face such difficulties when exercising their sacred right to vote.

Elections officials simply did not have enough equipment and trained personnel on the ground to speedily and effectively handle such large numbers of voters. Clearly what is needed is more: more polling booths, more trained workers, more equipment, and more polling locations and facilities to handle increasing numbers of voters.

Madam Speaker, voting should not be a right granted only to those who can stand in line the longest or can go the longest without food or a bathroom break. Voting is the sacred right of all eligible citizens. We have a solemn responsibility to ensure the greatest possible access to exercise that right. Authorizing funding for the necessary equipment and personnel is an essential first step in that process. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Haitian Protection Act of 2009. This important piece of legislation would designate Haitian nationals as eligible for Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

The creation of TPS was intended to serve as the statutory embodiment of safe haven for those who are fleeing--or reluctant to return to--a potentially dangerous situation in their country of origin.

According to section 244(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990, TPS may be granted when: there is ongoing armed conflict posing a serious threat to personal safety; it is requested by a foreign state that temporarily cannot handle the return of nationals due to environmental disaster; or extraordinary and temporary conditions in a foreign state exist which prevent aliens from returning.

Haiti has continued to meet all three of these requirements, and yet, not once have Haitian nationals been granted TPS.

Last year, I, along with several of my colleagues, wrote on several occasions to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the President of the United States urging them to grant Haiti TPS.

Sadly, just today, the Miami Herald reported that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff recently wrote to Haitian President Rene Preval formally denying his request for TPS. In his letter, Secretary Chertoff stated that ``After very careful consideration, I have concluded that Haiti does not currently warrant a TPS designation.''

Madam Speaker, this response came as an utter shock. This past summer, only a few months after deadly food riots led to the removal of the country's Prime Minister, Haiti was ravaged by four back-to-back natural disasters. Thousands lost their homes, many were left starving and isolated from humanitarian assistance, nearly 800 lives were taken, and as of last month, over 300 people remain missing.

Though recovery efforts have slowly commenced, much of Haiti remains in a state of destruction. Up to 40,000 people are in shelters, and severe malnutrition concerns have arisen throughout rural areas.

How dire must the situation in Haiti become before the United States is willing to extend this helping hand to Haiti as it has done for other nations under similar circumstances?

The Haitian government's ability to provide basic governmental services--clean water, education, passable roads and basic healthcare-- remains severely compromised by these natural disasters. Repatriating Haitians at this time imposes an additional burden on government resources that are already stretched too thin and poses a serious danger to deportees' personal safety.

Concerning stability and overall safety, Haiti is still in dire need of an adequate policing force to maintain order and halt the escalation in kidnappings that are plaguing the nation.

As of April 2008, the Department of State's current travel warning advises Americans that current conditions in Haiti make it unsafe to travel due to the potential for looting, the possibility of random violent crime, and the serious threat of kidnapping for ransom.

Madam Speaker, if it is unsafe for our citizens to travel to Haiti, then those same conditions should make it much too dangerous and inappropriate to forcibly repatriate Haitians at this time. It is unfortunate and appalling that our current immigration policies hold such harmful double standards.

I want to make it very clear that I acknowledge and heartily congratulate Haiti's efforts toward recovery and to a stable democratic government. However, President Preval's nascent democratic government still faces immense challenges with regards to rebuilding Haiti's police and judicial institutions to achieve the fair and prompt tackling of the ongoing political and criminal violence.

In addition to safety and human rights considerations, halting the deportation of Haitians is also an economic matter.

Under the law, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to obtain work authorization permits. The ability for Haitian nationals to legally work in the United States puts them in a position to contribute to their country's recovery and development until such time when it is safe for them to return to Haiti.

Madam Speaker, the Haitian Diaspora has always played a pivotal role in assisting Haiti. It is widely known that Haitians residing in the United States often work three jobs to send money back to Haiti each month. Many Haitians in the United States often send remittances to support family members, and others travel home to lend their expertise toward rebuilding and humanitarian efforts.

Designating Haiti under TPS status would preserve and increase remittances--totaling approximately a third of Haiti's GDP--from the Haitian Diaspora to relatives and communities in Haiti that are key for welfare, survival, and recovery.

Haiti is more dependent than any other country on remittances with nearly a billion dollars a year sent home by Haitians in the United States. In fact, remittances to Haiti far exceed foreign aid.

Now, many Haitian nationals in the United States who previously sustained relatives in Haiti through remittances are being deported, further depriving Haiti of an important source of financial aid that is well-positioned to assist when based here in the United States.

Madam Speaker, there are currently six countries that are protected under the TPS provision: Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Burundi, Somalia, and Sudan. By refusing to give Haiti the TPS designation, our inequitable immigration policies continue to send the message that the safety of Haitian lives is not a priority compared to that of Salvadoran, Honduran, or Sudanese lives.

We must act to change this perception. Our immigration policies have to change. They must reflect fairness and treat Haitians equally to Nicaraguans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans whose deportations are suspended and who are allowed to work and support their families back home.

The Haitian Protection Act of 2009 is necessary to achieve fundamental fairness in our treatment of Haitian immigrants and remedy the accurate and widespread perception that U.S. policy has discriminated against them.

Madam Speaker, we cannot deny Haiti this opportunity to help stabilize its economy, recover from devastating natural disasters, rebuild its political and economic institutions, and provide a future of hope for Haiti's people.

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

Madam Speaker, after the summer recess, the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, was preparing to conduct a hearing on United States and Western businesses at risk entering markets in Russia and the former Soviet Republics without the protections guaranteed by the rule of law and government adherence to market principles. The hearing had to be postponed due to the invasion of Georgia, but it is our intention to take up this issue in the next Congress.

The Helsinki Commission, and the OSCE, is fully committed to the development of democracy, civil society, the rule of law and free markets in the Russia Federation and in other states of the former Soviet Union. We trust that Russian President Medvedev shares that commitment when he proclaims that ``my most important task is to further develop civil and economic freedoms.''

Yet we see evidence that Russian authorities continue to selectively prosecute and harass human rights advocates, prominent business leaders and journalists by employing arbitrary and extralegal means to achieve state and political ends. This is often accomplished through a manipulated court system, thus denying its citizens and foreign investors the impartial application of the rule of law and equal justice.

In June, 1992, the United States and Russia negotiated and signed the Bilateral Investment Treaty, which grants investors the protections and safeguards necessary to conduct business in a fair and transparent environment. Unfortunately, Russia has failed to ratify this important measure that would ultimately serve the economic interests of both our nations.

Along the same lines, it is regrettable that Russia refuses to ratify the Energy Charter

Treaty. This measure insures the rights and protections of private and public sector interests against a government taking arbitrary action that would disrupt or threaten global energy security. The thousands of United States investors who became shareholders in the Russian oil company, YUKOS, lost everything when the Russian government seized the company's assets.

Finally, Russia has not honored its pledge to amend its federal laws to guarantee protections of intellectual property rights and enforcing such laws consistent with international standards. I would note the frequent Western media reports on cases where Russian authorities have seized the assets of certain companies, many with foreign investors, utilizing executive decrees, court orders, and extradition requests to assume ownership or control over Russian enterprises. Some foreign investors have been compelled to surrender their equity shares in Russian companies without proper due process and compensation only to have Western courts, in a series of cases, issue rulings in favor of such companies.

Madam Speaker, we appreciate that our economy is truly global and American and Western investments are essential in Russia and throughout Eurasia, given their abundant natural resources, and urge that all countries can mutually commit to an economic relationship that is based on mutual trust, the rule of law and market forces that are free of arbitrary or capricious government activity.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Critical Election Infrastructure Act of 2008.

This legislation is a necessary and vital investment in the future of our democracy. This bill authorizes $1 billion over the next four years for states and local governments to upgrade existing election equipment and to purchase new polling equipment to meet the needs of our growing electorate. Funding could also be used to hire and train additional poll workers.

Madam Speaker, roughly 130 million votes were cast in this past election. This is an astounding number and emblematic of increased participation in our election system, particularly by minorities and young people. But while increased turnout is for democracy, in some parts of the country it caused undue difficulties.

For example, throughout south Florida and other parts of the country, hundreds of thousands of voters found themselves waiting in interminable lines, sometimes for over five hours. Five hours! Forced to stand in the heat and during Florida's famous afternoon thunderstorms with little food and water, voters are to be commended for their commitment to exercising their right to vote. But voting should not be this hard.

Election officials simply do not have enough equipment and trained personnel on the ground to speedily and effectively handle such large numbers of voters. Even though early voting in Florida took place over a 10-day period, these five-hour-long lines persisted throughout the state virtually every day. Clearly, what is needed is more: more polling booths, more trained workers, more equipment, even more polling locations and facilities to handle increasing numbers of voters. This bill authorizes the funding to upgrade existing technology, provide more polling booths, and hire and train more poll workers, reducing long lines and facilitating greater speed and efficiency for voters

Madam Speaker, voting should not be a right granted only to those who can stand in line the longest or can go the longest without food or a bathroom break. Voting is the sacred right of all eligible citizens. We have a solemn responsibility to ensure the greatest possible access to exercise that right. Authorizing funding for the necessary equipment and personnel is an essential first step in that process. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution regarding the Stimson Doctrine of Non-Recognition, which was a policy adopted in the 1930s, stating that the United States government will not recognize territorial changes brought about by force alone. The Stimson Doctrine became the foundation for sections of the U.N. Charter dealing with the inviolability of recognized borders and territorial integrity.