Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the 50th year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The Nation's highest court spoke almost half a century ago, but it seems that we have not received the message.

Mr. Speaker, I believe segregation has taken on a new face. It is now a matter of access to quality education; it is now a matter of accountability to our children for the unfulfilled promises made 50 years ago; and it is now a matter of addressing disparities in school funding formulas.

In my own State of Illinois, a black child is about 50 times more likely than a white child to attend one of Illinois' worst-of-the-worst ``academic watch'' schools. That number for white children is less than one percent.

I stand in strong support of this important resolution, because I believe a stronger America is an educated America. And I believe the only way to continue the legacy of Brown is to engage in an honest discussion about the current state of public schools in America. Then and only then we will be able to address the change promised by the legacy of Brown. Mr. Speaker, segregation was and still is present in our schools today.

Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago, the Department of Justice announced that it would be forming a partnership with the State of Mississippi to investigate the 1955 murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till. As I heard the news, two thoughts ran through my mind. On the one hand, as the Member of Congress who introduced a resolution, a bipartisan resolution calling upon the Justice Department to investigate Emmett's murder, I feel a sense of relief. On the other hand, four words come to my mind: it is about time.

Mr. Speaker, many of us regard the murder of Emmett Till and the subsequent sham Jim Crow trial that acquitted Emmett's murderers as a mockery, as a miscarriage of justice, and as the single motivational spark for the civil rights movement. Young Emmett's savage murder and his open funeral casket made international news, and it galvanized African Americans and others interested in the cause of civil rights to take matters into their own hands and to demand basic human rights to which all citizens are entitled.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that now maybe Ms. Till-Mobley and Emmett Till can begin to rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak on the Justice Department's recently announced initiative to partner with the State of Mississippi in investigating the brutal murder of Emmett Till in the sham Jim Crow trial that subsequently acquitted the perpetuators of this heinous crime.

Given the significance of this tragedy in American history, I accepted the Justice Department's announcement with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I felt relief. But on the other hand, I thought to myself it is about time. This investigation should have been conducted at least 49 years ago.

On August 28, 1955, in Money, Mississippi, Roy Bryant and his half brother J.W. Milam kidnapped 14-year-old Emmett Till from his uncle's home where he was staying for the summer. Bryant and Milam brutally beat Emmett Till, took him to the edge of the Tallahatchie River, shot him in the head, fastened a large metal fan used for ginning cotton to his neck with barbed wire, and pushed the body into the river. Emmett Till's body washed ashore some 3 days later.

Emmett's mother, Mamie Till, insisted on leaving her dead son's casket open at the funeral on the south side of Chicago. She did not let the coroner alter Emmett's deformed face, and for 3 days his casket lay open for anyone and for everyone to see. Photographs of Emmett's body were published in newspapers and magazines around the world. And after an all-white, all-male jury acquitted Bryant and Milam for the murder, the world became outraged.

Two years later, Milam and Bryant subsequently and candidly, and truthfully I might add, admitted their crime to Look Magazine and went into exact detail on how they committed their heinous crime.

A hundred days after the murder of Emmett Till, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, and the American civil rights movement was born. In the aftermath of the trial, Mamie Till begged the Justice Department and President Eisenhower to investigate her son's death, but her pleas were ignored.

Almost 50 years later, on February 10, 2004, I introduced a bipartisan congressional resolution, H. Con. Res. 360, calling upon the Justice Department to investigate the murder of Emmett Till and the sham trial that acquitted Bryant and Milam. Fifty-four Members of

the House of Representatives, including the entire Congressional Black Caucus, cosponsored my resolution with the hopes that Ms. Mamie Till- Mobley, who died in January of last year, could finally realize her profound wish that Emmett's murder be investigated. It is too bad that she is not alive today to see the commencement of this investigation.

The facts of this case are beyond dispute. The murder of Emmett Till has been the subject of numerous historical accounts, including a high- profile documentary on PBS's ``American Experience'' series, a recently published book on Mamie Till-Mobley, and a yet-to-be-released documentary by a young African American film-maker who has been working on this project for some 9 years. Many of us regard the cruel and senseless tragedy of Emmett Till as the spark that ignited the civil rights movement. However, notwithstanding the facts in the history books, the official account of the murder of Emmett Till delineates Bryant and Milam as innocent men who were acquitted in a fair trial. Worse, it is still possible that other co-conspirators in this crime are still alive.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Justice Department to do a thorough job and leave no stone unturned. If there was official misconduct by Federal or local officials, they should not be immune to any possible prosecution. Not only was Emmett Till's senseless and savage murder a crime, but the subsequent official trial that freed Milam and Bryant was also a crime.

According to yesterday's edition of the Chicago Tribune, witnesses are now surfacing that suggest others may have been involved in the murder. Though Milam and Bryant were the two criminals on trial, some witnesses say they saw up to five men with flashlights and guns at the scene of the crime. It is important that the Justice Department investigate these possible leads and others as they go forward with Mississippi and county officials.

Bryant and Milam have since died, but justice is never too late. While we will never be able to erase this inhumane and cruel episode from the annals of American history, we can certainly set the record straight. Not only may coconspirators to the crime and trial still be alive, we can also have an official public account of what exactly happened. Reopening an investigation of a civil rights era murder is hardly unprecedented: the murder of Medgar Evers and the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, AL, where four innocent young, black girls were killed are two cases upon which federal authorities reopened investigations resulting in arrests, prosecutions and convictions. Emmett Till deserves no less.

I call upon the Justice Department to do a thorough job and leave no stone unturned. If there was official misconduct by federal and/or local officials, they should not be immune to any possible prosecution. Not only was Emmett Till's senseless and savage murder a crime, but the subsequent official trial that freed Milam and Bryant was also a crime. Everyone and anyone who was involved in this criminal injustice should be fair game under a quality criminal investigation.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, it is crucial that we examine the progress America's public school systems have made.

It seems to me although we live in different times, many fundamental challenges still remain. I, along with my Democratic colleagues, believe education is vital for students, parents and for our country. America needs strong leadership in education, one that will make up for 50 years of broken promises and unfinished business. Broken promises, such as the President's failure to increase funding for schools that remain $9 billion short, broken promises such as the President's failure to increase Pell grants for our college students while Pell grants remain the same for a third year in a row.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to education, the President shows up for photo-ops, he stands next to children and to teachers for a picture, but he does not show up nor does he stand up with them when it comes to improving schools in our Nation.

It is time for the President to be held accountable for promises made and promises broken. As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, it is time to stop leaving millions of our children behind.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from the State of Illinois, the sponsor of this legislation, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed emotions that I stand before the House today. I say mixed emotions, because one of my emotions is that I am saddened by the passing of Paul Simon and that he is no longer with us. He has departed this life. But, Mr. Speaker, I am also very, very gleeful for the life that he did live.

Paul Simon, to all who knew him, was one of the finest, kindest, and brightest human beings to have graced the political scene in this Nation. The former Senator Paul Simon was the only person to have served in both the Illinois House and Senate and the U.S. House and Senate. During his tenure in Congress, Senator Simon was a champion of education and a key advocate for literacy and lifelong learning.

In the Senate, he was the author of the National Literacy Act, the School to Work Opportunities Act, the Job Training Partnership Act amendments, the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the Direct Student Loan Program. In addition, Paul Simon held numerous influential committee assignments, including serving as the chairman of the Senate's Subcommittee on Africa.

Without question, Mr. Speaker, Paul Simon was one of the most effective Senators to have served the citizens of Illinois and the American people. In Illinois, we have produced some great Senators, with Senator Dirksen coming to mind and also Senator Douglas coming to mind. But Paul Simon certainly stands right in the midst of these two fine Senators that we have produced in Illinois.

Paul Simon's keen political sense and sharp wit was unparalleled and admired by everyone who came in contact with him. Mr. Speaker, it is only fitting today that we pay tribute to him by designating a Federal building in Carbondale, Illinois, as the Senator Paul Simon Federal Building. We can do nothing less, Mr. Speaker, than to designate this Federal building after Paul Simon.

I think that we will be serving his legacy well by making sure that this legislation passes and that that building, the Federal building in Carbondale, Illinois, be designated as the Senator Paul Simon Federal Building.

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support as a proud original cosponsor of S. 2022 naming the Senator Paul Simon Federal Building in Carbondale, Illinois.

This resolution honors the memory and lasting contributions of one of Illinois' favorite sons--a lifelong mentor, hero and friend of mine. I was honored to work on Paul Simon's election to the U.S. Senate, where he made the people of Illinois--and all of America--proud.

Despite winning elections in five different decades, serving his state and country in many different capacities, his character, integrity and intelligence are what endure and why Paul Simon remains one of the most popular figures in the State of Illinois.

Long before they were fashionable, Paul Simon championed civil rights, campaign finance reform, and making college more affordable. After his retirement from Congress, his commitment to public service continued. He spent his remaining days pursuing what he cared about most--education.

In everything he did, Senator Simon was guided by a deep desire to help those who most needed a voice. They always knew that Paul Simon was on their side.

For those of us in Illinois, we can still hear his voice with his trademark ``How are you today?'' His voice was one that reflected our values--regardless of party or ideology. He taught many of us that you can disagree without being disagreeable.

That the State's Attorney General, a member of Congress, and a state senator worked for Paul Simon reflects how his values and influence steered many others--regardless of party--toward careers in public service. His knowledge, insight and guidance remain cherished by those of us who have attempted to advance his values and ideals.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to recognize a true hero for many of us in Illinois. We will always remember Paul Simon and honor his enduring contributions to our State and to this country. His memory will be a blessing to those who follow in his path.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are voting on H.R. 3550, ``The Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users'' (TEA-LU), a much needed legislation that will fund our Nation's critical transportation infrastructure. H.R. 3550 would not only repair our roads and alleviate traffic congestion but it would also create and sustain 1.7 million new jobs throughout all 50 states over the next 6 years. This bill addresses many problems that plague our Nation's transportation infrastructure. For example, TEA-LU creates a congestion relief program which requires states to focus on the congestion resources that affect their roadways. TEA-LU provides 28 percent increase in funding for NHTSA highway safety formula grants that supports state safety programs. This is extremely important because it

is well known that 42,000 Americans are killed and 3.3 million die from our Nation's highways due to substandard road conditions and roadside hazards. More importantly, H.R. 3550 recognizes that transportation in the 21st century cannot exist without adequate resources for public transportation. I am also pleased that TEA-LU provides $51 billion for public transportation infrastructure programs. However, I am disappointed that the funding level for this bill is well below the Senate highway bill. Originally, this bill was to be funded at $318 billion but because of pressures from the White House it was scaled back to $275 billion. This is quite unfortunate. H.R. 3550 may be the only job creating measure considered by Congress this year, as every $1 billion invested in federal highway and transit creates 47,500 jobs. These well paying jobs would go a long way in my district.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Energy and Commerce Committee, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 393, the first concurrent resolution on the budget, which will set this House's spending and revenue priorities for the next fiscal year.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposing this resolution not only because it freezes the rate of growth in the domestic programs that are so important to my constituents--programs that fund education, health care, community development and affordable housing, but also, because does so while making additional future tax cuts permanent and because it devastates the Medicaid program by reducing it by $2.2 billion over the next 5 years.

Mr. Chairman, unlike the Republican leadership's budget resolution, both the Congressional Black Caucus substitute and the Democratic budget alternative promote necessary domestic investments in homeland security, education, job training, and workforce development. The Congressional Black Caucus substitute invests in education and the workforce by fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act and by extending unemployment benefits for those who have exhausted their regular jobless benefits.

Furthermore, neither the Democratic budget alternative nor the Congressional Black Caucus substitute reduce the Medicaid program.

Mr. Chairman, the Medicaid recipients and their families in my Congressional district want assurances from the leadership in this House that the critical needs that the most vulnerable in my State of Illinois will continue to be met.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Congressional Black Caucus budget substitute and the Democratic budget alternative so that this Congress can work toward a sane and balanced budget policy which meets the critical needs of the citizens of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on rollcall vote No. 50, I inadvertently voted ``aye'' instead of ``nay.'' I ask unanimous consent that the Record reflect that I was opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

I want to engage in colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

During a recent subcommittee hearing on broadcast indecency, we heard testimony that it is the Federal Communication Commission's policy that persons submitting complaints alleging indecent broadcast must submit a tape, transcript, or significant excerpt of the alleged indecent content or risk having the complaint dismissed.

Do you recall that testimony?

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

I understand that it is the FCC's official position; however, unfortunately, the FCC's claim is incorrect. According to a March 2, 2004, letter from Chairman Powell to the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), since 2001 the commission has dismissed 170 complaints for lack of a tape or transcript, including six already this year, 2004.

Does the gentleman agree that this policy places an enormous and inappropriate burden on consumers who simply wish to file a complaint about indecent broadcast?

I appreciate the gentleman's concern, Mr. Chairman, on this matter. Do you agree that our committee must closely watch this issue and urge the FCC to change its policy statement in this matter?

I thank my good friend and chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet for his concern and assurance on this matter.

That said, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3717. For the past month, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has held numerous hearings on the issue of broadcast indecency. In those hearings, we heard from the FCC commissioners and the broadcasters on the enforcement of indecency rules. It became clear that the FCC has been neglectful in its duty in enforcing indecency rules. From 2000 to 2003, the commission has received 255,000 complaints on the subject of indecency, yet the commission had filed less than 10 notices of apparent liability. To add insult to injury, since its existence, the commission has yet to fine a broadcaster for airing language that is obscene and profane.

As we can see, there has been a dereliction by the FCC of its duties. Some have argued that the commission needs additional authority from Congress to

make a serious effort to stop indecency. That said, Mr. Chairman, I believe that H.R. 3717 will give the commission the ammunition it needs to do just that.

The bill not only increases fines but compels the FCC to use its renewal and revocation processes to go after licensees, and it compels the FCC to act in a timely manner regarding consumer complaints.

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not discuss the pervasiveness of violent programs on our airwaves. During our month- long hearing discussing this issue, I offered and withdrew an amendment that would have required the FCC to include excessive violence in its definition of indecency.

Study after study has shown that there may be a causal link between violence in the media and violence in society.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member, have agreed to hold a separate hearing on this issue. Such a hearing is needed to focus the collective attention of this committee on detrimental effects of violence in the media as it relates to our children.

Again, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this wonderful bill, H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. For the past month the Energy and Commerce Committee has held numerous hearings on the issue of broadcast indecency. In those hearings we heard from the FCC Commissioners and the broadcasters on the enforcement of the indecency rules. It became clear that the FCC had been neglectful in its duty in enforcing indecency rules. From 2000 to 2003 the Commission had received 255,000 complaints on the subject of indecency yet the Commission had filed less then ten notices of apparent liability (NAL's). To add insult to injury, since its existence the Commission has yet to fine a broadcaster for airing language that is obscene or profane. As you see, there has been a dereliction by the FCC of its duties. Some have argued that the Commission needs additional authority from Congress to make a serious effort to stop indecency. That said, I believe H.R. 3717 would give the Commission the ammunition it needs to do just that. The bill not only increases fines but compels the FCC to use its renewal and renovation processes to go after licensees and it compels the FCC to act in a timely manner regarding consumer complaints.

I would be remiss if I did not discuss the pervasiveness of violent programming on our airwaves. During our month long hearing discussing this issue I offered and withdrew an amendment that would have required the FCC to include excessive violence in the definition of indecency. Study after study has shown that there may be a causal link between violence in the media and violence in society. I am pleased that Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Markey have agreed to have a separate hearing on this issue. Such a hearing is needed to focus the collective attention of this committee on the detrimental effects of violence in the media as it relates to our children.

And lastly, as we give the FCC this increased power, I would like us to consider giving preference to socially and economically disadvantaged groups for the purchase of the revoked licenses.

Again, I urge members on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to extend my condolences to Alderman Edward Burke and his family on the loss of his beloved son, Emmett Burke. It is with deepest sympathy that I rise to offer encouragement to the Burke family in their time of bereavement.

Mr. Speaker, Emmett Burke, only 30 years old, will be sorely missed by everyone who

knew him. For the past decade, Emmett Burke worked for the Cook County Forest Preserve Police Department. He started in patrol, then was promoted to the canine and search and rescue units, and eventually served as the deputy chief of the police department. Emmett Burke was known for his diligence, his commitment, and his excellence in the field of law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I personally understand the undescribable sadness that occurs when a father has to bury his son. It has been nearly 5 years since I was faced with that same difficult reality. This is why I am able to stand today and encourage Alderman Burke to counter the hurt, pain, and sorrow with strong support from family and friends, and fervent prayers to God, who is the author and finisher of our faith.

And finally, I can assure the Burke family that the present agony felt from the loss of a loved one can only be replaced with the everlasting love and peace of God, the father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit.

So, I rise today to extend my deepest sympathy to the Burke family, my prayers are with you, and know that in our time of mourning, God has promised to comfort us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution to commemorate my distinguished colleague, Senator Paul Simon. It is with great sentiment that I rise to honor Paul Simon for his life's accomplishments.

In the book of Isaiah, the prophet writes, ``How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who proclaims peace, who brings glad tiding of good things, who proclaims salvation, and who says to Zion, your God reigns.'' Through my personal experiences in working with Senator Simon, he was I believe, the epitome of those prophetic words from Isaiah. Paul, a son of a missionary, was a man who was known for his calm and comforting demeanor, a man that demonstrated a true testament of peace, and a man who believed in breaking barriers and shattering prejudices. I am not telling you what I think, but I am telling you what I know. I had the privilege to know him professionally and personally. Paul Simon was a Senator who earned the tremendous respect from all people who knew him. In my congressional district, he was revered by all. His calm temperament, his respect for mankind, and his unwavering commitment to fairness and equality was deeply admired in my community. He was vigilant in his fight for the struggle to protect and preserve civil liberties and human rights for all people.

Paul Simon was an icon for many political leaders such as myself and a ``giant'' in the history of the American democracy. During his tenure in Congress, Simon was a champion of education and a key advocate for literacy and lifelong learning. In the Senate, he was the author of the National Literacy Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, the Job Training Partnership Act amendments, the 1994 re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the direct student loan program. Senator Simon held numerous influential committee assignments, including serving as the Chairman of the Senate's Subcommittee on Africa.

Without question, Mr. Speaker, Paul Simon was one of the most effective Senators to have served the citizens of Illinois, and the American people.

Although Senator Simon has been called to answer his new ``heavenly'' assignment, he leaves with us his legacy and principles of nobility that will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in recognition of the National Education Week that was celebrated during the week of November 17th through November 22, 2003. The theme was ``Great Public Schools for Every Child--America's Promise.'' Although we triumphantly celebrated American education during that time, we must acknowledge that we have failed to fulfill the promise of ensuring a quality education for every student, regardless of their socio-economic background. Mr. Speaker, there is an underlying problem with the nucleus of our public school system, and we cannot continue to band-aid these educational atrocities.

Mr. Speaker, over the past quarter of a century, the percentage of student dropout rates has stayed relatively unchanged. In fact, there are over 519,000 dropouts in America every year. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, America's dropout rates are the ``unintended consequences'' of our failure to invest the appropriate resources and programs in public school infrastructures.

When students drop out of school, there is a simultaneous spiral effect that leads to a host of troubling issues, such as teenage pregnancies, juvenile delinquencies, and even criminal activities. It is well-known that teenage girls who drop out of school are approximately 50 percent more likely to have a teenage pregnancy than girls who complete their high school education. Mr. Speaker, it is not a mystery to me, where the problem lies, when an estimated eight out of 10 prisoners are high school dropouts. These obvious correlations are not a matter of happenstance.

I believe we have a responsibility to remedy these issues through effective comprehensive programs in public education.

Mr. Speaker, this is the reason I am introducing the Vocational Opportunities and Instruction through Cooperative Education Act, also known as the VOICE Act of 2003. This bill would require the Secretary of Education to conduct a pilot study that would examine effective cooperative education programs in high schools across the nation.

The goal of my legislation is to promote alternative learning environments through school-to-work programs that have been proven to be a successful strategy in preventing high school dropouts. We know that cooperative education is an effective approach in reducing dropout rates. Mr. Speaker, School-to-Work programs, not only prevent dropout rates, but research also demonstrates that linking academic course work to career-related curriculum in the workplace, consistently increases student achievement.

My legislation would also create paid partnerships for students who participate in the program. This is an important piece of my legislation because when these students are paid, it reinforces our commitment to excellence through education while rewarding the efforts of the students. My bill, the VOICE Act of 2003, provides a win-win program for schools, community businesses and organizations, and most importantly the students. Students will benefit from this program because it creates an avenue for both high academic achievement and financial incentives. And the partnership between community businesses and organizations and the schools will assure highly skilled, motivated and experienced high school graduates, which is an investment for the future workforce.

Mr. Speaker, if America is serious about keeping our promise of providing great public schools for every child, then we must do everything in our power to integrate cooperative education programs into every public school classroom across this nation. It is my hope that all my colleagues will join me in the struggle to improve the quality of public education, by cosponsoring this much needed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for yielding me this time, and I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue as our ranking member on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the committee on which I am proud to serve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. There are some provisions of the bill I do support. I support the ethanol provisions, and I support the very modest, yet unsatisfactory, provisions dealing with LIHEAP. However, Mr. Speaker, there is much more in this bill that I do not like, and I want to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues who argue that this bill will do irreparable harm to the environment, put consumer protections at risk, and give away billions of taxpayer dollars to large corporate interests. It continues to amaze me that the Republicans love to lecture us Democrats on the need for fiscal austerity and spending restraint; yet, they lavishly spend billions of dollars on needless subsidies and tax breaks for wealthy energy companies.

What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is that this generosity does not extend to the neediest and most vulnerable in our society. Last night during our only substantive conference committee meeting, the Republican conferees rejected my amendment that would have significantly increased funding for the LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance programs. Both of these Federal programs provide valuable aid to low-income homes to help them pay for and efficiently manage their energy costs. However, Republican generosity

towards energy companies did not extend to the poor, and my amendment was rejected on pure partisan party lines.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the process, the unfair process, of this entire energy bill. Last night at 8 p.m. marked the first and only time that my Democratic colleagues and I had the formal opportunity to work on this bill. My staff and I had 48 hours to read 816 pages and to dissect it, and this certainly was not time enough. This conference report was been largely drafted in secret, behind closed doors, with no input or participation from well-meaning Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I take seriously the fact that I am the sole African American conferee with full jurisdiction over this bill, and I would have hoped that the majority would have been interested in my unique perspective and the perspectives of the constituents that I represent. Instead, I and others like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) were completely shut out of the process. I do not take this very lightly. Furthermore, I do not think that this is how we craft a thoughtful, bipartisan energy bill.

For this reason alone, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to reject this very one-sided, unthoughtful conference report.

Madam Speaker, as a conferee to the energy bill, I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) motion to instruct conferees, and I want to commend him for his long history of leadership on the issue of nuclear security, which is the subject of this motion.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to hear the chairman of the subcommittee accept the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) motion, but I do want to make two points: point one, that this motion should be accepted because of the substance of the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) amendment; and, two, because of the process.

Madam Speaker, on substance, the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) motion is right on the money. The House-passed version of the energy bill contained important language pertaining to nuclear security. This language in H.R. 6 addresses a chronic failure on the part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to tighten up security at our nuclear power plants around the country. This language passed the House and was marked up in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It is important that this language remains in the bill as a critical national security plank to protect our citizens from a terrorist attack. The fact that the latest draft of the conference report significantly weakens these security requirements is very disturbing and very perplexing. I know that the ranking member of the committee indicated that there was an acceptance on the part of the Republican conferees to accept this language. However, Madam Speaker, I just want to emphasize the fact that this was not done in a way that we can be proud of here in the House in regards to how this event came about.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that the second reason to vote for the motion is the lousy process that has infected this entire conference committee. The Republican conferees altered these important nuclear security provisions behind closed doors and without any input from Democratic conferees who sit on the committee of jurisdiction. And it is inexcusable that

the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), myself, and other Democratic members, especially from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, had no opportunity to discuss this important matter with our Republican counterparts.

For this reason alone, and in the name of a rational and deliberative process, I urge the Members of the House to accept this motion to instruct. Let us send a message that this bill is far too important to be discussed behind closed doors, without any input from the minority members of the conference committee.

Madam Speaker, I add that it is really shameful and harmful to the democratic process for the Democratic conferees to not be included in the full deliberations of the conference committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring this legislation to the attention of the House for it would be a fitting tribute to James E. Worsham to rename the Grand Crossing Postal Station after him. Mr. Worsham has served the public with considerable distinction as a postal worker and as a union leader.

Before joining the Post Office, Mr. Worsham served in the U.S. Air Force for 4 years and then the city of Chicago as a traffic court clerk. Mr. Worsham began what would become an illustrious postal career on the southeast side of Chicago at the Grand Crossing Station on January 16, 1963. On that day in Chicago, the actual air temperature reached twenty-seven degrees below zero. Having no experience as a letter carrier, he was sent out into the elements to deliver what mail he could. As it was his first day, he was not appropriately dressed for a prolonged exposure to the severe weather conditions and, as a result, suffered frostbite to his ears. Undaunted by this initial experience, he returned to work the next day. He had been out of work for some time; and a job at the Post Office offered security and benefits for his family. From day one, James adhered to the literal meaning of a carrier's creed--neither rain nor snow, heat nor cold shall stay a carrier from his appointed rounds.

His coworkers were the first to recognize Mr. Worsham's fiery and staunch determination, and they drafted him to become their shop steward. Immediately, his leadership qualities became evident, and they were acknowledged by the then President of Branch 11 of the National Association of Letter Carriers. Soon he was slated to run for Sergeant- at-Arms with his focus to protect the rights of postal employees and to serve the public with its entitled postal services.

Mr. Worsham became an Auditor for Branch 11 and then its Chief Steward. In January of 1979, while holding these positions, he ran for President and won overwhelmingly. As President, his skills became known nationwide; and the National President recruited him to become a National Trustee while maintaining his position as President of Branch 11. Upon retirement, Mr. Worsham didn't slow down at all--he became Director of Retired Members for the Letter Carriers in Washington, DC, for 4 years. He returned to Chicago as President of Branch 11, and he turned the city's membership attainment into a 97.8 percent rate--the highest in the nation. Mr. Worsham still currently serves as President of Branch No. 11 of the National Associations of Letter Carriers.

Mr. Worsham attended and graduated from William Gladstone Elementary and William McKinley High Schools. His wife, the late Corrine Kelly, was his childhood sweetheart and the love of his life. To this union were born three children--Valerie, Vance, and Adrienne. Mr. Worsham is a thirty second degree Mason and a faithful member and Deacon of Emmanuel Baptist Church.