Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to pay tribute to Erika Schlager for her 20 years of tireless service to the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission. Erika began her advocacy work as a member of the Commission's professional staff on September 8, 1987, during a period marked by repression and widespread violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Central and Eastern Europe, the region of her particular expertise.

Driven by a passion for upholding the human rights commitments enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments, Erika devoted herself to documenting the cases of political prisoners, prisoners of conscience, and others denied their fundamental freedoms. Her focus on the countries of the region began with her academic studies as well as her personal experience. Indeed, Erika was in Poland for further studies when the regime imposed martial law in late 1981. Shortly after she joined the Commission staff, she helped organize a delegation of members to Czechoslovakia where, among other activities, they planned to meet playwright and Charter 77 founder Vaclav Havel. The courageous rights leader was detained by the secret police and prevented from meeting the delegation. Erika was an ardent champion on his behalf as well as for those lesser known victims of repression. She was able to accompany a delegation of Commissioners to Poland in 1989 to witness the installation of the first democratically elected government there in more than six decades. Her diligent monitoring of developments in these countries continues

as those nations move to further consolidate democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

An impressive expert in the field of international law, Erika continues her advocacy in areas such as the plight of Roma and property restitution for victims of the Holocaust to the challenge of preserving human rights in a post-9/11 world.

Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am pleased to recognize and commend Erika Schlager for her faithful, dedicated, and tireless service to me and my colleagues.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to pay tribute to Dr. Michael Ochs for his 20 years of untiring service to the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission. Michael began his work as a member of the professional staff on October 1, 1987, during a period that was to usher in historic change as well as turmoil in the expansive territory once dominated by the Soviet Union.

After completing doctoral work in Russian history and driven by a deep commitment to aid the victims of Soviet oppression, Michael devoted himself to documenting wide-ranging human rights abuses in the U.S.S.R. He participated in the first international human rights conference to be convened in the U.S.S.R., a gathering eventually interrupted by the Soviet secret police, the KGB. Michael was also part of a delegation that visited the Baltic States shortly after the restoration of independence to those countries so brutally repressed during decades of Soviet domination.

Michael was among the earliest pioneers in the observation of elections in the countries that arose following the unraveling of the Soviet empire. Amid triumph and tragedy, Michael has been at the forefront of efforts to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as the Central Asian counties of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. His depth of knowledge and understanding about each of these countries is only surpassed by his extensive network of contacts and friendships with many of the political leaders--some in government--many in the opposition. Dictators and democrats alike have come to appreciate his insights and analysis.

He has been a witness to the triumphs of Georgia's Rose Revolution and the toppling of the regime in Kyrgyzstan as well as the tragedy of the bloody massacre at Andijon in Uzbekistan. Some of his friends have risen to the highest ranks of political leadership while others have paid the ultimate price for their defense of democracy and human rights.

Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission I am pleased to recognize and commend Dr. Michael Ochs for his service to me and my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3315, a measure to designate the great hall of the Capitol Visitor Center as ``Emancipation Hall.'' I commend my friend, Representative Zach Wamp for introducing this legislation. I am extremely proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and commend my 226 other colleagues who share that pride as cosponsors.

I think the Akan principle of Sankofa symbolized by a bird with its head turned backwards taking an egg off its back, most appropriately demonstrates the importance of this legislation. This symbol demonstrates the old saying, ``You cannot know where you are going, without knowing where you have been.'' The story of the United States Capitol exemplifies the importance of this principle in its many historically decorated corridors and monuments. However, the role of enslaved labor in the creation of the Capitol is most notably absent.

I strongly believe that the true history of our Capitol should be recognized so it is not forgotten or misinterpreted. Our Nation is so great because of the rich diversity of cultural narratives, including the experiences of my enslaved ancestors. Neglecting to acknowledge these facts when such an appropriate opportunity has presented itself, would mean forgetting the immense sacrifices of all who have contributed to building our nation. Emancipation Hall is the most appropriate title for the great hall of the Capitol Visitor Center to honor that sacrifice in perpetuity.

Mr. Speaker, I am moved that the imminent passage of this legislation will guarantee that the true story of the construction of our Capitol will greet generations of visitors to come. Emancipation Hall will formally recognize a legacy struggle by African Americans and the resulting freedom that affords me the opportunity to serve in this Congress. I urge my colleagues to stand with me to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 62, the Native American Heritage Day Act of 2007. I commend my colleague Representative Baca for introducing this resolution and am honored to be an original cosponsor of the legislation. This is a much needed resolution that recognizes the vital contributions of Native Americans to the history of our Nation.

I only need to acknowledge my own heritage to know that the steps to build the bridge of understanding and diplomacy with the Native Americans and other minorities have been inadequate in this country. This legislation proves that we live in a nation that is great for being able to reflect accurately and recognize the history of its own oppressed people.

This bill considers the Friday after Thanksgiving as the appropriate day for the Native American Heritage Day. The timing for this day could not be more appropriate than during a weekend of celebration and giving thanks. It is only right that the original inhabitants of our nation be duly recognized in conjunction with this important celebration.

Mr. Speaker, a specific day of recognition will allow future generations to appropriately recognize and admire Native Americans for their important contributions to all aspects of the American life. For too long, this assistance in the development of our nation has been overlooked.

This day of heritage does not only exhibit proper respect for the indigenous people of

our Nation, but paves the way for tremendous educational opportunities. The implementation of this bill would greatly increase awareness and respect for Native Americans through culturally competent incorporation of their historic contributions into our educational institutions. Taking such action is absolutely essential for our educational curriculum in order to develop progressive young people who can propel our society above intolerance.

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous Congressional findings about the contributions and achievements that the Native Americans have made to the United States that have not been fully realized by the general public. Many aspects of our government, culture, and society have ultimately been derived from Native Americans. Their ideals of checks and balances, freedom of speech, and separation of governmental powers were essential to the foundation of our nation's policies. Native Americans have, and continue to contribute revolutionary advancements in many fields such as agriculture, medicine, and music just to name a few.

Mr. Speaker, this formal recognition is long overdue. Native Americans of this country deserve such recognition without delay. It is absolutely necessary to set at least a moment in our way of life to acknowledge the roots of our democracy.

I urge my colleagues to wholeheartedly support this resolution and other initiatives for the proper recognition of Native Americans.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 824 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 824 provides for further consideration of H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act of 2007, under a closed rule.

The rule provides 60 minutes of debate. Thirty minutes will be equally divided and controlled by the chairperson and ranking Republican of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 30 minutes will be equally divided and controlled by the chairperson and ranking Republican of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The rule considers as adopted another amendment printed in the Rules Committee report.

Mr. Speaker, with the resurgence of al Qaeda and an increasing global threat from weapons of mass destruction in places such as Iran, every single person in this body wants to ensure that our intelligence professionals have the proper resources they need to protect our Nation.

As vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I assure you that each and every one of us on that panel and others, Republican or Democrat, are working tirelessly, and often together, to do just that.

But the government is not exempt from the rule of law, as the Constitution confers certain unalienable rights and civil liberties to each of us.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, the Bush administration upset that balance by ignoring the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act law, establishing a secret wiretapping program, and refusing to work with Congress to make the program lawful.

Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee have been trying to learn about the Bush administration's FISA programs for years. But the administration, which has been anything but forthcoming, has sought to block our oversight efforts nearly every step of the way.

When the administration finally came to Congress to modify the law this summer, it came with a flawed proposal to allow sweeping authority to eavesdrop on Americans' communications while doing almost nothing to protect their rights.

The RESTORE Act, true to its name, restores the checks and balances on the executive branch, enhancing our security and preserving our liberty. It rejects the false statement that we must sacrifice liberty to be secure. The legislation provides our intelligence community with the tools it needs to identify and disrupt terrorist networks with speed and agility. It provides additional resources to the Department of Justice, National Security Agency, and the FISA Court to assist in auditing and streamlining the FISA application process while preventing the backlog of critical intelligence gathering.

The RESTORE Act prohibits the warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans in the United States, including their medical records, homes and offices. And it requires the government to establish a record- keeping system to track instances where information identifying U.S. citizens is disseminated.

This bill preserves the role of the FISA Court as an independent check of the government to prevent it from infringing on the rights of Americans. It rejects the administration's belief that the court should simply be a rubber stamp.

Finally, the bill sunsets in 2009. This is a critical provision because it requires the constant oversight and regular evaluation of our FISA laws, actions which were largely neglected during the last 6 years of Republican control.

In so many ways, the underlying legislation is more efficient and effective than the administration's proposal which passed in August.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, last month, we came to the floor on this bill, but when it became clear that Republicans were intent on playing

politics with the security of the American people, we refused to take the bait.

At that time, Republicans announced that they intended to offer a motion to recommit the bill that had no substantive base, was already addressed in the bill and in current law, and was designed to delay consideration of this important intelligence tool. Their reasoning was disingenuous; their motives were absolutely political. As a result, Democrats refused to partake in their game of political theater.

If the House does not pass this bill today because of Republican obstructionism, then it will be abundantly clear that the minority and the administration are willing to put politics in front of the safety of the American people. We are back today, and we will continue to come back to the House floor, however many times it takes, to give our men and women in the intelligence community the tools that they need to do their jobs and keep America safe, while also preserving our civil liberties. This is a balance that is not only difficult but absolutely critical.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my colleague and good friend from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend from California, the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee raised a plethora of questions. I would say to him that he can expect his answers in the general debate, and I am sure that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) will enlighten him as to the scope of questions that he put. I would like to, for I feel that he knows the answer to every one of them, but I won't take the time.

I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, the Chair of the Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security, and if you can say all of that, then you must be somebody, Jane Harman.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Florida that this rule doesn't change the law. Members will still have an opportunity to vote on the base text of this bill. It doesn't change the law of FISA.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, my good friend and classmate, Mr. Doggett.

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to inform each side as to the amount of time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Reyes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who is a member of the Select Intelligence Committee and had substantial input with reference to this provision.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.

Mr. Speaker, for a year and a half, the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have been working with the administration to craft a bill that will ensure our Nation is protected, without sacrificing American constitutional liberties. Let me just talk about some of the people that have had input into that particular measure. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers; the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Silvestre Reyes; the ranking members of both of those committees, including Mr. Hoekstra; all of the members of the Select Committee on Intelligence, including myself; Ms. Harman, who serves on Homeland Security.

Countless testimonies during that year and a half, hundreds of discussions and negotiations between the staffs of the respective committees, and a markup of this particular provision that the Republicans brought only two amendments to in the markup in the Select Committee on Intelligence.

We negotiated. We compromised. We reached an agreement. Then the administration backed out of the agreement. So we negotiated some more. We compromised some more. We reached another agreement. We reached agreements until we were blue in the face here in August. Everybody was so tired, and the administration continued to back out of the agreement. Then, less than 24 hours before the bill was supposed to come to the floor in August, the administration reneged on the agreement and refused to work with us to protect the American people.

Last month, Democrats again brought this bill to the floor, and yet again Republicans tried to play politics with the safety of the American people. Just as they did this past summer, Republicans and the administration now seem content on letting the clock run out on the current FISA law rather than working with us to get something done. They choose and chose obstructionism rather than bipartisan cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, the American public needs to know that there are no persons in the United States Congress that do not want to protect the security and liberty of the United States.

So I do not cast aspersions on my colleagues for having a different view as to how administratively we should proceed to protect those securities and liberties, but everybody here is mindful of all of our responsibilities. So the hyperbole is off the chain sometimes when I hear people talk and it is as if we didn't really do substantively what was required of us as individuals on behalf of the American people.

None of us should be ashamed of any of the work that was done with reference to the RESTORE Act. We made a bad bill better. And it is not as good, for example, as I would like for it to be, but it is as good as we are going to get with this administration at this time.

The esteemed chairperson of the Intelligence Committee, Representative Reyes, has noted on more than one occasion: You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.

Mr. Speaker, those are the well-documented facts that I just got through dealing with. The RESTORE Act protects the American people. It protects them at home and on the streets. It protects their safety and the constitutional rights, which have been intact more than 225 years, and no one need fear when the fearmongers come here and try to divide people by having somebody think that undocumented aliens are going to be put in some category. I personally am just tired of the smearing that is being done with reference to immigration in this country. We need a solid immigration policy, and we need a policy that contemplates all of the particulars of that immigration set of circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, this body has the responsibility today to pass this rule and the underlying legislation today. The security of this Nation requires it of all of us, and I believe all of us want that security and liberty. 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. 824 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

(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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding to me.

I think my friend from Arizona raises issues, and sometimes it is not clear with reference to earmarks. I don't recall hearing too many people argue about the earmarks that the President of the United States has within the prerogative of the President. Two-thirds of Federal spending is nondiscretionary. And in a budget the size of ours, which is $2.9 trillion, that means discretionary funds in this particular budget are about $935 billion.

What they fail to do in their point of order or that we hear in the Rules Committee is to say to the general public that the name of the Member requesting the earmark exists, the name and address of the intended recipient, and if there is no specifically intended recipient, the intended location of the activity, the purpose of such earmark, a certification that the Member or spouse has no financial interest in such congressional earmark, and it requires the House Appropriations Committee to make open for public inspection approved earmarks.

Now each of these earmarks has an asterisk and each of these earmarks is easily identifiable. Clearly, there are things that people disagree with as to whether or not in the particular constituency that that constituency is going to benefit.

Democrats cut in half the number of earmarks. I believe my friend from Arizona knows that when this measure was sent to the Senate, the Senate increased the number of earmarks that are here. But I don't care whether you call it earmark, toe mark, arm mark, elbow mark, whatever it is, it is something that benefits the American people. And in a budget that has $2 trillion in it, we can find some reason for us to control that as opposed to the executive branch.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce legislation with my colleagues and friends Representatives Dan Burton, Chris Smith, and Linda Sanchez that will properly recognize the selfless efforts to save innocent lives during the Holocaust of Theodor Criveanu and all other righteous individuals.

Non-Jews who sacrificed their lives in an effort to save Jews from their fate at the Nazi's hands are known to the world as the ``Righteous Persons.'' The most renowned among these righteous persons is probably Oscar Schindler. Oscar Schindler should rightly be recognized as the altruistic and extraordinarily courageous non-Jew who saved more Jewish lives from the gas chambers than any other.

But many other brave individuals risked their lives by rescuing Jews during the Holocaust that have still yet to be recognized.

Thousands of these hero's stories have remain untold because the Nazis mercilessly ended their lives. For those that survived the Holocaust and for those that did not, I rise today to honor their heroism and their memory.

In 1963, Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Israel, initiated a worldwide project to grant the title of Righteous Among the Nations to individuals who were not Jewish and who risked their lives to rescue and protect Jews and others during the Holocaust. To date, more than 21,000 heroic individuals have been honored as Righteous Among the Nations.

Theodor Criveanu was one of such courageous righteous individuals.

When serving as a reserve officer in the Romanian military, he was assigned the task of presenting military authorities with a list of Jews who would be given work permits to work in the ghetto instead of being deported to Transnistria. Risking his life to defy Nazi orders, Mr. Criveanu secretly issued work permits in numbers that exceeded the work permit quota and to Jews who were not essential to the workforce, saving countless of innocent Jewish lives.

The brave efforts of Mr. Criveanu have not gone unnoticed. On August 8, 2007, Yad Vashem named Theodore Criveanu as Righteous Among the Nations, posthumously honoring him for his courageous work to block the deportation of Romanian Jews to Nazi death camps.

Today I rise to honor these individuals for their bravery and humanity. Mr. Criveanu and other such individuals deserve to be remembered and revered by the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 3320, introduced by my friend and colleague, Mr. Smith of New Jersey. This bill would authorize the United States to provide $5 million to assist in the development of the permanent collection of the Museum of the History of Polish Jews.

This past May, I had the opportunity to travel to Poland and, while there, met with Jerzy Halbersztadt, the director of the museum, and Ewa Wierzynska, the deputy director. The museum they are helping to establish is truly an historical undertaking and one that deserves the support of the United States.

Warsaw was once home to the largest Jewish community in Europe, and if we are to truly understand what was lost in the Holocaust, we must try to wrap our minds not only around the figure of 6 million, but around the 1,000 years of Polish Jewish life that preceded that tragedy. Poland is not only a place where Jews died, but a place where they lived and flourished. Moreover, it is estimated that 80 percent of all Jews and over nine million Americans trace some of their ancestry to the Polish Jewish community. This museum has the potential to touch the lives of our own citizens in deeply personal ways.

As chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am heartened by the educational role this museum can play in fulfilling the goals that the OSCE participating States have undertaken in the field of combating anti-Semitism. I believe this museum will contribute to tolerance and mutual respect in Poland, will help counter the broader phenomenon of anti-Semitism in Europe, and will serve as an inspiration to the thousands of visitors who will come every year. The historical record of the Polish Jewish community must be preserved and shared with future generations.

Unfortunately, my own schedule did not permit me to return to Poland for the June 26 groundbreaking ceremony for the museum, which will be located in the heart of the pre-World War II Jewish district and next to the monument to the Jews who resisted the Nazis during the 1943 ghetto uprising. However, I did send a member of the Helsinki Commission staff, who witnessed firsthand the extraordinary turnout for this event. Among those present was the Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv Meir Lau, whose parents were from Poland and who suggested that invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has denied the Holocaust, be among the first to visit the museum.

I don't know if the Iranian President will accept this invitation, but I have no doubt that many Americans will be among the 500,000 people who are expected to visit the museum on an annual basis. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this extraordinary museum, with an extraordinary mission.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of 32 exceptional young people who will be honored tomorrow by the West Palm Beach National Urban League for their acceptance into the National Achievers Society. Their accomplishments are evidence that the will to succeed endures in spite of continued prejudice, discrimination, and a public education system that historically and presently places many young minorities at a disadvantage in the classroom and beyond.

The achievements of these young people and the establishment of the National Achievers Society Program are both worthy of Congressional recognition. It is with great pleasure that I recognize the following young men and women for their drive and for setting a hopeful and positive example for our country and their community:

Shauna-Kay Nation; Tatiana Virginia; Demetri Virginia; Reginald Walker; Valeana Andre; Rose D'Haiti; lesha Brutton; Mecarra Easley; Lucianne Gabriel; Chandra Fulwood; Miranda Renald; Regine Hill; Christina Taylor; Jasmine McGee; Brandon Coombs; Mariah Lewis; Thomas Coates III; Aikeyah Williams; Devondrea Edwards; Antonio Taylor; Marcus Sutton; Gabrielle Alexandre; Natasha Juggar; Seon Lewis; Devin Williamson; Khasara Lewis; Arrianne Morrison; Trevor Thomas; Briana Thomas; Charlene Vieira; Marissa Richards; and Regis Frazier.

The National Achievers Society was founded by community leaders who developed an aggressive national response to the educational and developmental crisis facing young people of color in our country. The authors of this program provided children in grades 3-12 with the opportunity to begin and continue their road to excellence by giving them the resources to achieve in the arts, humanities and sciences.

By supporting adults and young people in the development of the next generation of leaders, the National Young Achievers Society ensures that a child's dream to succeed is able to materialize through hard work and dedication. I have always believed that we must invest in young people if we want to be a strong force on the domestic and international stage in the future. These 32 young men and women are evidence of the remarkable reward that ensues when quality programs and dedicated individuals nurture the minds and spirits of our Nation's most precious resource. Indeed, they are worthy of the recognition and congratulation of the U.S. House of Representatives.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding to me.

Madam Chairman, yesterday in the Rules Committee I commented that democracies should be about tolerance. Democracies and religions should be about tolerance.

Today we get an opportunity to manifest our tolerance within the body politic of this country. And it is an important day, just as 1964 was an important day for passage of the Civil Rights Act. As one who has stood in this struggle with brothers and sisters throughout this land to make this country live up to all of the creeds that are our values, American values, we cannot nor should we ever permit discrimination in the workplace or anyplace. It is wrong, it is intolerant, and it is un- American. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 794 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I would have the gentleman know that the earmarks that he refers to are clearly delineated in this conference report.

This point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and ultimately the funding of vital education, health, and veterans programs. In fact, I would say that it is simply an effort to try to kill this conference report and, in my view, on a faulty premise at that.

Every single earmark in this conference report has been properly disclosed in conformance with House rules. This parliamentary ruse won't work because these programs are too important to the health and vitality of the Nation.

With this conference we keep our commitment to our veterans with the largest single increase in the 77-year history of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It also invests in critical domestic priorities in the Labor, Health, and Education bill with major investments in K-12 education, college affordability, increasing access to quality health care, medical research, worker protection, and job training programs. Voting ``no'' on this question of consideration will prevent consideration of this package, which has strong House and Senate bipartisan support.

Furthermore, the parliamentary maneuver that my good friend chooses to use today to stop this legislation is completely transparent. Just so that we keep the record straight, Madam Speaker, the changes proposed in the Boehner discharge petition that our Republican counterparts seem so eager to have adopted would not cover any measure not now covered by our earmark rule, clause 9 of rule XXI. As a matter of fact, Mr. Boehner's resolution does not even include the projects that are covered by House Resolution 491, which was introduced by our majority leader, Representative Hoyer, and is now in effect.

So despite whatever roadblock the other side tries to use to stop this bill, we will stand up for America's hardworking families and America's veterans. We must consider this rule and we must pass this conference report today.

Madam Speaker, I have the right to close, but in the end I am just going to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the spirit and the letter of the law has been complied with in this matter. I will just reference one aspect of compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI and with the rules in the Senate. This is what it says:

``The following list is also submitted in compliance with House Resolution 491, which requires a listing of congressional earmarks in the conference report or joint statement of managers that were not committed to the committee of conference by either house, not in a report on a bill committed to conference, and not in a Senate committee report on a companion measure. Such earmarks are marked with an `X' in the list below.''

If that ain't transparency, I don't know what is. All of them have the ``X'' mark, the asterisk, and are clearly following the spirit of the law.

When the Republicans were in charge, they had 14,000 earmarks, and nobody knew where they were, where they came from, when they came. And now we have them in this bill.

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

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

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 794.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 794 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The conference report also includes the House and Senate compromise on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act.

The rule includes two additional provisions. The first provides that only the majority leader or his designee can move to proceed to consider H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. It addresses a procedural motion under the trade act and is often adopted by the House, including three times during the last Congress alone. The second ensures that in the event that the Senate on a point of order strips out the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs provisions from this conference report, that the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education portion of the report will not be further delayed and, instead, sent immediately to the President for his signature.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying conference report. Of all the conference reports which Congress will consider, the vote on this one will be the most telling. It will be the most telling because Members will have an opportunity tonight to take an up-or-down vote on the needs of our children and Congress's commitment to America's veterans. Members are either for $5.1 billion in mandatory increased funding for veterans military benefits or they are not. They either support

$1.1 billion in increased funding for Pell Grants or they don't. We are either for restoring the President's $287 million cut in job-training programs for the unemployed or we are not.

Do you support $530 million in increased funding for VA hospitals and other medical facilities, or do you oppose the funding increase? What about Head Start? The conference report includes $154 million in increases in funding for this critical early childhood education program. Low-income energy assistance programs? There's a $250 million increase in funding for these programs, which ensure that millions of Americans are warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

How about the National Institutes of Health? The conference report increases funding for this vital agency by $1.1 billion so that America will continue to be the global leader in medical research and technology. Or Ryan White AIDS programs? There's an $85 million increase for them. I am especially appreciative of this increase because of the continued epidemic that HIV/AIDS poses throughout south Florida and particularly in the district that I am privileged to represent. All of these priorities and many more are funded in the underlying conference report on which Members will have an opportunity to cast a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' vote if this rule is approved.

Democrats promised, Madam Speaker, that we would govern differently than the previous majority, that our legislation would reflect not the ideological views of a few, but the priorities of the many. Moreover, we vowed to work in a bipartisan fashion. This is exactly what we did with this conference report, as indicated by the numerous Republican Senators spanning the ideological spectrum who signed the conference report.

Finally, we promised earmark reform, and that is what is done in this report. After Republicans spent 12 years increasing the number of earmarks to more than 14,000, Democrats cut the number of earmarks nearly in half in this conference report. Perhaps most importantly, we have made available for public viewing earmark disclosure statements, and any new earmarks placed in this conference report are clearly marked and in full accordance not only with the letter of the law but also its spirit. I am proud that we kept our promise for transparency and reform.

Madam Speaker, the importance of this conference report transcends partisan politics to address the disparities that exist in the competition to meet our human needs. The programs in the underlying legislation prioritize the livelihood of citizens from all walks of life and helps those individuals live at a standard that should be expected in the greatest Nation on Earth.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying conference report.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) from the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, sometimes I think I am living here in la-la land. These people were in charge of the House; they were in charge of the Senate, and they were in charge of the White House. And they left us 11 appropriation measures that Mr. Obey and his committee have had to deal with in trying to clean up their mess.

I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the chairman of Military Construction and the VA Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, it's awfully difficult to listen to lectures from people who left 11 appropriations measures on the table before the Democrats achieved the majority.

I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

What I said was it was difficult to have lectures from people who left 11 appropriations measures. I did not refer to you.

Talk about a big day, a big day is the day that veterans get an additional $7 billion and don't have to stand in VA lines for months in order to receive their benefits.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont, a member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Farr.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Chet Edwards from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

What we have heard from members of the minority regarding their opposition to American priorities is nothing new. After all, it was their manufactured obstructionism in this body and the other that delayed this bill and has continued to delay the remaining appropriations bills from being signed into law.

Many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle announced that they would oppose this conference report long before it was ever written. The President, using his misdirected, ill-conceived and ideologically driven policies as justification, has been threatening to veto this bill for literally months.

Shame on them. Shame on them for refusing to support the malnourished and the sick. Shame on them for voting against providing energy assistance or for low-income families. Shame on them for voting against making it more affordable for kids to attend college and obtain an early childhood education. Shame on them for not supporting increased funding for military housing.

Shame on them for passing measures and not funding them. Shame on them for opposing increased funding for veterans health care. Shame on them for voting to send our troops into harm's way but refusing to take care of them and their families when they got home. There is no smoke and mirrors here; there is no required reading between the lines and nuancing. This is a vote about priorities. Today's vote on this conference report will be the most telling of them all.

I ask my colleagues and vigorously urge them to support this rule and the underlying conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in support of H. Res. 759, which recognizes two of the most important events in the area of human rights in the twentieth century: Recognizing the 40th Anniversary of the Mass Movement for Soviet Jewish Freedom and the 20th Anniversary of the Freedom Sunday Rally on the Mall in Washington, DC.

I would like to specifically touch on one of the most important aspects of the Jewish struggle for freedom--the right to emigrate.

A few months ago, the travel plans of many Americans were disrupted when they were unable to acquire within a reasonable period of time U.S. passports that would allow them to travel abroad to certain regions. It was an inconvenience, but fortunately, the State Department with great effort cleared up the backlog and the waiting period is now back to around two months.

Now imagine waiting five, ten, or even fifteen years for a passport allowing you to leave the country.

Imagine not filling out an application and dropping it into the mail, but instead trudging from office to educational institution to police station seeking signatures from employers and various officials, without which the emigration office would not even consider the application to emigrate.

Imagine being told you can't leave, but not given any rational reason as to why not. Or being told that you cannot emigrate because of military service--in a construction unit!

Imagine taking to the streets with a sign demanding the right to reunify with one's family and loved ones abroad, as stipulated in the U.N. Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and being set upon by police and perhaps winding up in a forced labor camp or in internal exile in some tiny village in Siberia.

It may be hard to imagine, but this is what thousands of Soviet Jews faced when they wanted to emigrate to Israel from the former Soviet Union.

And why did Soviet Jews want to emigrate? Many of them were tired of the government anti-semitism that permeated the Soviet system, including a quota system for educational institutions. Understandably, they did not want their children to face these obstacles.

Many wished to practice their Jewish faith, to be able to attend a synagogue--if they could find one that hadn't been closed by the Communists--without having to worry that some Communist Party hack would see them and report them to their employers or teachers. Others were tired of the constant stream of anti-Semitic articles in the Soviet press parading as opposition to Zionism.

In 1967, with the Soviet press spewing tirades against Israel and alleged Zionist misdeeds in the wake of Israel's victory in the Six Day War, the Jewish emigration movement in the Soviet Union began in earnest. Many applicants, to be sure, were allowed to leave, but others were refused time and time again. The word ``refusenik'' was coined. Members of the Jewish community in the United States and throughout the world took up their cause. Others who cherished basic human rights, including Members of this body, joined in solidarity. Activists took part in demonstrations, wrote letters to Soviet officials, visited refuseniks in the Soviet Union, sent packages to imprisoned refuseniks, and never quit working on their behalf. It was an impressive demonstration of determination and unity.

And as this resolution notes, almost twenty years ago, on December 6, 1987, an estimated 250,000 persons demonstrated on the National Mall here in Washington on behalf of Soviet Jewish emigration as President Reagan prepared for a summit meeting with General Secretary Gorbachev. African Americans joined the rally in large numbers due in part to the active Jewish participation in the civil rights movement in the United States. One of these African American leaders eloquently expressed why so many non-Jews were there. He said, ``As long as one Jew is kept against his will in the Soviet Union, we are all Jews.''

A few years later, as the Soviet Union was collapsing and perestroika and glasnost became the watchwords, the barriers to Soviet Jewish emigration were lifted. Justice had at last prevailed.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes both the brave individuals who stood up to tyranny and demanded their right to freedom of movement, and those who vigorously campaigned on their behalf.

As Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I am honored to stand with my colleague and good friend, Henry Waxman, in support of this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 764 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 764 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order an amendment offered by Representative Flake of Arizona. This was the only amendment submitted to the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to speak for long about this legislation other than to express my sincere hope that this body will move forward expeditiously with its passage. Our Nation is greater because of its vast diversity and the living narrative of all those who contribute to it. However, make no mistake, our government has treated a number of cultural communities in a less than favorable manner.

Mr. Speaker, we are not here to debate the particulars of our Nation's dealings with Native Hawaiians. However, it is only right that all indigenous people should have a right to determine how they should interact with our government.

As my good friend from Hawaii, Representative Neil Abercrombie, mentioned in the Rules Committee, the current system of land tenure for Native Hawaiians is organized under the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. This State agency does not meet the needs of Native Hawaiians in the most effective manner as it is currently arranged. What the community demands and needs is an entity in which the Native Hawaiians can be effectively engaged. Rightfully, this legislation will give Native Hawaiians an opportunity to create such an entity and empower themselves with self-determination.

I do want to make note of my concern that there are some in this body who are seeking to create controversy where none exists. Contrary to what some say today, this bill does not allow gaming on Native Hawaiian lands, nor does it lay the groundwork for gaming. On the contrary, it takes the necessary steps to put Native Hawaiians on the necessary path to control their destiny.

Additionally, similar legislation has passed the House in the 106th Congress and was reported out of the Natural Resources Committee in both the 107th and 109th Congresses. Unfortunately, the measure was never taken any further until today.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides the appropriate framework for debate on this bipartisan legislation, which is the culmination of many years of negotiation. I have been in this body, and I have seen Neil Abercrombie, and now Mazie Hirono, and before, Patsy Mink, work actively on this particular legislation.

The lack of amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for this legislation is a testament to years of bipartisan collaboration. It is only right that we bring this legislation to the full floor today in this manner.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), who is an original sponsor of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the sponsor who has labored with this legislation actively in several Congresses, who is from the Committee on Natural Resources, and the author of this bill.

I am the last speaker, and I will reserve my time until the gentleman closes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about the right to live. It is about empowering Native Hawaiians to own their destiny and choose how to manage their livelihood. This bill is not about gaming. In fact, it expressly is prohibited in this bill.

Instead, the bill is about providing an opportunity to effectively reorganize the Native Hawaiian government to better meet the needs of Native Hawaiians.

The underlying legislation enjoys the support of Hawaii's Republican Governor Linda Lingle, the business community in Hawaii, the National Congress of American Indians, the Alaska Federation of Natives, and Hawaii's entire congressional delegation.

Mr. Speaker, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act has received immense bipartisan support year after year. It is now time that we fulfill the duty of this Congress and serve Native Hawaiians just as they have served and contributed to the vibrant and diverse culture that is America.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, the previous question, and on final passage of the bill.

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

Amendment to H. Res. 764 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I customarily do not find myself on the floor after the close of business, but I am here today because I genuinely find myself in the position of concern that I believe a significant number of Americans share.

We have passed, out of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, a measure that will provide health care to many of this Nation's children who presently are uninsured. The President, exercising his prerogative, vetoed that

measure, and as a result of that, further discussions are ongoing, and the need, again, is to put forward a measure that will provide health care for 10 million children in this country that find themselves and their families without the necessary assistance for medical care.

Mr. Speaker, the President, on the day before yesterday, proposed that there be an additional $49 billion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There's no one in the House of Representatives who does not support the military efforts of the United States military. There's no one in the House of Representatives who is not exceedingly proud of the extraordinary work that the military has done. The military has done what the Commander-in-Chief required of them, and for those of us, as policymakers, expect that they would be able to do.

And quite frankly, one of my colleagues is preparing legislation that talks about the benchmarks that we had originally set for the military and the fact that the military, the U.S. military and the coalition forces have achieved all of those benchmarks. And, in short, we could not arguably say, with the removal of Saddam Hussein or with other temporizing measures that have been brought to various provinces in Iraq, that the military has not been successful. They have been. And when they come home we want them to receive the proud accolades of the American citizenry, and that's every Member of the United States House of Representatives.

But let's compare the cost in that particular effort with the cost for our children's health. Forty-one days in Iraq would provide health insurance for 10 million children.

Now, I don't know all of the nuances of the defense budget, but I have reason to believe that if we did not give all of the money as requested by the President that this particular effort could be run for a substantial period of time.

I might add, all of us are mindful of how stretched the United States military is. But you know something? Without knowing, I would venture a guess that some soldier's child may not be properly insured in this country. Some soldier's child. To my way of thinking, that is absurd. For us to be in the position, a Nation as resourceful as our Nation, a Nation as accomplished as our Nation, a Nation with genuinely the best physicians and nurses and hospitals in the world would find ourselves in this position.

We must pass SCHIP, and we must do so immediately.