Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 270 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and co-Chair of Florida's congressional delegation, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, or his designee, my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of this 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 may have up to 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 270.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 270 provides for consideration of H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour 20 minutes of general debate. One hour is to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except those arising under clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security shall be considered as an original bill for purposes of amendment and shall be considered as read.

The rule waives all points of order against the bill.

Importantly, the rule makes in order the eight amendments printed in the report accompanying this rule and waives all points of order against such amendments. The amendments may be offered only in the order printed in the report and by the Member designated in the report or his or her designee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to commence debate on this very essential piece of legislation. Five years have passed since the terrorist attacks of September 11. While we in this body have done a great deal of talking about Homeland Security, our record on the issue suggests otherwise.

Under Republican control, the majority maintained that mandating certain security enhancements was not necessary at the time. Democrats, on the contrary, believe that they are and will not allow this need to go unmet any longer.

The fact that this bill was reported favorably out of the Homeland Security and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees with near unanimity and the cosponsorship of the ranking Republican member of the Homeland Security Committee suggests that our concerns are almost universal in this body.

Moreover, this rule makes in order a total of eight amendments, half of which will be offered by the Members of the minority party. The rule and the process further prove that Democrats refuse to allow partisanship to supersede our responsibility to protect the American people.

Congress's prior reluctance to mandate certain security enhancements out of fear that it might rock the administration's boat has left us woefully behind the curve when it comes to rail and mass transit security. That is why I am very pleased that the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act makes the necessary investment in these absolutely critical enhancements.

The bill requires that the administration develop a security plan for all forms of covered transportation. The bill also creates a system and methods under which all agencies tasked with the responsibility of protecting our country can work together.

We don't stop there. The bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to expand its coordination network through enhanced communication and cooperation at all levels of government.

It requires DHS to develop security training programs for railroad and public transportation employees and extends whistleblower protections to all providers, public or private, who provide covered transportation services.

Under this bill, the number of surface transportation security inspectors will increase by six times by the year 2010, and the bill mandates that the administration issue regulations requiring enhanced security measures for the shipment of security sensitive materials and requires that these shipments not go through highly populated areas.

Perhaps most importantly, this bill pays for these improvements and authorizes $7.3 billion in security enhancements to make America safer.

Mr. Speaker, the Government Accountability Office has determined that the United States must provide much more leadership and guidance in constructing a rail and security transit plan. This bill answers that challenge and fills the void left by the administration's failure to secure all modes of transportation in this country.

It, just like the rule, is worthy of the support of this body. I urge my colleagues to support both.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. And I would say to my friend from Florida that, in his concerns about the motion to recommit and the time to see it, I am sure my friend is mindful that when a motion to recommit comes to the House floor that it comes without the Members of the House having had an opportunity to know the substance of the motion to recommit.

I might add, that period of time, particularly in the last 2 months, we have seen that when the minority has presented the motion to recommit, that what winds up happening is even Members of the minority don't know what is in the motion to recommit. Therefore, it seems more than reasonable that a sufficient amount of time be given for that purpose. And I also think in the interest of fairness that we have been considerably fair in accepting more motions to recommit than have our friends in the minority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, my good friend from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the chairwoman of the Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intensity to my friend from Florida regarding the resources that the American public provides to the United States Government for its distribution. He seems to decry the fact that this year we are going to spend $7 billion on rail security. My ultimate question would be, What did you spend on rail security last year, the year before, the year before and the year before that?

Somewhere along the line, I believe that the American people want us to

make sure that our rail system and our bus system are as secure as we can make them. This is a start in that direction.

I also heard my friend from Orlando say that the rule itself is the most egregious that he has seen in 15 years. Well, I have been here every one of those 15 years that he has been here, and if he wants to see egregious, then travel with me back to the 4 years in the minority that I was on the Rules Committee, and I will show you egregiousness.

Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission gave the Transportation Security Administration a C-minus for its efforts to develop a security strategy for all modes of transportation. GAO, as I previously mentioned, has said that the U.S. has failed to provide the appropriate leadership in enhancing all forms of covered transportation.

Something needs to change. This bill provides the necessary leadership and funding to move us forward.

For too long, Congress has neglected its responsibility to do whatever is necessary to protect the well-being of the American people. This is a fair rule. It gives four amendments to the minority and four amendments to the majority; hardly as egregious as the many times no amendments were granted to the minority when Democrats were in the minority.

I urge my colleagues to support both the substantive legislation and this rule.

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Slaughter, and thank you very much for your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I have appended to this podium the faces of 90 people who never should have lost their lives in this war.

Mr. Speaker, when I voted against using troops in Iraq more than 4 years ago, I believed then, and still believe today, that this was not a war of necessity, but rather for the Bush administration a war of choice and convenience. As we have learned since that vote, the concern that I and others had was, indeed, justified.

Today's vote is not a vote on supporting our troops. After all, there is no choice when it comes to supporting our military. We all stand by them, Republicans and Democrats alike, especially when they are in harm's way.

But should we send our troops into battle without proper body armor? For over 4 years the Bush administration has said ``yes.'' Democrats have said ``no.''

Should we force our troops into second and third and fourth tours of duties with shortened times in between those tours? The Bush administration continues to say ``yes.'' Democrats say ``no.''

Should we welcome home our troops with inhumane conditions at our VA hospitals around this Nation, not just at Walter Reed, and a shortchanged veterans health care system? The Bush administration says ``yes.'' Democrats say ``no.''

Should we stay the course of rhetorical arguments filled with fear and deception, like I have heard here today? Or should we finally start holding this administration and the Iraqi Government accountable? For over 4 years the Bush administration has said ``stay the course.'' Democrats and the American people demand accountability and a plan to bring our men and women home.

Choices arise only when we start asking ourselves the real questions about how we can best support and protect our troops. On these issues, there are very clear choices between the Bush administration's ``stay the course'' stubbornness and the Democratic plan for accountability.

This bill is not the end-all-be-all when it comes to getting us out of Iraq. It is not the long-term solution which

so many of us crave. But it is the first step, a very necessary step, on the road to holding the administration and the Iraqi Government accountable and bringing our troops home.

Many Democrats did not vote for this war, but make no mistake about it, one way or another we will end it. Incidentally, whatever happened to exit strategy? Most importantly, we will do so in a manner that enhances our security here at home and contributes to the restoration of order and stability in the Middle East region and throughout the world.

This is an excellent rule, Madam Chairman, and the bill that has been fashioned by the Speaker and the leadership of this House is a correct start to adhere to the wishes of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 239 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

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

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 239 provides for consideration of H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour and 20 minutes of general debate with 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The remaining 20 minutes will be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute, consisting of the text of the bill, modified by the amendments, recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted.

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended.

Now, the rule makes in order five amendments, three Republican amendments and two Democratic, which are printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution.

The amendments may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report and shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

All points of order against amendments, except for clauses 9 and 10, are waived.

Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, today is an important day for the more than 2.7 million Federal employees who show us, day in and day out, their commitment to improving our great country. It is an important day because the House, in bipartisan cooperation, is closing the loopholes which permitted retaliation against Federal employees who have reported unlawful fraud, corruption, incompetence and abuse of power.

Today is an important day because the House is saying loud and clear that whistleblower protection is an essential component of government, of government accountability and of government fiscal responsibility.

Throughout our history, whistleblowers have played integral roles in improving our government and holding it accountable for its negligence. From Shawn Carpenter to Joseph Darby to Mark Felt, and everyone in between, whistleblowers have faced harsh penalties from those who would prefer that what they know is never shared with the public. They have, nevertheless, put their careers on the line, and in some instances even their lives, to do what they knew was the right thing to do. Their courage is to be commended and their conviction embraced.

When history judges this current administration, I believe it will look down upon the drastic and despicable actions taken by this administration, which have stifled those seeking to speak truth to power. These actions are, indeed, some of the very reasons why this bill is so desperately needed.

For example, in 2005, the Bush administration officials placed a gag on a senior NOAA official who was scheduled to give an interview arguing that global warming exists and has contributed to greater and stronger hurricane activity. Three weeks later, Hurricane Katrina made landfall, first in my State of Florida, and then in Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama, killing hundreds and leaving hundreds of thousands homeless, jobless and ill.

How can we forget former CIA operative Valerie Plame? Her life, and the lives of others, were placed in jeopardy after the Vice President's chief of staff revealed her name to a reporter in retaliation for her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, revealing that the administration lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and where they were trying to retrieve uranium from Africa.

When the Bush administration hasn't been able to directly punish whistleblowers, it has simply tried to unilaterally change the law. Just this past September, after a senior Environmental Protection Agency scientist revealed that the administration had purposefully misled the public regarding the air safety at Ground Zero following the attacks of September 11, the Bush administration issued an executive order declaring that EPA employees are no longer covered by Federal whistleblower protections. That is outrageous.

These three high-profile cases, and there are a great deal more, these three capture only a small snapshot of the problems in the current administration. More importantly, they highlight the need for extended protection across all agency lines to Federal whistleblowers.

Unfortunately, for nearly the last decade, Federal whistleblowers have received nothing more than lip service. Let me make it very clear, I said for the last decade, that includes the previous administration and this one. Even when the House drafted legislation in 2002 establishing the Department of Homeland Security, it failed to

include whistleblower protections for DHS employees.

Now, I am proud that I was the author of the amendment which extended these protections and was the only Democratic amendment adopted by the House during consideration of the legislation. The protection of whistleblowers in recent years has unfortunately garnered only lip service. Today, the House is backing up these words with real action that protects our 2.7 million Federal workforce.

I close by noting that this bill is not perfect. That is why the Rules Committee has made five amendments in order, the majority of which, I might add, are going to be offered by our colleagues, the Republicans, on the other side.

Democrats are proud to continue our efforts to work in a bipartisan manner, and to provide the minority with many opportunities to improve already good legislation.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks during debate on House Resolution 239.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time, before yielding to my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, only to respond to my friend from Florida regarding an amendment that was not made in order of the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

I serve on that committee, and one amendment that was made in order contemplates everything that the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee might have provided in the amendment that he sought.

Quite frankly, I think Mr. Tierney's amendment, which we will have an opportunity to debate here on the floor, will give a full exploration of those matters having to do with whistleblower concerns in the intelligence community. So I commend that to my colleague and all here in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to a new Member, who is not so new now, to the Rules Committee, my good friend, Mr. Arcuri from New York. I yield to him 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and classmate, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is desperately needed. Federal employees need to know that Congress is on their side. They need to know that their jobs will not be at risk if they choose to reveal fraud, abuse of power, neglect, or corruption in their workplace.

The extension of these whistleblower protections is absolutely critical to our national security and our government accountability. I am proud to support the underlying legislation and hope that my colleagues will do the same. This is a fair rule for a bill that is supported by Members from both sides of the aisle, including the chairman and ranking Republican of the Government Reform Committee.

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

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 239

Offered by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

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

Hoekstra of Michigan or a designee. That amendment shall be

debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by

the proponent and an opponent.

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

follows:

Strike section 10 of the bill and conform the table of

contents accordingly.

Redesignate sections 11 through 14 as sections 10 through

13, respectively, and conform the table of contents

accordingly.

In section 11(a)(2), as redesignated, strike ``section

2303a (as inserted by section 10)'' and insert ``section

2303''.

In section 13, as redesignated, strike ``section 12(a)(2)''

and insert ``section 11(a)(2)''.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution urging the remaining member countries of the International Commission of the International Tracing Service (ITS) to expedite opening access to the Holocaust archives located in Bad Arolsen, Germany.

On March 8, 2007, a most important diplomatic meeting concluded in the Hague. Nine out of the 11 International Commission of the ITS member countries, which includes the United States, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom, met to discuss opening up the world's largest Holocaust era archives.

Incredulously, 62 years after the end of the Second World War, the Holocaust archives located in Bad Arolsen remain the largest closed Second World War-era archives in the world. Inside the archives are 50 million records that disclose the fate of some 17.5 million individual victims of Nazism.

These records are some of the last remains that the Allied forces seized when they liberated the death camps in 1945. Years later, documents were given to the Red Cross for the purpose of tracing missing people and later for validating compensation claims by victims or their relatives. Over the past 60 years, the ITS has handled more than 11 million inquiries.

In order to allow for open access to these important archives, each of the 11 members of the International Commission of the ITS must individually ratify through their respective parliaments the May 2006 amendments to the 1955 Bonn Accords.

For the past decade, Holocaust researchers and most survivors have sought and failed to access the Bad Arolsen archive because the ITS Commission believed it would violate the privacy of the survivors and their families.

Slight progress has been made since last May after the Commission recently amended the Bonn Accords. The Bonn Accords were amended to allow researchers to use the archives while granting each Commission member a digitized copy of the archives and make them available to researchers under their own country's respective archival and privacy laws and practices. Unfortunately, these measures have not gone into practice because not all of the member countries of the ITS have ratified the amendments.

I support the progress made thus far by the ITS and all Commission member countries. Just last week, technical specialists reviewed plans for preparing the documents for electronic transfer and drafted recommendations to be reviewed by the commission in advance of the May 2007 ITS meeting. In fact, many of the Commission's member countries have taken significant steps since last May's meeting in order to expedite the process of ratification and allow for the digitization of the archived materials.

However, the facts remain the same. Generations after the Holocaust, 7 member countries of the International Commission have still yet to ratify these amendments. To date, only 4 out of the 11 Commission member countries; the United States, Israel, Poland and the Netherlands have ratified the treaty. Unfortunately, many Holocaust survivors may be long dead before each country's parliament ratifies the amendments.

I ask: why has it taken over 60 years to allow for open access to these Holocaust records? There is no reason European governments should not give this issue the utmost elevated attention, as this issue should be made a top priority in their respective parliaments.

For the many years after the War's aftermath, the survivors and their families who requested information have faced cumbersome delays and occasional unresponsiveness from the ITS. As a result of the harrowing experience, many survivors had in past dealings with the ITS, many survivors now lack confidence that new inquiries will be answered. Although access to individual records may be requested by Holocaust survivors and their families, the millions of extensive records remain inaccessible to researchers. Furthermore, it will likely still take years before the implementation of the distribution of the digitized archival materials.

Those responsible for the progress made at the meeting in the Hague should be widely commended. The advancements made recently are largely due in part to the United States Holocaust Museum and the United States State Department. I am grateful for their diplomatic efforts which have proved so fruitful at the last meeting.

But much work still remains undone. With the express acknowledgement of the variance in each country's internal procedures and the utmost respect for the letter of international law, I strongly encourage parliamentarians from other members of the ITS Commission to ratify the ITS amendments promptly so that the Bad Arolsen archives can be opened at the earliest possible date.

The short time left for the remaining Holocaust survivors does not afford us time to delay any longer.

As the few remaining survivors pass away, they are being deprived of information concerning their loved ones and the assets that were rightfully theirs. Let us not continue to waste the precious time left for the remaining survivors. After all of the horrific acts to which they have been subjected, they are completely justified in uncovering the truth about their family and their loved ones without hassle or delay.

In passing this legislation, Congress can put itself on record saying, ``Enough is enough.'' I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and ask for its expeditious consideration.

Mr. Speaker I rise today as a proud original cosponsor of House Resolution 107, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of the Israeli soldiers held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah since last summer.

The critical bipartisan legislation being introduced today calls for the immediate and unconditional release of the three Israeli soldiers who were captured last summer. Ehud Goldwasser, 31, and Eldad Regev, 26, were kidnapped by Hezbollah on July 12, 2006. Gilad Shalit was kidnapped by Hamas on June 25, 2006.

Moreover, my cosponsorship of this legislation follows up on the July 29, 2006 letter I wrote to American Red Cross Interim President Jack McGuire urging the American Red Cross to apply pressure to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to look into the well- being of the three Israeli soldiers. My colleague, Canadian Senator Jerry S. Grafstein, wrote a similar letter.

To date, Gilad is the only captive Israeli soldier to have been confirmed to be alive by his captors. Hezbollah has not given any indication as to whether the other two Israeli soldiers they captured are injured or even still alive. Contrary to the most basic standards of humanitarian conduct, Hamas and Hezbollah have prevented access to all of the Israeli captives by representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

I and all in this country, resent terrorist groups who use human life as a strategic tool to further their radical agenda. In calling for the release of these Israeli prisoners, the United States stands with Israel and sends a united message to terrorists that their fanatic behavior will be unsuccessful in deterring a Middle East peace.

I support the efforts the Israeli government has thus far made in attempting to gain the captives' release. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and her fellow ministers, as well as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have continued to raise this issue at the highest levels in their diplomatic meetings.

These three brave soldiers have been held hostage without medical attention and without communication or access to their family for far too long. The United States Congress has not forgotten these men and will make every effort to secure their freedom. The Shalit, Goldwasser and Regev families should know that I and the United States stand by them and pray for the return of their sons.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in supporting H. Res. 230, a resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which was signed on March 25, 1957. The Treaty of Rome established a customs union--formally known as the European Economic Community--among six countries: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, and the Federal Republic of Germany. Today, that customs union is known as the European Union, and now includes 27 countries spanning the length and breadth of Europe. Most importantly, it has grown into an institution that inspires countries to be their better selves.

If one travels to Europe today, it may be hard to remember that, 50 years ago, the continent was still recovering from the second of the two world wars it had unleashed in less than half a century. It may be hard today to recall or imagine the magnitude of devastation that still scarred farmland and cities alike. It may be difficult to conceive of the bitterness, anger and thirst for revenge that bled across the continent like the blood of those fallen in war. The fact that Germany, a country that had unleashed a war of aggression against its neighbors just a few years before, was included in this new ``community'' was really nothing short of a minor miracle.

Moreover, fifty years ago, Europe was still riven in two--no longer by a shooting war, but by a cold war. While a small group of nations was beginning the slow process of rebuilding their own countries and forging transnational relations based on cooperation, mutual trust, and mutual benefit, another part of the continent had fallen under the boot of communist dictatorship, where the Soviet Union exploited its neighbors, striping them of wealth, prosperity, and opportunity for generations. Just one year before the Treaty of Rome was signed, the Soviet Union underscored its opposition to any independent foreign or economic policy on the part of East European countries--a message unequivocally sent by its invasion of Hungary.

As the years passed, and the success of the European Economic Communities became ever more apparent, it is no surprise that more countries joined this union. Membership in Council of Europe, the European Union's sister organization and home of the European Court of Human Rights, helped pave the way for membership in the EU. Meanwhile, the NATO alliance created a zone of military security where the post- war citizens of Western Europe could build a zone of financial security.

Since the fall of communism, there is no doubt that the aspiration of joining the European Union, much like the goal of joining the NATO alliance, has helped focus the attention of many countries on overcoming their past differences for a larger, common good that also brings substantial benefits to their own citizens. Today, I commemorate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, and the new vision it held for the European continent, one that has helped spread peace and prosperity to nearly 500 million people.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee intends to meet Tuesday, March 6, to report rules for floor consideration of H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act; and H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act. It is anticipated that the rules will require that amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration.

Members who wish to offer an amendment must preprint their amendments in the Congressional Record by the close of business Tuesday, March 6, to ensure that their amendments are printed prior to consideration of the bill on the House floor.

Amendments should be drafted to the text of H.R. 569 or H.R. 700 as reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The bills are posted on the Rules Committee Web site. Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee intends to meet this week to report a rule that could limit the amendment process on H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007.

Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 55 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 12 noon on Wednesday, March 7.

Amendments must be drafted to the bill as ordered reported on March 1 by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. A copy of that bill will be posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee. Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I am privileged to add my voice today to those honoring Vaclav Havel, Czechoslovakia's first post- communist President, and the Charter 77 movement which, 30 years ago, he helped to found.

Three decades ago, the Charter 77 movement was established and its founding manifesto was formally delivered to the Communist regime in Prague. The goals of the Chartists--as signatories came to be known-- were fairly straightforward: ``Charter 77 [they stated] is a loose, informal and open association of people of various shades of opinion, faiths and professions united by the will to strive individually and collectively for the respect of civic and human rights in our own country and throughout the world--rights accorded to all men by the two mentioned international covenants, by the Final Act of the Helsinki conference and by numerous other international documents opposing war, violence and social or spiritual oppression, and which are comprehensively laid down in the U.N. Universal Charter of Human Rights.''

The phrase ``people of various shades of opinion'' was, in fact, a charming understatement regarding the diversity of the signatories. Founding members of this movement included Vaclav Maly, a Catholic priest banned by the regime; Vacla Benda, a Christian philosopher; former Trotskyite Peter Uhl; former Communists like Zdenek Mlynar and Jiri Hajek, both of whom were ousted from their leadership positions in the wake of the 1968 Soviet attack that crushed the Prague Spring reforms; and, of course, Vaclav Havel, a playwright and dramatist. Notwithstanding the many differences these people surely had, they were united by a common purpose: to compel the Communist regime to respect the international human rights agreements it had freely adopted.

Interestingly, the Charter 77 movement was never a mass dissident movement--fewer than two thousand people ever formally signed this document. But, to use a boxing analogy, Charter 77 punched above its weight. Its influence could be felt far beyond the number of those who openly signed on and, ultimately, in the battle of wits and wills with the Communist regime, Charter 77 clearly won.

And most importantly, Charter 77--like other human rights groups founded at roughly the same time in Moscow, Vilnius, Warsaw and elsewhere--looked to the Helsinki process as a vehicle for calling their own governments to account. Although it is sometimes said that the Helsinki process helped to bring down communism, it is really these grass roots movements that gave the Helsinki process its real meaning and its true legitimacy.

Thirty years ago, a small, courageous band of people came together and said, ``We believe that Charter 77 will help to enable all citizens of Czechoslovakia to work and live as free human beings.'' Today, we remember their struggle and praise their enduring contributions to democracy and human rights.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation.

As a longtime cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, I applaud our Leadership for bringing this bill expeditiously to the floor. American workers from coast to coast are standing up to cheer because their voices no longer fall upon deaf ears in the House of Representatives.

Under this Democratically-controlled House, worker pleas for fairness in organizing are finally being answered.

Consider, over the last 60 years, there have been only 42 instances where union misconduct was found by the National Labor Relations Board. In direct contrast, over 30,000 workers received back pay from employers who illegally fired them for their union activities in 2005 alone.

In my district, I have walked the picket lines with literally hundreds of workers who were wrongfully fired or laid-off for trying to organize a union. Whether it has been at a body armor plant or hospitals and nursing homes as well, I have seen, firsthand, employer intimidation aimed at discouraging union involvement.

This legislation cracks down on intimidation and coercion. It also gives employees the choice--through a public or private ballot process--to decide whether or not they want to organize a union and experience all that one has to offer, including higher wages and better healthcare for its members. Whatever their decision, under this bill, the choice is theirs.

Madam Speaker, when I was a child, my parents took us out of Florida in search of higher wages. Like every other American family, they wanted a better life for them and for me.

When workers seek to organize and take advantage of their collective bargaining rights, they too are searching for an improved life for them and their families. They aren't trying to take advantage of the system or run the company which employs them out of business. All they want is fair pay and benefits for an honest day's work.

The Employee Free Choice Act preserves and enhances the American worker's right to organize. I stand by these efforts and this much needed legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Reauthorization Act. I would first like to thank the numerous colleagues that have joined me in prioritizing this legislation as original cosponsors, especially my colleague from Delaware, Representative Castle, and the National Parks Conservation Association for its endorsement of this legislation.

Our Nation's history is in peril when funding for our national parks is in peril. We must guarantee our future generations will be able to experience the critical journey of sacrifice and triumph that has empowered African-Americans and shaped the history of this Nation.

In pursuit of this charge, the National Park Service has emerged as one of the largest stewards of black history in the United States. The National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom was established in 1998 and has served as a tremendous historical resource throughout our national parks. The Network to Freedom encompasses over 250 programs, sites, and partners in over 27 states and the District of Columbia. This unique network is a phenomenal national resource in its preservation of historic buildings, routes, programs, projects, and museums with thematic connections to the Underground Railroad. As the only national program dedicated to the preservation, interpretation, and dissemination of Underground Railroad history, this network is a vital asset to the National Park System.

Madam Speaker, my esteemed former colleague Congressman Louis Stokes established the Network to Freedom with a bipartisan coalition to preserve American history. In 1998, his legislation passed the house with only two dissenting votes. With such overwhelming support, it is only right that we honor the congressional mandate set forth by the establishing legislation.

Honoring this legislation will require concerted action to overcome the funding challenges that threaten all national parks. In fact, recent National Park Service financial projections show the Network to Freedom budget reducing by 72 percent by the year 2011. This vital asset will diminish without adequate funding for staff and operations to coordinate efforts, as well as additional oversight of grants for site development. The National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Reauthorization Act calls for a modest $2 million in funding to resolve the financial burdens that threaten the existence of the Network to Freedom. Importantly, this legislation also maintains the $500,000 in grants that have been previously authorized for Network to Freedom site and program development. This funding will allow Network to Freedom staff to pursue and fulfill their Congressional mandate ``to honor and interpret the history of the Underground Railroad.''

Madam Speaker, I am confident that this bill will protect the interpretive interests of our National Park System by providing the necessary support staff and oversight for the Network to Freedom to exist in perpetuity. As my distinguished former colleague Senator Carol Mosley-Braun so eloquently observed in her introduction of the companion establishing legislation in the Senate, ``This bill helps to preserve the structures and artifacts of an organized resistance movement for freedom.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in preserving the history of the Underground Railroad so that generations to come will understand the sacrifices endured to achieve the freedom experienced today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution to recommend that the United States Postal Service issue a postage stamp to commemorate the achievements of the Fisk University Jubilee Singers. I would like to thank my colleagues of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Tennessee Delegation that have joined me to introduce this important legislation.

On January 9, 2007 Fisk University celebrated its 141-year anniversary. Known for its educational excellence and inspirational leadership the heart of Fisk University is found in its Jubilee Singers. The perseverance of the renowned Jubilee Singers has anchored Fisk University's success through the preservation of the Negro Spiritual as a musical art form and contributions to perpetuate the existence of the University.

Sponsorship for this liberal arts institution began with support from the American Missionary Association, as well as a great financial contribution by Tennessee Freedmen's Bureau member, General Clinton B. Fisk. His generosity led him to purchase 42 acres of land to start this school for newly freed slaves, ranging in ages from 6 to 67.

On August 22, 1867, three years after the Emancipation Proclamation, Fisk became incorporated and was finally able to provide students of color with the opportunity to obtain an education. When faced with financial hardship, it was the Jubilee Singers that overcame significant opposition to generate life-sustaining revenue.

The advancement of this choir throughout the racially prejudiced Nashville community brought great struggle and hostility. Parents and University staff were initially opposed to the choir traveling due to the threat of violence. As a result the financial sponsorship from the American Methodist Association denied funding for the school. Against these odds, the director and founder, George L. White, persevered and scheduled the choir a tour in the fall of 1867. Mr. White told the A.M.A., ``I'm depending on God, not you,'' and set off with his singers and the last $40 of the school's treasury.

Madam Speaker, the Fisk Jubilee Singers then embarked on what became an international tour to raise funds for Fisk University. Their first grand appearance was for a National Convention for Influential Ministers, in Ohio at Oberlin College. It was one of the first public performances of the secret music that African Americans had sung in fields and behind closed doors. In this performance, Negro Spirituals, which had been a means of communication and the celebration of spirituality for centuries, were first introduced to the public sphere.

The highlight of their international tour was an audience with Queen Victoria. Overwhelmed with the choir's performance, Her Royal Majesty bestowed on the Jubilee Singers a gift of $50,000. Her enthusiasm for the choir led to the painting of the life-size portrait of the original 11 Jubilee Singers. Over many years of performances the Jubilee Singers were able to raise over $100,000 to finance the continued existence of Fisk University.

Madam Speaker, the accomplishments of the Jubilee Singers remain the reason Fisk University is able to educate students today. As a Fisk graduate, this institution of learning is responsible for my participation in this great Congress. Thus, commemorating the Jubilee Singers with a First Class U.S. postage stamp would be a tremendous honor to acknowledge the sacrifice and remember the services of these young individuals.

It took immense determination to pursue an education after many years of condemnation and rejection. The majority of the Jubilee Singers were ex-slaves; however, this did not hinder their achievement. Their status did not dictate or hinder their dreams of success. They used their gift of music to portray the realities and stories of their lives.

It was the commitment and hard work of the Jubilee Singers that should be highly regarded as a selfless act. Having the perseverance to fight racism, to overcome the constant hardship of personal financial troubles, through sickness, and fatigue, they continued for the sake of posterity.

Madam Speaker, commemorating the Jubilee Singers with a First Class postage stamp will acknowledge their legacy to the world. According to the National Science Foundation, Fisk alumni earned more doctoral degrees in the natural sciences than African-American graduates from any other college or university in the Nation.

The original students who left Fisk University in October 6, 1871, never had the opportunity to finish their education. Yet instead they risked their lives to save Fisk University knowing one day their dreams would come true.

Madam Speaker, for their past accomplishments and continued success for the future, I ask Congress to commemorate these heroes of my alma mater with a United States postage stamp. The legacy of the Fisk Jubilee Singers should be recognized as an enduring triumph of American history. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and ask the House Leadership to swiftly bring this resolution to the floor for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud co- sponsor of the resolution honoring and praising the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on this occasion of its 98th anniversary. I would like to thank my friend Rep. Al Green of Texas for putting forth this timely resolution.

It is with great pleasure that I stand here today to honor 98 years of the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the United States. As a young man growing up in the civil rights era, I witnessed firsthand the many struggles and efforts the NAACP encountered to fight the ugly face of racism and discrimination.

Honoring the NAACP immediately brings to mind one of the most eloquent scholars of recent history, my hero, W. E. B. Dubois. His involvement in the Niagara movement and scholarly work in developing Crisis Magazine built the foundation for what became the thriving NAACP we see today. One adage of Mr. Dubois that still motivates me to this day is his assertion, ``There can be no perfect democracy curtailed by color, race, or poverty, but with all, we accomplish all, even peace.'' These words remind me of why I am here. Mr. Dubois understood that if America were to be

a true democracy, all men and women must be involved in the process. He fought for the rights and equality of minorities in America and abroad. I rise today because I am moved by the purpose of this legislation, which perpetuates this national struggle and the legacy of W. E. B. Dubois which became the NAACP.

Mr. Speaker, although our country has overcome many obstacles since the early 1900's--it is important we recognize this historical organization today because our Nation continues to struggle against discrimination and hate crimes. We must never forget the mission of the NAACP, ``to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.'' We must internalize this mission and continuously work together to realize the goals and mission of this organization. I urge my fellow colleagues to rise with me in support of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program. Since the program's inception in 2000, I have been a proud participant.

For the past seven years, 12 students from all across Australia are selected to participate in the eight-week Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program, an opportunity that exposes them to the administrative and legislative processes that underpin the functioning of Congress as a democratic institution, Such experiences are invaluable opportunities for these students to gain knowledge and a deep understanding of the internal workings of the United States Government while bringing their own skills and backgrounds to their respective Congressional offices.

The Uni-Capitol Program selects undergraduates from 7 universities by exclusively matching the applicants with Members and Senators who share their views, as well as with various committee offices that relate to their interests and fields of study. The students who are selected come from a variety of academic disciplines, but all have a common interest in learning about and promoting the

U.S.-Australia relationship. These student placements are enhanced by the formation of genuine friendships and the exchange of views and ideas between the Australian interns and their respective offices. I continue to enjoy the interaction that frequently occurs between my Australian and American interns. This, my colleagues, is how we build diplomatic relationships which will ensure that the U.S. and Australia remain friends and allies for years to come.

For the past two months, my office has had the good fortune of hosting an amazing young woman from Australia, Anu Ambikaipalan, who is completing a double degree in law and international studies at Deakin University. Throughout the duration of Anu's tenure in my office, she has conducted herself admirably. Her willingness to learn and contribute to the legislative process through crafting legislation for the state of Florida as well as nationwide, has cemented a relationship indicative of the one the U.S. and Australia have shared for so many years. Anu has fast become an asset to my staff and we will be sorry to see her go.

Anu is participating with 11 other very qualified students. Emmanuel Rohan from the University of Queensland is in Representative Mike Castle's office; Sylvia Gaston from the University of Melbourne is in Representative James Clyburn's office; Charis Tierney from the University of Queensland is in Senator Mike Crapo's office; Nicole Woodmansey from Griffith University is in Senator Christopher Dodd's office; Clare Ashby from the University of Melbourne in the office of Rep. Philip English; Anna Keenan (University of Queensland is in Representative Sam Farr's office; Nisha Sundaresan from Deakin University is in Senator Chuck Hagel's office; Megan Bainbridge from the University of Melbourne is in Representative Jerrold Nadler's office; Stuart Broadfoot from the University of Western Australia is in Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's office; Jennifer Grant from the University of Queensland is in Representative Loretta Sanchez's office; Michael Ng from the University of Melbourne is with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's majority staff.

As we move to acknowledge the seventh successful year of this program, I would like to commend the founder and director the Uni- Capitol Internship Program, Eric Federing. Eric is a former senior House and Senate staffer of more than 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 heartily congratulate him on making his vision a reality. This program is the right step in the direction of supporting our young people who have a passion for and commitment to civic engagement and public service.

Over the years, my staff and I have greatly benefited from participating in this program, as I believe it continues to provide a unique and important bridge between the United States of America and Australia in many respects, especially in the arena of promoting people to people relationships that are just as key if not more than our military and economic relationships. I have said this in years past, and I will say it again: I implore my colleagues to participate in this worthwhile program when the opportunity is made available.