Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission, I rise today to recognize the generosity of the people of Sodertalje, Sweden, who have opened their doors to more than 5,000 Iraqi refugees. This small city has a population of 83,000 and has accepted more Iraqi refugees than the United States and Canada combined.

On April 10, the Mayor of Sodertalje. Mr. Anders Lago, testified at a Helsinki Commission hearing entitled, ``OSCE Partner States and Neighbors Overwhelmed by Iraqi Refugees: Band-aid Solutions to Implosion in the Middle East?'' In his testimony, Mayor Lago noted, ``The millions of refugees in the world must be a concern for us all, not just for those areas bordering on the breeding grounds of war, or for a small number of countries and cities such as Sodertalje.'' In addition, he said, ``Despite the fact that we need immigrants, Sodertalje has become a town that must now say--STOP, STOP, STOP. Do not misunderstand me. We will always help others when we can. We must act when the lives of our brothers and sisters are in danger. It is imperative that we have a humane refugee policy world wide. Our common agreement that all people are equal, no matter what color, religion or gender, must become a reality.''

Madam Speaker, the country of Sweden has accepted more than 30.000 Iraqi refugees since 2003. This is no doubt a commendable act of humanitarian kindness. I offer my heartfelt thanks and deep appreciation to the government of Sweden which is truly committed to assisting Iraqi refugees.

It must also be noted that, while Mayor Lago has opened the doors of his small city to so many Iraqi refugees, the strains on its infrastructure have been tremendous. Nonetheless, his generosity. and that of the people of Sodertalje, put the United States to shame. The Mayor has clearly gone above and beyond the call of duty to help refugees from Iraq and he is nothing short of a ``humanitarian ambassador.''

Madam Speaker. I thank Mayor Anders Lago and the people of Sodertalje, Sweden for their kindness and generosity, and I submit the Mayor's statement for inclusion in the Congressional Record.

Testimony of Anders Lago--Mayor of Sodertalje Municipality and Chairman of the Executive Committee Before Helsinki Commission, April 10, 2008

Chairman Hastings, Members of the Congressional Commission,

Distinguished Speakers and Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

First and foremost I would like to thank the Commission for

your invitation. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you

about the difficult situation regarding the people now

fleeing from Iraq.

Allow me to be totally frank. I am not the President, a

Cabinet Minister, an Ambassador or even a Member of the

Swedish Parliament. I am the Mayor of Sodertalje, a small

town with slightly more than eighty thousand inhabitants. I

am here today as the representative from a small country on

the northern edge of the European Union, but I can say with

both pride and disappointment, that when it comes to

refugees, I come from a great nation. The United States is

the country in the western world that accepts the largest

number of refugees. Directly thereafter comes Sweden, and

according to census statistics, it is my hometown that

receives most refugees in Sweden.

Many Iraqi refugees have sought shelter in Sodertalje since

the start of the war in Iraq. Almost all belong to the

Christian minority. Sodertalje accepts approximately five

percent of all the Iraqi refugees who come to Europe. To

illustrate this even more dramatically, my little town alone,

receives more Iraqi refugees than the United States and

Canada together.

We did not start the war in Iraq, however we assume a huge responsibility for those people who are affected.

Last week I met with seven Iraqi pupils at a local school.

Meena, a girl in fifth grade, had a tear in her eye when she

said `` It is nice here in Sweden, but I miss my father.''

Her father is still in Iraq. Another little girl, Meryem,

said with an edge to her voice, `` If the war continues, the

doors must be open for the refugees.'' All the children I met

have relatives left in Iraq. And those children live in homes

tormented with fear.

When I asked these children what they wanted to be when

they are older, they brightened up and competed with one

another to tell me. Renza wanted to become an artist. Steve

wanted to become a policeman. Meena said shyly that she

wanted to be a doctor. These children, in spite of all

they have been through, have not let circumstances

diminish their ability to dream of the future.

In Sodertalje we face three problems. Firstly our schools

and preschools are full; of the town's eight thousand pupils,

five hundred are enrolled in the special preparation

classes we have for newly arrived refugees. We can not hire

teachers or build schools fast enough to give all these,

often highly motivated pupils a good start in their new

country.

Secondly there is a lack of living accommodation. A great

many of the refugees lodge with relatives or friends. We know

of cases of fifteen people sleeping on mattresses in a two

room apartment.

And last but not least we have a shortage of job

opportunities. A small town can not possibly produce jobs for

a thousand refugees each year. Here the United States could

really help Sodertalje. American companies looking to set up

businesses or expand in Europe, are most welcome to visit my

home town. We need all the job opportunities we can get.

I am in awe of the refugees' ambition and will to make new

lives for themselves. Many of those who come to our town are

well educated and motivated to start a new life in a new

country. We need immigrants if we are to manage the

demographic challenges we face, as the number of aging

citizens in the western world rises.

Despite the fact that we need immigrants, Sodertalje has

become a town that must now say--STOP, STOP, STOP! Do not

misunderstand me. We will always help others when we can. We

must act when the lives of our brothers and sisters--are in

danger. It is imperative--that we have a humane refugee

policy world wide. Our common agreement, that all people are

equal, no matter what color religion or gender must become a

reality.

The millions of refugees in the world must be a concern for

us all, not just for those areas bordering on the breeding

grounds of war, or for a small number of countries and cities

such as Sodertalje.

Sodertalje works hard to spread the reception of refugees

equally over the whole of Sweden, to all cities and towns.

Internationally, we must find a model for an equal and more

responsible reception of refugees. We must also have special

support for the refugees on site in Iraq, in Jordan and in

Syria. Most of all, we must put an end to this and other

ongoing wars.

The children I met last week have cousins and friends who

are left behind in Iraq. Those children are trying to lead a

normal childhood in a land where uneasiness and fear are

always present.

I am not a President; I am not an Ambassador; but I know

that we must create a new future for the children fleeing

from war.

And I know there is no time to lose.

Thank you for your attention.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Jubilee Act which urges expedited international debt relief for Haiti. The current situation in Haiti, a nation that has been historically afflicted by violence and natural disasters, is increasingly desperate and volatile.

In recent days, thousands of Haitians have flooded the streets of Port-au-Prince and other cities throughout the country in desperation to decry rapidly escalating food prices in a nation where three- quarters of the population lives on under $2 a day. The cost of staple foods in Haiti has skyrocketed 50 percent within the last year.

Haiti is not only the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, but it also ranks third behind Somalia and Afghanistan as the nation with the highest per capita daily deficit in calorie intake. Recent anger over food prices threatens the stability of this Caribbean nation already haunted by chronic hunger.

The humanitarian crisis in Haiti underscores the importance of quick and deliberate leadership by the United States. Haiti still is scheduled to pay almost $50 million in 2008 to unilateral financial institutions.

This amendment would put Congress on record encouraging the expedited cancellation of Haiti's international debt to help alleviate poverty and increased stability in Haiti. The United States government cannot and should not turn a blind eye again to the struggles of this undeveloped, underdeveloped, impoverished nation.

I applaud President Bush's recent announcement that he would release $200 million in U.S. emergency food aid to help alleviate food shortages in developing countries, including in Haiti, but these funds are not nearly enough to assist with the immediate or long-term humanitarian crisis. They fall far short of putting Haiti on a sustained path to development. I ask the President and all of us to do more.

This amendment is an initial step in the right direction. We could follow it up with giving temporary protective status, as President Preval of Haiti has requested and President Bush could grant. I ask for my colleagues to support this amendment and ask that they join us in supporting our Haitian friends.

Yesterday, 247 Haitians were sent back by the Coast Guard, and the Coast Guard has increased its vigilance in the area in light of this impending crisis. At a time of extreme instability and crisis, Congress must not turn its back on Haiti.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

At this time I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas, my colleague and good friend, Sheila Jackson-Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank Chairman Frank for the expeditious handling of this matter. In addition, I thank my good friend from Connecticut for his statement and his support of this amendment.

This is an important initial step toward finally freeing Haiti from its onerous debt. Not only our administration, but the institutional community

has some responsibilities in this matter that they can discharge much.

My appeal goes way beyond just the American responsibility. I ask the international community to weigh in and deal with this subject in a meaningful way to give this opportunity the relief that it rightly deserves.

I ask for my colleagues' support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my late great friend Congresswoman Julia M. Carson, a dedicated public servant from Indianapolis. I thank my colleague, Congressman Visclosky, for introducing a resolution to recognize her achievements by naming a post office in her honor in Indianapolis as the Julia M. Carson Post Office Building.

Julia Carson was born on July 8, 1938 in Louisville, Kentucky and served in various elected offices. We first became colleagues when she was elected to the 105th Congress and served together until she passed away on December 15, 2007.

As the first African American and first woman to be elected to Congress from Indianapolis, Julia Carson was a woman of outstanding ambition and achievements. Not only was Julia a star in her city of Indianapolis, but she was a star of the nation. Her many invaluable legislative contributions, including the recognition of Rosa Parks with a Congressional Gold Medal, were a testament to her star qualities. I hope that my colleagues realize what we lost when Julia passed away.

Mr. Speaker, I can think of no one more deserving of this enduring recognition than Julia Carson. This resolution is fitting recognition for a tremendous woman who continued to deliver the truth until her final days. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution as we can all attest to her unprecedented devotion in serving her community and society.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1084 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend and namesake, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1084.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1084 provides for consideration of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule makes in order the eight amendments listed in the Rules Committee report on this resolution. Six of these amendments will be offered by Republican Members, two by Democrats. Each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes. This rule is a continuation of our commitment to ensuring that the minority be given a fair opportunity to amend legislation on the House floor.

The rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the American public has a vested interest in protecting our Nation's lands from the destructive uses that would ruin their natural beauty. In my home State of Florida, the protection and preservation of the magnificent ecosystem known as the Everglades, which spans 3 million acres of wetlands and is home to rare and endangered species, is of utmost importance to me and my constituents. It is a national priority to ensure that these majestic wetlands and others around our country will be preserved for all future generations of Americans to enjoy. The preservation of the National Landscape Conservation System is equally important to this Nation and to this Congress.

The underlying legislation would protect 27 million acres of land of the American West considered to have significant historical, cultural, ecological, scientific or scenic value. Most of the lands in this system are already protected and administered by the Bureau of Land Management, including wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers and national monuments. This bill will help to streamline management of the system and reduce overall bureaucracy in the program.

If the statement of the gentleman from Alaska yesterday in the Rules Committee is any indication, and I am referring to our colleague Congressman Young, there is a small minority of Members who may try and argue that this bill strips the private property rights of landowners. Quite the contrary. This bill protects only the lands the Bureau of Land Management already has authority over. Additionally, no owners' rights have been violated in the past, and there is no reason to believe they will be violated in the future.

Some may also argue that the underlying legislation changes the core management authority governing the individual National Landscape Conservation System units. Conversely, the bill includes an extensive savings clause that makes it abundantly clear that nothing in the bill alters the management authority governing the individual units.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would not affect the Bureau of Land Management's budget, direct spending or revenues, or the budgets of State, local or tribal governments.

Finally, the amendments made in order under the rule go a step further to address energy development, grazing rights, hunting and fishing and border security, ensuring that this bill does not change the law in these areas at all. All this bill does is help conserve and protect our Nation's land, our Nation's heritage.

It enjoys broad bipartisan support from groups including the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, American Hiking Society, the National Council of Churches, Boone and Crockett Club, National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Wildlife Foundation, and the Outdoor Industry Association.

The bill also enjoys the often unheard of support from both President Bush and former President Clinton.

It is my sincere hope that the House will pass this rule and underlying bill with the same overwhelming bipartisan support it currently enjoys. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the National Landscape Conservation System Act as we further our efforts to protect and preserve public lands throughout America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed and yielded back his time.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend from Utah not to leave, and I am going to ask him a question and then yield time to him, with the Speaker's permission.

The gentleman from Utah is my good friend and he served with us on the Rules Committee, but I am just curious, as the ranking member of the committee of relevant jurisdiction, did you offer these measures? And, in addition, in the Rules Committee did you offer any statement in support of your measures? Finally, you did offer one amendment that I would suggest we save yourself from by not making it in order because you are not asking, of course, or want us to take up a measure that is going to cost the Treasury $5 billion.

I yield to the gentleman.

I will work on that.

Reclaiming my time, did you not have the privilege or did you choose not to come?

Yes, but that wasn't a privilege lost, that was just an airline not working.

Reclaiming my time, I wanted my friend to have an opportunity to say those things that he did. And notwithstanding his admonition, I can assure him that when he is offering measures that are going to cost the Treasury $5 billion and violate the PAYGO rule, that on the Rules Committee I will try to save him one more time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule and an inclusive rule. We have heard here why we must pass this rule and the National Landscape Conservation System Act. Far too many of our Nation's natural treasures have already been compromised by a variety of destructive threats. It is Congress' responsibility to ensure that the National Landscape Conservation System is forever protected. Each National Landscape Conservation System unit has been established by Congress or Presidential proclamation and is managed according to its enabling authority. This legislation establishes the system in statute.

It is crucial for Congress to act as a good steward for environmental land protection and fully codify the National Landscape Conservation System. It is our duty to help preserve the natural heritage of our Nation for all future generations of Americans to one day enjoy. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1084 Offered by Rep. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in

order as though printed as the last amendment in the report

of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Bishop

of Utah or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for

10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent.

Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as

follows:

Page 4, line 9, strike ``and''.

Page 4, line 11, strike the period and insert the

following:

(3) by ensuring that no private property will be included

in the system without written consent of the owner.

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry,

asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G.

Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been

refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had

asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is

entitled to the first recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

Madam Speaker. I rise today with my colleagues Representatives Rush Holt and Michael Burgess introduced bi- partisan legislation today which will restore the federal-local partnership in covering medical expenses for incarcerated individuals before they are adjudicated.

The Restoring the Partnership for County Health Care Costs Act of 2008 ensures that individuals currently receiving Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security Insurance (SSI) will continue to receive those benefits until they are tried and convicted and that local governments will not be forced to cover the medical expenses of individuals who have not yet been convicted of any wrongdoing.

A person incarcerated in a county jail or juvenile detention facility in almost all states is ineligible to receive Medicare, Medicaid, or SSI benefits once they enter the facility. Under current law, however, the suspension of benefits occurs prior to the issuance of formal charges or conviction. As a result, local governments (usually county governments) are responsible for not only meeting and paying for the mandate that all individuals who are inmates of public institutions be provided with health care, but also for the days, weeks, months, and even years leading up to an actual conviction. If a person is found innocent, the reinstatement of federal benefits--benefits which should not have been taken away in the first place--can takes months, while the local government continues to be responsible for covering the non- reimbursable costs associated with providing the federally-mandated health care to these individuals. The cost assessed to counties, although not exact, is in the hundreds of millions nationwide.

The bipartisan Restoring the Partnership for County Health Care Costs Act of 2008 addresses this issue prohibiting the Federal Government from stripping individuals of their Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI benefits prior to actually being convicted and reaffirming the federal- local partnership in meeting this mandate.

Madam Speaker, stripping people of their federal benefits before they have been convicted of anything is a direct contradiction of the basic presumption of innocence which is the foundation of the American criminal justice system. And for the Federal Government to stick local governments with the tab for this contradictory policy is just plain wrong.

The Federal and local governments are partners in ensuring that alI of our residents have medical coverage. Neither partner should be bearing an unfair burden in meeting this mandate.

Our bipartisan legislation is a common sense solution to this continuing problem, and

I urge my colleagues to support its expeditious passage.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Rosa ``Cissie'' Durando, a legendary environmentalist in Palm Beach County, Florida.

I have known ``Cissie'' Durando since coming to Congress in 1993. As an officer in the Audubon Society and on her own, Rosa has been actively dedicated to the preservation of our environment for nearly 50 years. Her knowledge of all things ecological, her honesty, diligence and determination combine to make her an invaluable resource to everyone concerned about protecting our water, air and land and the flora and fauna with which we cohabit our planet.

Over the course of her life, Rosa has accrued awards too numerous to mention. Now, her work has been recognized again by Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who has named her a ``Point of Light'' during Environmental Awareness Month.

I am pleased to join Governor Crist, Rosa's family, friends and huge numbers of admirers in celebrating her much deserved award, and I look forward to her continued contributions to the education of our citizens and the health of our planet.

I thank my esteemed colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding 1 minute.

I regret very much my colleague, who is my friend from California, had to be about his business because I wanted to respond directly to him dealing specifically with his comments as if this legislation is directed only to Africa.

This legislation wisely expands to the Caribbean basin. And I urged yesterday in the Rules Committee that people understand that American tourists visit these places and, in many instances, it is in our best interest to make sure that these kinds of humanitarian concerns are taken care of.

Haiti is involved in this legislation. And I doubt seriously if there's anybody that doesn't believe that we should be about the business of trying to help Haiti.

My colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) just said that it is the right thing to do. It is the humanitarian thing to do. It is the right thing to do. And lest we ignore the extraordinary problem we have here in the Nation's Capital on HIV/AIDS, lest we ignore the need to expand the Ryan White Act, failure to do these things causes us to do so at our peril. This is de minimis by comparison to what is needed or what is required.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Coaches Don and Blaze Thompson, father and son, who are true living legends in the city of Pahokee, Florida and throughout Palm Beach County.

Don Thompson has been a part of the Pahokee Middle/Senior High School Blue Devils football team since 1984. As head coach, he led the team to its first state championship in 1989. In all the years since, he has been a mentor, friend and very important role model for the young men of Pahokee. Still an assistant coach of the team, Don Thompson is recognized and respected around the state of Florida as an expert at the sport of football. He is also a loving husband, father and grandfather. As Don Thompson's son, Blaze Thompson has inherited his Dad's talent and skill for winning. In his first year as head coach of the Blue Devils, the team played the toughest opponents in its division and went undefeated, winning its 5th state championship. Blaze has already earned the love and respect of his players, fellow coaches, Pahokee's citizens and everyone who enjoys high school football.

Many of the boys Don and Blaze have coached have gone on to successful careers in professional football. As the first father and son to win Florida state championships with the same football team, it is fitting that Don was inducted into the Palm Beach County Sports Hall of Fame and Blaze named Coach of the Year on the same night. I have no doubt that Blaze will one day follow his Dad into the Hall. I am pleased that both of these fine gentlemen and the team they coach call the 23rd District of Florida their home. I am very proud of them. On behalf of the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, I applaud coaches Thompson and Thompson for their service and commitment to the people of my district and throughout South Florida. We are all very proud of them.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe to introduce a resolution which recognizes the enduring value of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, ICERD, as a cornerstone of global efforts to combat racial discrimination and uphold human rights.

To monitor the implementation of this important agreement a number of multinational organizations continue to cooperate as partners, including the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, CERD; the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, ODIHR; the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, ECRI; and the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency, EUFRA.

Recently, CERD held its 72nd session in Geneva, Switzerland to review anti-discrimination efforts undertaken by the Governments of Fiji, Italy, the United States, Belgium, Nicaragua, Moldova, and the Dominican Republic. At this session, the United States received a response to its April 2007 report it submitted to CERD detailing measures taken to adhere to the convention. The ``Concluding Observations'' which CERD responded with includes a number of important achievements that we should be proud of as Americans, but also a number of challenges we must still unite together to address. Until the displaced of Hurricane Katrina are housed and hate crimes are eliminated from our streets and workplaces, we must be vigilant in our quest to be the world leader in tolerance.

Madam Speaker, I call my colleagues to join me in reaffirming the commitment that the United States has made in ratifying the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This resolution is the first step in recognizing the value of this international commitment, and I look forward to working with my colleagues toward its expedited passage.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons that we find ourselves in this position is the discussion between both Houses of Congress and Members on either side regarding immunity. It is fascinating that we find ourselves in the position of debating giving immunity to people that we don't know what violations they have committed that we are giving them immunity for. Very strange.

But I would ask the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished minority leader a very serious question: Who has the classified information? As I listened to both of you, I did not get clarity as to whether either of you know what is supposed to be that information. And if that person has classified information, at what level is it? Is it at top secret, or is it at secret? Can either of the distinguished gentlemen provide that information to this Member?

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Reclaiming my time and continuing my reservation, with all due respect, I don't think the distinguished minority leader answered the question that I asked, and that is, Who has the classified information?

It is at the secret level.

That being said, I will not object. But as other Members have, I will place on the Record I came here with the thought in mind that there was a substantial reason for us to go forward with a secret session, but I have learned from a considerable amount of experience in this arena that there are times when it is best not to be where ostensibly secret information is supposed to be provided, so at least I will not attend the session.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

I thank my very good friend and cosponsor of this resolution, Representative Crowley, for the time.

Madam Speaker, this resolution on the floor is the culmination of longstanding efforts I have made with Representative Wexler, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe; Representative Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; Representative Mark Kirk; and many others to open the largest closed Holocaust-era archive in the world and release critical Holocaust records.

As I stand today in support of a resolution making this significant event in Holocaust history, I cannot help but reflect on the longstanding life and career of a true champion of human rights and Holocaust issues, the former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the first and only Holocaust survivor Member of Congress, Representative Tom Lantos.

These archives will forever contribute to the world's collective memory of the Holocaust atrocities experienced and the immense bravery exhibited by Representative Lantos and his wife and other survivors who are no longer with us today.

The opening of the Bad Arolsen archives will enable Holocaust survivors, their descendants, and future generations of researchers and the public access to some 50 million records on the fates of 17.5 million individual victims of Nazi brutality.

In our world today, filled with growing international intolerance, including anti-Semitism, hate, racial bigotry, xenophobia, and religious discrimination, it could not be more critical for us to ensure unfettered access to these Holocaust archives. The ultimate release of these documents serves to further delegitimize world leaders and other extremist factions who spew anti-Semitic propaganda and downplay or deny the significance of the Holocaust.

I am thankful for the collaborative efforts and leadership shown by the Holocaust Memorial Museum, new leadership of the International Committee of the Red Cross at the International Tracing Service, the State Department, survivor groups, and this body of Congress to pressure the member states of the ITS to throw open the doors of these archives.

Our success sends a robust message to the world that the horrors of the Holocaust shall forever remain at the forefront of our collective and individual memories. The ultimate release of these archives proves that the world recognizes the moral importance of combating the scourge of modern-day anti-Semitism.

May we never forget the atrocities of the Holocaust. May this historic event serve as a constant reminder to the world of what happens when humanity is silenced and evil permitted to wage war on the innocent.

Madam Speaker, as President Vladimir Putin ends his presidency of the Russian Federation and his anointed successor, Dmitry Medvedev, prepares to take over, I would call the attention of my colleagues to what I consider an alarming backward step recently taken by the Kremlin in the area of civil liberties and freedom of speech.

Last week, we learned that criminal charges have been filed against human rights activist Lev Ponomarev for allegedly slandering the head of the Russian prison system, General Yuri Kalinin.

Mr. Ponomarev had charged publicly that so-called ``torture camps'' have been established in certain penal colonies under General Kalinin's jurisdiction. If taken to court and convicted, Mr. Ponomarev could be fined, or even imprisoned for as much as 3 years.

Mr. Ponomarev, the leader of the Moscow-based organization ``For Human Rights,'' is a veteran human rights campaigner, going back to the Soviet era. He recently met with the staff of the Helsinki Commission, of which I am honored to serve as chairman, to share his concerns about what he feels is a pattern of systematic abuse and violence in Russia's penal system. The slander charges were filed when he returned to Moscow.

Madam Speaker, I make no judgment about the substance of Mr. Ponomarev's contentions. Nevertheless, I would point out that much of what he stated has already been publicized in the Russian media and by the office of the Russian State Duma's human rights ombudsman. It would appear that Mr. Ponomarev is being prosecuted not for any genuine crimes he may have committed, but for his prominent and long-time human rights activity. If this is indeed the case, he joins a growing number of Russian citizens who have been subjected to questionable legal procedures by authorities as a result of their political activities.

Unfortunately, this situation is symbolic of larger problems in Russia that are recounted very well in a February 25th editorial by Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl entitled, ``Holding Medvedev to His Words.''

I would like to submit this article for the Record and I urge my colleagues to read it to better understand the challenges faced by Russian citizens who work for human rights and civil society in today's Russia.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 25, 2008]

Holding Medvedev to His Words

(By Jackson Diehl)

Dmitry Medvedev, the man Vladimir Putin has appointed to be

elected as Russia's president next Sunday, is so slavishly

devoted to his patron that he has begun imitating his

physical quirks. That includes ``how he lays his hands on the

table or how he stresses key words in speeches,'' not to

mention walking with ``fast and abrupt steps,'' according to

the Reuters journalist Oleg Shchedrov.

Medvedev presumably won't be exercising his power as

president to dismiss the prime minister--the position Putin

is about to assume--anytime soon. Yet the diminutive 42-year-

old former law professor has been making some interesting

statements the past couple of weeks. For example: ``Russia is

a country of legal nihilism. No European country can boast

such a universal disregard for the rule of law.''

Or: ``Freedom is inseparable from the actual recognition by

the people of the power of law. The supremacy of the law

should become one of our basic values.'' Or: ``One of the key

elements of our work in the next four years will be ensuring

the independence of our legal system from the executive and

legislative branches of power.''

It's hard to believe that Medvedev could mean this. After

all, the man he is to succeed has, according to estimates by

Russian and Western analysts, accumulated a $40 billion

fortune while in office, ranging from shares in Russian

energy companies to an apartment in Paris. On his watch, 14

journalists--almost all of them Kremlin critics--have been

murdered, but none of the killers has been brought to

justice. Relations with Britain are icy, thanks to Putin's

refusal to act on Scotland Yard's case against the former KGB

agent it says poisoned a Putin critic in London.

But criminality isn't limited to the Kremlin; it may be

Russia's single greatest problem. Average citizens are

frustrated by everything from the bribes necessary to obtain

simple services to the extortion practiced by police and the

susceptibility of judges to payoffs, as well as political

orders. Promising the rule of law--even if he doesn't apply

it to Putin and his circle--may be the juiciest pre-election

promise Medvedev can make.

In any case, his pledge was seized upon by Lev Ponomarev,

the courageous and pragmatic leader of the Russian movement

For Human Rights, which is fighting an uphill battle to

retard the country's return to Soviet-style lawlessness.

Ponomarev was in Washington this month to lobby the Bush

administration and the presidential campaigns; as he

explained it, Russia's presidential transition offers a rare

opportunity for outsiders to press Moscow to adhere to basic

international standards.

``I don't have any big illusions,'' Ponomarev told me. ``I

think Mr. Medvedev is just another face of Mr. Putin. On the

other hand it provides an opportunity to follow up on the

rhetoric about the rule of law. If Mr. Medvedev says A, maybe

it is possible to pressure him to say B. What can B be? It

can be specific steps for restoring and enforcing legal

norms.''

Ponomarev said that President Bush and his successor can

start by pushing Medvedev to stop using the law as an

instrument of political repression. That would mean ending

such practices as the prosecution of liberal academics on

bogus espionage charges; the involuntary commitment of

opposition activists to psychiatric wards, or their draft

into the military; and the campaigns against human rights and

other civil society groups based on supposed tax violations

or breaches of local ordinances.

Next comes what Ponomarev called ``the torture camps'': a

re-emerging gulag of some 50 prison colonies, closed to the

outside world, where prisoners are subjected to systematic

violence and abuse. Ponomarev's group has documented these

practices in photographs and videos smuggled out of the

camps, many of which are controlled by the same officials or

clans that managed them in the Soviet era.

Finally, there is the legal persecution of those who report

such truths. On Friday, state prosecutors brought criminal

charges against Ponomarev himself, claiming that he had

slandered Gen. Yuri Kalinin, the head of the prison camp

system. Ponomarev's travel documents were also revoked; his

lawyers believe he is being punished for speaking out in the

United States.

``It seems to me that a country that is a member of the G-

8,'' the group of rich democracies that Russia was allowed

into a decade ago, ``cannot afford to have political

prisoners and to have torture in its prison camps,''

Ponomarev said to me. It also shouldn't be allowed to

prosecute human rights activists who try to promote the rule

of law. Medvedev ought to be asked by President Bush and

other Western leaders to explain how his talk of ending

``legal nihilism'' squares with the charges against

Ponomarev--before the new president gets his first invitation

to a G-8 summit.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program. Since the inception of the Uni-Captiol program, I have participated in this relationship building program that brings some of Australia's best and brightest future leaders to Washington. I have benefited greatly by the work of unique and talented individuals that produced top-notch work to both of my offices. In my personal office I have participated in the Uni-Captiol Washington Internship Program for the last nine years. This is the first year that I have also hosted an intern at the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe in my capacity as Chairman.

I have been pleased to host two amazing young women, Siobhan Coughlan and Katrina Mae.

Siobhan Coughlan, who is in her third year at the University of Queensland, first arrived in the Helsinki Commission's office on January 3, 2008, and since then has provided able, thorough, and important assistance to the professional staff of the Commission. Over the past two months with the Commission, Siobhan has demonstrated her honorable personal character and integrity in the way she confronted the topic of human rights and democratic principles and the manner in which she interacted with staff on economic development and tolerance issues in a domestic and international context. Siobhan has served our organization in a number of capacities, and at each stage has proven to be valuable because of her professionalism, her drive to succeed, and her ability to work well within a group dynamic. Siobhan always demonstrated the highest level of conscience in keeping the respectability of our program as she sought to achieve our common goals. Siobhan brought her courteous and positive demeanor to hearings, briefings and events that the Commission held and events she attended on behalf of the staff here at the Commission. Much as been gained by having an international student at our side and Siobhan has greatly contributed her experiences, ideas, and thoughts that are shared by our good Australian friends across the water. I am delighted that she's able to extend her internship for another two months.

In her short time here, Katrina Mae has become an indispensable asset to my office. An undergraduate law student at the University of Wollongong, Katrina came to my office with an ardent interest in civil rights and a desire to work with individuals who support policies that encourage tolerance and cooperation across racial and cultural lines. Over the course of her two months, she has attended hearings and briefings on a myriad of policy issues,

drafted countless constituent correspondence, assisted visitors and callers in her always patient and thoughtful manner, and helped several staffers with legislative research and special projects. While her professional skills and academic credentials are certainly impressive, Katrina is also an absolute pleasure to work with. No matter the assignment, she is always eager to help and approaches every new task with a smile. The anecdotes of her adventures as a first-time visitor to the United States were a constant source of entertainment, and her tales of life in Australia gave our office a greater understanding of her country's rich history, culture, and values. Katrina arrived on Capitol Hill hoping to acquire a better understanding of the U.S. legislative process, and it is my sincere hope that she benefited as much from this experience as we did from having her with us.

Madam Speaker, in addition to Siobhan and Katrina, I am delighted to recognize our colleagues here in the House and other colleagues in the Senate who have been congressional hosts in 2008:

James Paterson of Melbourne University, interning with Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Monique Salm of Griffith University, interning with Sen. Chuck Hagel; Madelene Fox of Deakin University, interning with Rep. Jerrold Nadler; Lucas Robson of Melbourne University, interning with Sen. Christopher Dodd; Clare Anderson of Griffith University, interning with Rep. John Tierney, Stephanie Lyons of the University of Canberra, interning with Rep. Sam Farr; Suzanne Allan of the University of Canberra, interning with Sen. Mike Crapo; Katrina Mae of the University of Wollongong, interning with Rep. Alcee Hastings; Stella Rieusset of Melbourne University, interning with Rep. Mike Castle; Anthony Bremner of the University of Queensland, interning with Rep. James Clyburn and the Majority Whip's office; Tim Goyder of the University of Western Australia, interning with Del. Eni Faleomavaega; and Ally Foat from the University of Queensland, interning with Rep. James Clyburn.

Let it not go unnoticed the hard work that goes into the Uni-Capitol Internship Program is done by founder Eric Federing. Eric is a former senior House and Senate staffer of a dozen years, who successfully combined his experience in Washington with his extensive travels and lectures throughout Australia into an ingenious program of diplomatic exchange through cultural appreciation and understanding. I have said in the past that I heartily congratulate him on making his vision a reality. This program is a step in the right direction of supporting our young people who have a passion for and commitment to civic engagement and public service.

Over the last nine years, my staff and I have greatly benefited from the relationships that have been made from the result of this program as it continues to provide all of us an extraordinary experience with our friends on the other side of the ocean. It has been a great privilege to host Siobhan and Katrina and I ask all my colleagues to extend their open arms to the Uni-Captiol Internship Program and to our Australian friends in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution commemorating the courage of the Haitian soldiers who fought for American independence in the ``Siege of Savannah.'' This resolution also honors those soldiers who fought for Haiti's independence and the renunciation of slavery. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I would like to express my appreciation for the efforts of my good friend from Florida, Congressman Kendrick B. Meek, for introducing this important legislation and for the House Leadership for bringing it to the floor for a vote.

The War for American Independence was not easily won, and it took the contributions of an untold number of American patriots. It is important that we continue to remember those heroes who gave their lives for the freedoms we can enjoy today. In 1779, American rebels fought to take back the city of Savannah from the British. This resolution commemorates a group of 500 Haitian volunteers who fought valiantly alongside the patriot forces for more than 2 weeks as the siege continued. It is important for us to take this moment to commemorate and honor the memory and sacrifice of the 300 Haitians who gave their lives during that historic battle.

It is fitting that a monument to these brave men now stands in Savannah, Georgia, where this momentous fight took place. It is also fitting that the monument depicts a young Henri Christophe, a man who helped gain Haitian independence and end slavery in that country.

Mr. Christophe and his compatriots fought valiantly for the causes of liberty and justice on both American and Haitian soil, proving their deep commitment to these ideals. Their desire for liberty is not yet fulfilled, so we must continue to work with the people of Haiti to realize the dreams of their founders.

We can hardly begin to measure the ways in which the people of Haiti have shaped our country. In South Florida, residents of Haitian descent have contributed so much to the fabric of our community. Their culture, heritage, and traditions have influenced almost every single corner of our society. South Florida--so rich in diversity--would not be what it is today without the Haitian people. From the beginning of our history, the Haitian people have left their mark on America and have helped to shape our great nation. In fact, the contributions of Haitians began before our country had even won its independence, and they continue to this very day.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important resolution and honor the valor and ideals of the Haitian soldiers who fought for American independence and to end the practice of slavery.