Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding.

Let me speak for an interest group that has not been heard tonight, and that is our children and grandchildren, because they are going to be asked to pick up the tab of this legislation.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am for raising the minimum wage. It is a fair thing to do, and it is in the economic interests of this country. But the price to vote ``yes'' is just too high, $267 billion of additional debt on the estate tax changes.

And where are we going to get the money to pay for that? I hear from my friends that we have to be fiscally conservative, and I agree with that on every dollar of new spending. But tonight it is okay for $267 billion of additional debt. And where is that money going to come from? We borrow it. We borrow it from foreign governments that own banks. And it jeopardizes trade exchange with the United States. It costs us jobs.

It is in our national interest to balance our budget, we all understand that; and tonight, by passing this bill, we are moving in the wrong direction.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to commemorate the Rukert Terminals Corporation's 85th Anniversary. Located in Baltimore, Maryland, Rukert Terminals Corporation, which specializes in salts, metals, ores, and fertilizers, is one of the city's premier privately owned marine terminal operators.

Since its foundation in 1921 by William G. Norman or ``Cap'' Rukert, Rukert Terminals has been a hard-working, family owned business that has thrived due to its strong commitment to quality service. Due to the leadership of Norman Rukert and his son, Rukert Terminals has developed over the years from a single truck and stable business to occupying more than one million square feet of storage space. Through the use of the most modern techniques, Rukert Terminals handles the nation's dry and break-bulk cargoes to ensure transfer and storage of the highest caliber. For several decades, the company has continuously provided quality jobs to the citizens of Baltimore.

The city of Baltimore is an excellent place to live, filled with hard-working, dedicated citizens. The Port of Baltimore's economic contributions have been tremendous, generating $2 billion in revenue annually, and employing 19,000 Marylanders in direct jobs, and another 87,000 in indirect and maritime-related occupations. Rukert Terminals is part of the success of this port city, supplying superior warehousing, stevedoring, and vessel transfer services for the region.

I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me today in honoring this third generation family business, which for eighty-five years has provided quality marine services to one of America's premier cities while maintaining a standard for excellence that is a model for the rest.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. I am disappointed that the House has missed an opportunity to promote in a meaningful way our health care system's transition from a paper-based medical records system to an electronic one. Congress is in nearly unanimous agreement that this move is necessary, and that it is in the best interest of patients, providers, and health care quality over all.

But it appears that we have before us legislation that will do little to move the Nation toward that goal, and that in some respects, may be harmful. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, which considered this bill earlier this year, I had the opportunity to vote on several amendments that would have strengthened this bill, that would have enabled our Committee to bring this bill to the floor with bipartisan support. Those amendments would have added funding so that doctors could afford to transition to electronic medical records; removed provisions that expand fraud and abuse, set a date certain for the implementation of interoperability standards, and guaranteed the confidentiality of personal health information. Unfortunately, each was defeated on a party-line vote.

So the bill before us today still contains several fundamental problems. The first is the lack of strong privacy protections. Mr. Chairman, I wonder how many breaches of supposedly secure electronic medical records must occur before we get serious about enacting strong privacy protections into law. In two weeks, we will mark the 10th anniversary of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Privacy regulations stemming from that law were finally issued in 2001. Ten years ago, Americans' familiarity with electronic communication and electronic transfer of information was quite limited. HIPAA does not protect individuals.

The second is a lack of funding. My colleagues, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Engel, and Ms. Schakowsky and I offered an amendment that would have provided grants for community health centers and hospitals with high numbers of low-income patients. These are the facilities that already face severe financial strains. They include many community health centers in Baltimore and larger facilities such as Prince George's Hospital Center in my home state of Maryland. They do not have extra money to implement expensive health information technology systems. Our amendment would have given them needed help to take advantage of health information technology for their patients, many of whom face significant health challenges due to chronic illnesses. If adopted, our amendment would have helped these facilities leap the financial hurdles that will otherwise prevent the spread of health information technology. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee refused to allow our amendment to be made in order.

Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues have made this point, but it bears repeating: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting this bill in its present form ``would not significantly affect either the rate at which the use of health technology will grow or how well that technology will be designed and implemented.'' The lack of funding is one of the primary reasons why.

I am also very concerned about the exceptions to the Stark anti-self- referral and anti-kickback laws contained in the underlying bill. These provisions would serve to seriously weaken these important consumer protection

laws. In H.R. 4157 as it is being considered today, physicians could be offered free or discounted technology in exchange for referring their patients to a facility or for a particular service. According to the Congressional Budget Office, these exceptions would raise health care costs.

Mr. Chairman, I will vote for the motion to recommit, which will protect medical privacy. It will ensure that patients can keep their medical records out of electronic databases unless they first give their permission. It will require patient notification if their health information is misused, lost, or stolen. It requires the use of encryption and other safeguards against theft. Importantly, it would permit patients to limit access to particularly sensitive information, such as mental health data. Finally it would protect state privacy laws that may be more protective of patient confidentiality.

I support the provisions of the bipartisan bill passed by the Senate, and I would hope that, for the sake of improved patient care, for better access to health information technology, for better privacy standards, that is the bill that emerges from conference. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 4157.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5682, the U.S. and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act.

India is the largest democracy in the world today, and is rightly viewed as an emerging global power in the 21st century. I was pleased to listen to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh address a Joint Session of Congress in July 2005 and describe his vision of future cooperation between India and the United States. I will continue to encourage our government to strengthen our ties to India, in areas such as high-technology, immigration, trade, space, and the military.

Today the United States and India can take an important step to lay the foundation for our countries to greatly expand nuclear research, nuclear power, and nonproliferation cooperation with each other. India is facing enormous challenges in providing sufficient energy to its growing population. India has more people living in abject poverty than do Latin America and Africa combined.

This legislation establishes a two-step process under which the United States may enter into a nuclear cooperation agreement with India. I am pleased that the Committee on International Relations has significantly amended this legislation, as compared to the version initially proposed by the Administration. The legislation today preserves the important oversight role of Congress. Under this

legislation, the President must make a number of determinations before India can be exempted from restrictions contained in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). Most notably, the President must determine that India has provided the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with a credible plan to separate civilian and military nuclear programs, and that India and the IAEA have concluded an agreement requiring the permanent application of IAEA safeguards to India's civil nuclear facilities.

Once the President has made the determinations required by this legislation, Congress must approve a joint resolution to ratify the final negotiated text of a nuclear cooperation agreement with India. I also support the provision in the bill that requires additional consultation between the Administration and Congress, including regular detailed reports on nonproliferation matters and the implementation of this agreement.

I look forward to working with the Administration to implement this nuclear cooperation program between the United States and India, consistent with this legislation and the intent of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in support of H. Con. Res. 384, recognizing and honoring the 100th anniversary of the founding of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated. I also want to thank Mr. Hinchey for introducing this resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, what a legacy. Founded at Cornell University in 1906, Alpha Phi Alpha is the first black fraternity in the United States.

Alpha Phi Alpha has an illustrious history of service and leadership that is evident through its list of members over the past century. This list includes those who are no longer with us, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Justice Thurgood Marshall, and those with whom we are fortunate to serve today, such as our distinguished colleagues in the House--Congressmen Charlie Rangel, Danny Davis, Bobby Scott, David Scott, Chaka Fattah, Gregory Meeks, and Emanuel Cleaver.

The work of Alpha Phi Alpha is as strong as ever. The progress toward creating a national memorial here in Washington to Dr. King would not have been made without the initiative and dedication of Alpha Phi Alpha, and our Nation owes them a debt of gratitude. The fraternity has established the Alpha Disaster Relief Fund to aid the families affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and they were in the forefront of efforts to secure passage of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization.

Mr. Speaker, today's resolution is especially important to me because A Phi A is headquartered in my hometown of Baltimore, Maryland, and the fraternity's presence is felt not just on St. Paul Street, but throughout our city.

This week, Alphas around the world will celebrate 100 years of leadership and commitment to humanity. The 2006 Centennial Celebration will be held here in the Nation's Capital, and I am pleased to join my colleagues in welcoming them. I urge my colleagues to unanimously adopt this resolution and to join me in wishing General President Darryl Matthews, Sr., Executive Director Willard Hall, Jr., and all the brothers of Alpha Phi Alpha an outstanding 100th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed today that we are about to consider a free trade agreement with Oman that I would have hoped we would have worked out so we could have had strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the agreement comes up short on international labor standards, and I believe we could have achieved those international labor standards to make sure that Oman complies with ILO standards. But, unfortunately, there was an unwillingness on the part of the negotiators to complete the agreement in a way that could have gotten more support.

The second issue that I take, particularly with this rule, because I am going to support the gentlewoman's position of opposing the previous question, is to deal with a very sensitive issue of port security. So let me try to explain the port security issue, because I think there have been some misstatements on the floor of the House.

This agreement permits Oman to operate landside aspects of port activities, including operation and maintenance of docks, loading and unloading of vessels directly to and from land, marine cargo handling, operation and maintenance of piers, ship cleaning, stevedoring, transfer of cargo between vessels and trucks, trains, pipelines and wharves and waterfront terminal operations.

That is exactly what Dubai Ports World tried to do in ports in this country, including my own Port of Baltimore. We spoke up and the American people spoke up against allowing a foreign company to operate port facilities here in the United States, and we blocked that transaction. It was the right thing to do for the security of America and the security of our ports.

Under this agreement, if Dubai Ports World had an operation within Oman, they would be permitted to apply to do those same operations here in the United States and they would be permitted to do that under the free trade agreement.

I have heard my colleagues suggest that we can just invoke the essential security exception to an agreement, and you are correct, we can invoke the essential security exception and block the transaction. But then we are subject to dispute settlement procedures. We never give up our sovereignty in trade agreements, but we changed our tax laws because of international pressure when we thought we didn't have to, because otherwise we would have been subjected to tariffs against U.S. products. The same thing is true here. If the dispute panel rules against us, then we are subjecting ourselves to sanctions.

Our USTR says this is absolute, they can't do that. But let me remind you, we have lost 83 percent of our cases in dispute settlement procedures where sanctions have been imposed against our country. So we haven't been that successful in these international tribunals.

Let me also point out that by including this language in this bill, there will be continued pressure on this administration to allow foreign government companies to operate ports here in the United States. We have an administration that is friendly towards that.

We have the responsibility in Congress to protect our ports and protect our Nation. It is our responsibility. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can protect the ports here in America and make it clear, by simply taking out that one provision that would allow the operation of port facilities potentially by companies owned by countries that are not friendly to the United States.

This is an important issue, and I urge all my colleagues to pay attention to this. This is our vote and our opportunity, and I urge the defeat of the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

(Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the Oman Free Trade Agreement. I do that for two basic reasons.

First, this agreement contains provisions that would allow companies owned by foreign governments to move into port operations. This is one of our first opportunities to deal with this since this matter became a matter of attention of this body earlier this year when Dubai Ports World attempted to take over port operations in many ports in the United States, including my own port of Baltimore. We spoke pretty decisively about our concern about allowing companies owned by foreign countries to be involved in principal port operations.

The language in this free trade agreement opens the door for exactly that to occur. Under the services provision, there is a provision that allows landside aspects of U.S. port activities, including operation and maintenance of docks; loading and unloading of vessels directly to and from land; marine cargo handling; operation and maintenance of piers; ship cleaning; stevedoring; transfer of cargo between vessels and trucks, trains, pipelines, and wharves; and waterfront terminal operations, to be given out to the Omanian companies that could very well be owned by that government.

To make the matter even worse, if the Dubai Ports World were to establish operations in Oman, then they could actually come in and operate our ports under the protection of this agreement.

You will hear during the course of this debate that the United States has the ability to prevent that from happening. And, Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that under any trade agreement, no other country can order us to do anything other than what we want to do. We maintain sovereignty.

But let me remind you that under trade agreements there are certain penalties that are imposed if we do not live up to those provisions. We in Congress were required to change our Foreign Sales Corporation tax laws. We did it. We didn't have to do it, but if we did not do it, tariffs would have been imposed and continued to be imposed against our products.

So this is a serious issue. The United States has the opportunity under this agreement to block such an operation under the essential security exception. However, Oman would have the right to challenge that under dispute settlement, and under chapter 20 we have not excluded this determination from dispute settlement resolution. It can happen. The pressure can build on our country. We do not have a very good track record with dispute settlement tribunals. In fact, our record is around less than 20 percent success when it comes to imposing penalties against the United States. This administration has already shown a willingness to allow companies owned by foreign countries to operate port facilities in the United States. This is another opportunity for them to move forward on

this. Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility. We have a chance to speak on this, and we should speak with a clear voice in rejecting this agreement.

The second area of concern that I will talk about during the course of this debate deals with Oman's failure to meet International Labor Organization standards. And I will give you chapter and verse of letters that we have written because, as you know, the standard is enforce your own laws, and Omanian laws are not up to ILO standards. Foreign workers in Oman do not have the right to join a union for a year. They are required to speak Arabic before leading a union. And the Government of Oman still does not have a law that prohibits employers from withholding passports or other documentations from the 80 percent of foreign workers in Oman, practices that can lead to human trafficking, as we have seen in Jordan. There are still inadequate laws to protect against anti-union activities. And the list goes on and on and on.

In Bahrain we not only had the commitment to change law, we saw the change in practice. We do not have that in Oman. We have not met the Bahrainian standard, and for that reason alone this agreement should be rejected.

So whether it is a matter of national security in regards to our ports or a matter of standing up for basic international workers' rights, this agreement comes up short and should be rejected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to correct the record.

To my friend in Virginia who quoted AIPAC, the letter was the letter addressed to me that complimented the manner in which we have worked in a bipartisan manner to deal with the Arab boycott, in both the Bahrain agreement and the Oman agreement; but it does not talk about support for this legislation.

I would also point out that our friends from the WTO have been pretty clear about the dispute settlement system working: ``It must not be possible for one country to evade its operations simply by proclaiming its national security is involved, however farfetched such a claim may be. Yet when national security is really involved, laws that are contrary to international trade rules must be permissible.'' But they said that ``no country should be allowed to be the judge and jury of its own cause.''

We don't give away our national sovereignty, but we are able to be second-guessed by a dispute settlement panel. They can rule against us, and have ruled against us, and they can put pressure on us through tariffs so we in fact compromise our security.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, an expert on international trade and worker rights, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to just clarify the record. Let me assure my friend from Pennsylvania that the efforts by Dubai Port World was real to the port of Baltimore and other ports. This is not a hypothetical.

Let me also assure my colleagues, I heard the same discussion when we were changing corporation laws to help exporters, only to find that we were rejected by international panels. We don't have the unilateral right to make these determinations. We do give that to dispute panels.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), who has been one of the leaders on fair trade here in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), one of the leading voices on workers' rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to point out to my friend that under this agreement, we now give third-party tribunals the opportunity to second-guess us on national security, and that was not there before this agreement. I offered an amendment to eliminate that. It should have been made in order.

Then regards labor standards in Bahrain, they had on the ground operating ILO standards. We do not have that in Oman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, one of our real leaders on trade issues.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, who has been extremely active on fair trade and international issues.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee who has been articulate and a leader on fair trade and international rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a strong advocate of fair trade, Representative Solis.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) who has been one of our leaders on fair trade.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) who has been one of the leading spokespersons about international human rights and worker rights.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of my friend from Florida, his continuing to reserve, does that mean he has one speaker remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to our distinguished whip, my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has been a spokesperson not only on trade but on security internationally.

If the gentleman would just yield briefly. I would let Mr. Moran use up the remainder of his time, and then we will use up the remainder of our time, and then you will close.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield the balance of our time to our distinguished leader, let me just make it clear that the Sultan has not, by decree, answered the issues that were raised in letters that were sent by our staff. In fact, they dealt with primarily one issue, and six or seven are yet to be dealt with; and that is why they are setting an October date for changing their law.

And let me also make it clear that unlike Bahrain, the Omanis have not, on the ground, changed their labor practices to meet ILO standards. So they fall far short of Bahrain.

And lastly, on the security issue, I have heard our colleagues put a lot of confidence in our ability to unilaterally use the essential security provision to prevent action on our ports. And I just wonder what attitude we would have if one of our insurance companies, for example, wanted to do business in Oman, and Oman said, oh, no, not because of essential security we will let you in our country. And then we say we don't have the right to challenge that? We clearly have the right to challenge that, as Oman would have the right to challenge our decision to invoke this exception if a company wanted to take over a port operation in the United States.

And we are going to be subject to the second-guessing of independent tribunals. And our record has been terrible in the decisions of the tribunal as to how many we have lost against statements made in this body that said that what we would do would stand international muster, and it did not.

So why are we putting this threat out there? Why are we making ourselves vulnerable? Why didn't we take it out of the agreement? Why do we want to subject America to that risk?

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield the balance of our time to our distinguished leader who has put forward an agenda for America that truly will make this Nation a safer Nation, Ms. Pelosi.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2389-- the Pledge Protection Act--a bill which does not protect the Pledge of Allegiance, but instead endangers the constitutional balance between the legislative and judicial branches.

I believe in the Pledge of Allegiance. In the wake of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Newdow v. U.S. Congress in 2002, the House acted swiftly to affirm our support of the Pledge as it has existed since 1954. I voted in favor of a resolution that disagreed with the court's opinion that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

My opinion today remains the same: the Pledge of Alliance is a simple, eloquent statement of American values. Each morning millions of school children pledge allegiance not only to the flag but to the Nation and our values and our principles. This act, like the prayer that opens each session of the House and the call that brings the Supreme Court to order, reminds us all of the greater context of our purpose.

I oppose this legislation, not because I do not support the Pledge of Alliance, but because I know that this legislation does not achieve its goal. This legislation takes a bold step towards a radical concept which undermines the constitutional checks and balances so crucial to our system of Government. We have taken steps to protect the Pledge and we will continue to do so--but this is not the way.

This bill proposes to strip the courts of their just jurisdiction. While the Congress is granted the power to create and establish Federal courts and this jurisdiction, this power has always been used to promote judicial efficiency. It has not, and should not, be used to stifle debate on any issue regarding fundamental rights and liberties.

Since the Supreme Court decided the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the judiciary has performed its unique role of interpreting laws of this country. This bill is unconstitutional because it would fly in the face of 200 years of our constitutional tradition. I cannot imagine our democracy could long endure a system in which the Congress may take from the courts the ability to hear cases regarding the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, civil rights, or privacy.

The 108th Congress considered this legislation, and the Senate refused to pass this measure. Indeed, in this Congress the House Judiciary Committee refused to favorably report the bill to the full House.

The courts are now properly continuing to review constitutional challenges regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court has dismissed a case regarding the Pledge, and the Ninth Circuit is again reviewing this matter. Congress has gone on record in support of the Pledge.

It is important that the courts remain as the neutral decision makers in constitutional cases. The Founders wisely enshrined the concept of judicial independence into the Constitution. Federal judges are given lifetime tenure, and Congress is prohibited from reducing their pay during their service in office.

Congress has indeed considered whether to intrude on the province of the Federal courts

throughout the history of this country. Congress wisely rejected President Franklin D. Roosevelt's plan to ``pack the court'' by increasing the size of the Supreme Court. In the 1970s Congress considered, but rejected, effort to strip jurisdiction away from the courts in the areas of civil rights and privacy cases, as a result of Supreme Court decisions of the 1950s and 1960s.

In many ways, this type of legislation is a thinly-veiled attempt to circumvent Article V of the Constitution, which gives Congress the ability to propose an amendment to the Constitution, and therefore overturn a constitutional decision of the Supreme Court. Congress and ultimately the states have the ability to amend the Constitution at their discretion, but under Article III of the Constitution the courts have the obligation to interpret the law and Constitution when ``cases or controversies'' arise in a lawsuit that is properly brought by parties before the court.

This bill would close the door to Federal courts. When there is no court to hear a case, then there is no liberty. A law without a venue for debate is a law without moral force. As the Ranking Member of the Helsinki Commission, I have seen too many countries run by dictators whose first actions are to shut down the independence courts and make them answerable to what the executive and the legislature wanted them to do. We cannot go down this path in the United States, and undermine our citizens' confidence in an independent judiciary that will decide cases without fear or favor.

I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and attack on the independence of the judiciary, and oppose this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 921, condemning recent terrorist attacks against the state of Israel.

Israel has the absolute right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. The United States stands in solidarity with Israel at this critical moment. I condemn the premeditated kidnapping and killing of Israel soldiers by Hezbollah and Hamas, which are both U.S. designated terrorist organizations. Israel has a right to launch operations to try to free its kidnapped soldiers that are being held hostage. Israel also has a right to defend itself and try to prevent ongoing rocket attacks by Hezbollah, which are being launched from Lebanese territory and which land in Israeli territory.

I also condemn the use of civilian populations as human shields by Hamas and Hezbollah, which only increase the suffering of innocent persons in this conflict. Israel, on the other hand, is taking significant steps to minimize and prevent additional civilian casualties in both Israel and Lebanon.

Even though Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, the Lebanese Government has permitted Hezbollah to operate at its border and to repeatedly launch attacks against Israel. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, passed in 2004, calls for all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon, directs that all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias should be disbanded and disarmed, and urges the Government of Lebanon to exercise control over all its territory. We need to fully implement this United Nations resolution.

Both Syria and Iran have continued to provide funds and weapons to the Hezbollah terrorists, which have resulted in numerous Israeli civilian casualties. All parties in the region must take immediate steps to prevent the operation of terrorist activities on their soil and to abide by previous peace agreements. The President should use his authority under the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 to impose additional sanctions on Iran.

I also call on the Bush Administration to take a more aggressive diplomatic role in the conflict in the Middle East, including the appointment of a high-level U.S. envoy to the Middle East as soon as possible. The Bush Administration should also put pressure on all parties in the region to stop terrorist attacks and prevent the flow of money and weapons to terrorist organizations.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and stand in solidarity with Israel at this critical moment.

Let me thank my friend from New York (Mr. Ackerman) for his leadership on many of these issues.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important moment. We have been working now, many have been working now, for almost 60 years to bring this date together. The Magen David Adom Society, like the Red Cross and Red Crescent Society, provides unbiased aid, regardless of whom is in need.

Mr. Speaker, when tragedies occur, it is a welcome sight to see the internationally recognized symbol of help. It has been true in all countries where members have been part of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, but Israel was denied that membership.

For reasons unrelated to its society that provided that help, the MDA provided unbiased help to all in need and was entitled to be recognized internationally. It has taken almost 60 years to achieve this moment, and I think it is very appropriate that we, in this body, recognize this moment and the role that the United States has played in making this happen.

But for the leadership of our country in support of the MDA in Israel, we would not be able to celebrate this moment, and victims of disasters would be the losers. I congratulate all involved. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

I rise today in strong support as an original co-sponsor of H. Con. Res. 435, which congratulates Israel's Magen David Adom Society for achieving full membership in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

Since its founding in 1859, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement have helped millions of people in need through its dedication to providing impartial and compassionate aid to victims of war, internal violence, and disaster, regardless of political or religious affiliation. For over 140 years, the Movement has been the world's leader in humanitarian aid.

In Israel, the Magen David Adom (MDA) Society has upheld these same goals, providing impartial aid to those in need. As a committed humanitarian organization, MDA has been a model of excellence, embodying the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement's goals of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity, and universality.

Unfortunately, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement has for decades rejected the MDA's full admittance into the Organization because of the MDA's refusal to use the accepted symbols of a cross or crescent.

It has taken decades of discussion to reach a compromise, but one comes to us now in the form of a diamond. The red crystal will soon fly high--a beacon of hope to all who see it.

Since its founding in 1930, the MDA has proven its quality time and again through its rapid response to war areas and to natural disasters such as the earthquakes and tsunami, as well as through its compassionate treatment of civilian victims and injured perpetrators of horrific acts of violence alike. The MDA, like all Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, provides unbiased aid, regardless of who is in need. For this they are at last being recognized through full membership in the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement--a classification they have long since deserved.

The MDA has fought for this designation since 1949, but until now has been perpetually relegated to observer status due solely to its use of the Shield of David as their symbol. The American Red Cross, the U.S. Government, and Congress have never wavered in their pressure for this positive outcome, and I am thrilled that now the MDA will benefit from full membership in the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement--benefits that will then be passed on to the millions of victims that the Organization helps.

This solidarity on behalf of impartial humanitarian aid is especially commendable given the current climate in the Middle East. In a moment in history when the region hovers on the brink of war, the internationally-recognized symbols of help and compassion are a welcome sight on all fronts, reminding us all of the dignity of life and the necessity of compromise and compassion. The union of the MDA and the Red Cross and Crescent Movement represents a movement towards cooperation and consideration, and encourages hope in a time when such hope is so desperately needed.

I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution to celebrate a new symbol of hope on the Israeli landscape, and to congratulate the Magen David Adom Society for at last achieving the recognition it has long deserved.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Donald E. Wilson, M.D, MACP, who is retiring as dean of the University of Maryland School of Medicine and vice president of Medical Affairs for the University of Maryland.

Dean Donald E. Wilson has transformed the landscape of American medicine and medical education at the University of Maryland. In 1991, when Dr. Wilson was appointed dean of the University of Maryland School of Medicine,

he was the first African-American dean of a primarily non-minority medical school, as well as the first African-American dean at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Since 1991, Dean Wilson has increased grant and contract awards from $77 million to $350 million. Philanthropic support for the school of medicine has risen from $1.7 million to $37 million. Dean Wilson has created one of the most diverse student bodies and faculties in the country, with the School of Medicine doubling the number of full-time African-American faculty. Now ranked among the top medical schools in the country, the University of Maryland School of Medicine has benefitted from Dean Wilson's leadership that has promoted the values of cultural and gender diversity and created an all-inclusive atmosphere at the medical school.

Dean Wilson's commitment to the education of minority students in the field of medicine led him to found the Association of Academic Minority Physicians. He continues to serve as editor of the association's journal. For his devotion, Dr. Wilson became the first recipient of the Association of American Medical Colleges' Herbert W. Nickens, MD Award for Diversity.

Dr. Wilson has been a good and trusted adviser to me on health care policy. He has spoken out about the need to expand research into diseases that are more prevalent in the African-American community and among women. His service on the Maryland Health Care Commission has helped to guarantee access to emergency health care for all Marylanders while ensuring that hospitals are able to provide those services.

I hope you will join me in congratulating and thanking Dean Donald E. Wilson for his outstanding contributions to medical education and his commitment to racial and cultural inclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to Washington, DC for its 97th Annual Convention, The NAACP has been dedicated to promoting and preserving civil rights since its founding in 1909. This year's theme, ``Voting our Values, Valuing our Votes,'' reflects well the organization's commitment to the causes of equality and full participation in society for each and every American.

I wish to extend a special welcome to NAACP President and CEO Bruce Gordon who is completing his first year at the organization's helm, and to Chairman Julian Bond, who has provided steadfast direction and counsel over the years.

As a native of Baltimore, the NAACP's home, and as a life member of the organization, I am filled with pride to see such a large turnout this week in our nation's capital. I also want to welcome the delegates from Region 7, including my constituents from Maryland, who are participating in the week's events. Many of the other delegates flew for the first time into the Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, which was renamed last year in honor of Justice Marshall, a son of Baltimore who served as the NAACP's Chief Counsel prior to his historic tenure on the United States Supreme Court.

The 97th annual convention occurs as the House of Representatives has just overwhelmingly passed--without amendments--a 25-year reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and we look forward to its passage this week by the Senate. I want to express my gratitude to Mr. Gordon and Mr. Bond for their vigorous efforts in support of this crucial legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in saluting the NAACP for its extraordinary legacy of commitment and courage and for its outstanding presence at this 97th annual convention. I look forward to working with them to promote and protect civil rights in the years to come.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization for 25 years and against any of the amendments, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation which I have cosponsored.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 seeks to ensure that all Americans--regardless of race, ethnicity, language spoken, or disability--have the right and the opportunity to vote. The VRA seeks to implement the guarantee of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which was adopted by Congress and the states after the Civil War during Reconstruction.

The 15th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified 136 years ago, provides that ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'' For nearly a century thereafter despite this clear language, millions of minorities were denied full participation in the electoral process through the notorious Jim Crow laws. Not until Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did this country begin to genuinely fulfill its commitment to this most fundamental right.

Today, over 40 years after President Lyndon Johnson gathered with prominent civil rights leaders to sign the Act into law the VRA continues to play a critical role in guaranteeing that every American may enter the polls and have their vote count.

This country has come a long way since the original enactment of the VRA. In many of the districts and states that had previously blocked African-Americans from the polls, African-Americans and whites now vote in nearly equal numbers. The great-grandchildren of slaves now hold elected offices across the country.

Our work, though, is not complete. Committee testimony on this bill reminded us that efforts to disenfranchise remain. While the most egregious impediments to full voting have been eliminated, many more subtle, yet still insidious impediments remain. The VRA ensures our vigilance towards continued efforts to disenfranchise minority voters.

In the last few elections in Maryland, for example, minority voters have continued to face intimidation and fraud, and poll workers have improperly turned away voters and refused to let them cast provisional ballots For example, in 2002 flyers were distributed in some African- American neighborhoods in Baltimore City urging people to vote on the wrong day, and warning them to pay parking tickets and overdue rent before they tried to vote.

While the VRA was born in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, the Act has evolved with our society through regular amendments and renewals. In 1970, 1975, 1982, and 1992, the VRA was amended and extended. Each renewal by Congress was a confirmation of the continued need and effectiveness of the VRA's tools.

Today, this Congress again uses it power to enforce the 15th Amendment. We must renew the VRA to continue to protect the rights of minority voters.

The reauthorization of the VRA properly extends scrutiny in the form of federal examiners and observers who watch over the operations of elections around the country, while providing for the termination of examiners where appropriate. Examiners and observers have studied and monitored the mechanics of thousands of elections to ensure that legitimate votes are counted and eligible voters are not turned away.

Reauthorization facilitates continued enforcement of Section 4 ``preclearance'' procedures that review changes to election law to ensure that such changes do not adversely effect minorities. Preclearance creates a procedure to ensure that election law changes and redistricting do not discriminate against minority voters. Preclearance provides an added level of protection in jurisdictions where election laws had previously been abused. I am pleased that this legislation overturns two recent Supreme Court decisions that weakened the preclearance provisions of the VRA.

I will oppose any amendments calling for a new formula for Section 4 preclearance procedures. The applicability of the VRA does not need to be recalculated by the Congress. The original formula for determining which states and municipalities are covered by Section 4 has functioned well for 40 years. More importantly, the criteria for ``bailing out'' of Section 4 is reasoned, precise, and attainable. The law allows for states to graduate from the VRA's constraints when clear evidence is offered that the state or municipality retains no lingering obstructions to electoral participation by minority voters.

Finally, reauthorization promotes access to the polls by limited- English speakers. It is crucial that new citizens be afforded all the rights and privileges of the Constitution. Citizens with limited- English speaking abilities should not be disenfranchised.

In Maryland, for example, the bilingual provisions of the VRA are absolutely critical. In 2002, in Montgomery County, Maryland, the County Board of Elections received notice that recent demographic data regarding the growth of the Hispanic population indicated the county would need to abide by Section 203 of the VRA. The election staff complied with the VRA and converted signs, documents, and ballots to be bilingual. Many of Montgomery County's 122,000 Hispanic residents benefited from the assistance. In the future, other language minorities in Maryland (such as Asian-Americans) may need the assistance the VRA prescribes.

I will also oppose efforts to reauthorize this law for less than the full 25 years. I urge my

colleagues to vote in favor of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 86, a resolution extending trade sanctions against Burma.

It is imperative that the United States continue sanctions against Burma so as to maintain pressure on the government of Burma to end its brutal repression against the Burmese people.

The government of Burma's litany of abuses is appalling. According to the U.S. State Department and human rights organizations, the government of Burma has continued to arrest and imprison supporters of democracy for alleged political offenses. Over 1,100 persons remain in jail today for their political beliefs.

Earlier this year, the government of Burma extended the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League of Democracy, a pro-democracy party, and her deputy. Aung San Suu Kyi has spent 10 of the last 17 years in confinement.

Burmese security forces regularly monitor the movement and communication of residents, search homes without warrants, and relocate people without compensation or legal recourse. The government of Burma has failed to crack down on trafficking in persons; and, in fact, the government of Burma has sanctioned the use of forced labor. In fact, the government of Burma has supported the use of forced labor for large infrastructure projects, forced children to join the Burmese Army, imprisoned individuals who have communicated with the International Labor Organization on the subject of forced labor.

Further, the Burmese government has destroyed nearly 3,000 villages in its campaign to forcibly relocate minority ethnic groups.

Mr. Speaker, the world simply cannot stand by as Burma continues its brutal policies. I am pleased that the European Union recently acted to renew its sanctions against Burma and that many nations in the world have spoken out against the repression in Burma. It is particularly meaningful that in December 2005 the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, which counts Burma as one of its members, issued a statement calling for the release of political prisoners and democracy reforms in Burma.

Mr. Speaker, the Western world and those who are concerned about human rights are united: Burma cannot be allowed to continue its oppressive actions. The use of sanctions is appropriate, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained and missed four rollcall votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 350, ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 351, ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 352, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 353.