Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the right of working men and women to freely organize and bargain collectively is a fundamental human right. It is a long-time American value, a principle recognized by international agreement, and a standard by which our government measures adherence to democratic principles.

And yet, disregard for the right of free association is rampant right here. In its report entitled, ``Unfair Advantage,'' Human Rights Watch (2000) declared--

Many workers who try to form and join trade unions to

bargain with their employers are spied on, harassed,

pressured, threatened, suspended, fired, deported or

otherwise victimized in reprisal for their exercise of the

right to freedom of association.

Labor law enforcement efforts often fail to deter unlawful

conduct. When the law is applied, enervating delays and weak

remedies invite continued violations.

This is not a report on human rights abuses in Iran, or Honduras, or China. This subject is the United States of America.

When the National Labor Relations Act was enacted 70 years ago, it represented the hope of millions of Americans who sought to gain the right to bargain with their employer. Today, however, that law has become so weakened and so easily manipulated that it is one of the greatest hindrances to the right of Americans to form and join unions.

Today, I am honored to be joined by the Hon. Peter T. King and 121 of our colleagues in introducing the Employee Free Choice Act. We commit ourselves to a new effort to strengthen and protect a human right and an American principle: the right of men and women to band together to improve their working conditions.

The Employee Free Choice Act is a bipartisan bill designed to provide a realistic ability for working men and women to form and join unions.

The Employee Free Choice Act provides: A simple, fair, direct method for workers to form unions by signing cards or petitions; three times the amount of lost pay when a worker is fired during an organizing campaign or first-contract negotiations; and impartial mediation or arbitration to resolve disputes over first-time labor contracts.

Employees and the nation benefit from a strong union movement. Median weekly wages of union workers are 28% higher than nonunion workers. Almost 70% of union workers have a guaranteed retirement benefit, five times the likelihood for a nonunion worker. Eighty percent of union workers have health insurance compared to 50% of nonunion workers.

The ten States with the highest percentage of organized workers have higher household incomes, greater medical insurance coverage, higher education spending per pupil, lower violent crime rates, fewer people living in poverty, and a greater electoral participation than the ten States with lowest percentage of organized workers. This issue is not just about human rights--it's about economic security for us all.

Workers should be able to make the decision about union representation without intimidation, indoctrination or misinformation. When we undercut the ability of working men and women to join unions, we are abandoning our own history and ideals, and sending a terrible message to the rest of the world. I commend this legislation to the attention of my colleagues and urge those who yet to do so, to join me in sponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.

One of the solemn honors that I have had as a Member of Congress is to visit our soldiers who have been wounded in Iraq. I have visited with them at Walter Reed Army Hospital here in Washington and at the Veterans Hospital at Palo Alto, California.

It is rewarding and shocking to meet our troops under these circumstances. Theirs are the stories of courage under fire. Their wounds are almost unimaginable to those of us who are not sharing their world of combat.

The treatment that they receive from the moment they are attended to on the battlefield, taken to battlefield hospitals, transported to Germany and stabilized and brought home to the United States for specialized care and rehabilitation is a tribute to our magnificent military and veterans medical system.

Each time that I have left these brave men and women, I have had to confront my role as a policy-maker and whether or not I have done all I can to serve and protect them in their mission.

I voted not to go to war in Iraq because I believed at the time of the vote, and I believe now, that the case had not been made; that the intelligence we had did not support what the Bush administration was telling the American people was the threat that we faced from Iraq.

Tragically, since that time, it has become clear that there was not only no imminent threat to the United States from Iraq, but there was no plan for what our troops would encounter after the war was supposedly won.

The duty this government owed to its soldiers when they were sent into combat was not met: not in the justification, not in the preparation and not in the planning. Our obligation to them was simply not met.

All Americans now understand that the reasons that the Bush administration gave to go to war in Iraq were not true. The evidence did not exist. In spite of the advice of many in our military, in our State Department and among our allies, the administration remained determined to wage a war in Iraq. In short, the administration failed to be truthful with the American people and with the Congress.

As a result, since the first day of that war, Americans have been paying 90 percent of the costs and suffering 95 percent of the casualties beyond those of the Iraqi people.

Today, we are being asked to vote for another $81 billion for the war in Iraq.

This is the third supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq since the war started, totaling nearly $200 billion; and without a change in course, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the war in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost an additional $458 billion over the next 10 years.

Astoundingly, this additional request has no change in strategy forthcoming from the President to address the absence of control and continued violence against our troops and the Iraqi people.

The President and his advisers cling to the idea that America is just one major battle away from victory, or that with just one more capture of a significant insurgent leader we will break the back of the opposition to our occupation and to the formation of a democratic government in Iraq.

Those who continue to attack our troops and the Iraq people have been described in many different ways as the war has dragged on. First, we were told the resistance was under the command and control of Saddam Hussein. Then they were described as disaffected Baathists, and later they were just a bunch of ``bitter enders.''

We were told that a heavy battle attack of Fallujah would break the back of the resistance. What happened instead was that we made 300,000 people homeless by flattening their city with little or no impact on the resistance. In fact, the violence rapidly spread to other major cities.

While it has become clearer to those with both diplomatic and military experience that we must now develop a new strategy for success, it is resisted by the very same top command in the White House and the Pentagon who have made so many errors and so many miscalculations that have continued to place so many of our military in circumstances in which they are not able to prevail.

The opposition to change comes from the very same people that failed to carry out the due diligence to properly plan and prepare for the war and its aftermath.

Their failure to anticipate, plan, and train for the mission that our soldiers were faced with was a failure of the first duty of care owed by the Commander in Chief and the Defense Secretary to our troops, the duty to provide for the protection of our forces. This was not done, and the results have been thousands of wounded and killed, at the same time that the Pentagon resists change and fails to transform its approach to fighting terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere.

So, today, nearly 3 years after 9/11, we still have no comprehensive policy to support the war on terror declared by the President. As a result, both our Nation and our troops continue to face an unacceptable level of threat and danger.

Today, as we consider this request for supplemental appropriations, the dishonesty by the Bush administration continues.

This request itself is dishonest. It is labeled as an emergency, as if somehow the administration did not know what money it was going to need for the war in this year's budget or in next year's budget.

Yet we know the war has been costing between 5 and $7 billion a month and is likely to continue to do so under the current policy.

The administration will not take responsibility for the cost of the war or how to pay for it. At the end of the day, the President and his advisers simply do not have the courage of their convictions. If they did, they would be honest with the American people about the real cost of war and the lack of progress being made on the ground, about the plan for drawing down our troops and about the real reason American soldiers were sent to Iraq in the first place.

I cannot in good conscience vote to approve a supplemental appropriations bill that offers no strategy for success, that has no plan to draw down our troops in a responsible manner, and that fails to makes a compelling case to the American people about why the haunting sacrifices of lives, limbs and money have been necessary.

I know that some of my colleagues, in very good conscience and with honorable intentions, believe that supporting this bill is the equivalent of supporting our troops. I would very respectfully have to disagree with that view today.

Rather, in my view, to vote for this supplemental is to expose our troops to the same leadership in the White House and the Pentagon that refuses to tell the truth, that refuses to take responsibility for its actions, and that refuses to hold a single person accountable for the failed decisions that have been made for this war.

And it exposes them to the same leadership that refuses to provide the kind of change that will start to remove the central organizing principal of the guerrilla war in Iraq--the presence of nearly 150,000 American troops viewed as occupiers by those who oppose us.

To say that we must remain in the current configuration in Iraq because the situation will get worse is to ignore the facts on the ground, facts that have been acknowledged by many of our field commanders, by Members of Congress who have visited Iraq, and by members of the news media covering the war.

This is a very difficult vote, I understand that.

But let us be clear that this is not a vote about whether I or any other Member of Congress supports American troops. Of course we do. And this is not a vote about the heroism shown by the thousands of Iraqis who risked their own lives by voting in the national elections in January. They have my admiration and support.

We support the troops by arguing against the kind of failed preparation and planning that sent National Guard and Reserve troops into battle without flak jackets and reinforced Hum-vees.

We support our troops by arguing in favor of a strategy for success.

We support our troops by arguing against the President's budget that dishonors our veterans by undermining the system of care and benefits they need and deserve.

But we do not honor our troops simply by approving yet another allegedly emergency bill that offers no promise of success in an area of the world where success is not just critical, it is literally a matter of life and death.

We can provide for the needs of our troops in a bill that also provides for success in this war. Tragically, that bill is not before us today.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Kelly

Mr. Speaker, today we are reminded in the press that it is 5 years since the bubble burst on the NASDAQ stock market. It has been 5 years; and those people who invested in that market, in those index funds, have recovered 60 percent, or is still 60 percent below where it was in 2000.

For those people who thought they are going to retire on their 401(k)s who were invested in the market at that point, we have all heard the stories when we return to our districts that their spouses are going to continue to work, that they are going to postpone for a year; they are not going to be able to retire like they thought they were.

This does not mean we should not invest in the market; it simply means we should not take $15 trillion out of Social Security and undermine the guarantee that it provides to those workers, those very same workers, in many instances, who, in their corporate 401(k)s have lost almost 40 percent, if they stayed there today, of their retirement nest egg. That nest egg ought to be preserved, and the President should not be allowed to undermine that nest egg by taking $15 trillion out of Social Security.

I rise to introduce a resolution for the purpose of allowing the House to obtain critical information about the financial status of our nation's single employer pension plans. Current law requires this valuable information about pension plans to be kept secret. This is wrong. Employees and investors should know all the facts. Employees should be fully informed about financial health of their own plan, and use that information as part of their overall retirement planning. The President says he supports making the information public. I have introduced legislation making this information public. I hope Congress will act on this proposal when we take up pension legislation later this year.

For now, Congress should be fully aware of the financial health of the nation's top pension plans as it debates ways to strengthen defined benefit pension plans. This resolution will insure we get the data to make informed decisions. Recently, the GAO put the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, on its ``watch list'' for the second time in a row. The PBGC recently reported a $23 billion deficit for last year. Overall, PBGC reports that private pension plans are underfunded by some $450 billion, the largest amount in history. The Bush administration recently proposed hiking pension plan insurance premiums by $15 billion over the next 5 years, and proposes billions of dollars in accelerated pension contributions. And yet, we are being asked to consider such a proposal without current and accurate information about any individual company's funding status. This resolution requests the administration to provide us this information within 14 days, while protecting any proprietary information related to the sponsoring company.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of his amendment, and I find it just incredible that all of a sudden discrimination becomes the core of religious organizations, for those of us who have spent almost 40 years working with faith-based organizations in our communities involved in all kinds of public service endeavors, all kinds of delivery of services to people in need, to help members of our community in almost everything, from education to child care to job training to substance abuse to a whole range of activities that are absolutely essential to binding our community together.

Nobody said that discrimination was a fundamental part of this operation all through the sixties and seventies, the eighties or the nineties. None of these organizations ever said they were unable to deliver these services, unwilling to deliver these services, unwilling to help these people whom they have chosen to extend the services of their organization to; when they took Federal money said they could not do this because they needed to discriminate. But all of a sudden now the suggestion is that the basic tenet is that you must be able to discriminate. You must be able to discriminate or you will not deliver these services.

What does it also say about the use of the taxpayers' dollars? If the best person to provide the substance abuse counseling, if the best person to provide the child development, if the best person to provide the job training is not of the same religion, is the taxpayer getting a fair shake when they hire somebody else that does not have those qualifications? Should we not be looking for the best person to provide these services? You cannot maintain your religious character, you cannot maintain the religious character of your organization unless you can discriminate in hiring?

Organizations, again, have never suggested that they have been diminished because they ran a child development center. They have never said they have been diminished because they ran an afterschool program because they could not discriminate. What is this liberty to discriminate against somebody else using Federal dollars? This is absolutely unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this resolution.

H. Con. Res. 45 recognizes that music education grounded in rigorous instruction is an important component of a well-rounded academic curriculum, and should be available to every student in every school. The serious study of music has been demonstrated to complement other areas of academic study, while also providing students with a substantive background in the arts that will serve them throughout their lives.

This resolution is going to pass today--probably by a near unanimous vote. While all of us who support music education are gratified by that outpouring of congressional support, I must point out that it is insufficient unless backed up by a willingness to help

schools offer quality music education programs.

Unfortunately, music education is facing severe cuts in thousands of school districts throughout the Nation, including in the Mt. Diablo Unified School District in my congressional district. Fourth graders in that District may lose their music programs because of budget cuts necessitated in large part because this Congress has failed to follow through on its promises to fund public education adequately. These classes are the foundation for the district's celebrated middle and high school band programs, and eliminating music education would be a loss to those students. Yet the district is struggling to find money for teacher salaries.

Since we passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, both the Bush Administration and the Congress, which is under the control of the President's party, have reneged on the resources our schools urgently need to implement the laudable goals of that law--better accountability, better achievement, better instruction. With the President's latest budget, we are some $40 billion below the funding level we promised teachers, principals, students and parents when we passed the law.

Some may use that underfunding as an excuse to call for a weakening in the law's goal of making sure that every child attends a quality school, is taught by a skilled teacher, and attains educational achievement at grade level. I believe that this nation is strong enough, and wealthy enough, that we can fund both the basic education requirements contained in No Child Left Behind, and classes in the music, arts, drama, social and emotional learning and other topics critical to a child's intellectual and social development. What this Congress has lacked, and continues to lack, is the will. Congress is happy to declare its support for a broad range of goals, but it too often fails to follow through and deliver to those who are depending on us.

So I congratulate the authors of this resolution for reminding us that there is more to education than reading and writing, as critical as they are, and that other areas of instruction can actually enhance student performance in these other core subjects. I will look for similar support from the House when we offer amendments to increase the shamefully low education budgets that are placing our schools and teachers under unnecessary and unfair pressure.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting things about the President's plan to privatize Social Security is that for those individuals who decide to take out a private account, not only will that lead to benefit cuts into the future, very substantial benefit cuts for the recipients, up to 40 percent, but those who decide to take out the private accounts will find out at the time of their retirement that unless their accounts have earned inflation plus 3 percent, that they will be taxed up to 70 percent or higher of their benefits that they risked and put into that private account.

It is rather interesting that Republicans who so often make ``no tax'' pledges will subject those retirees to the highest level of taxation of anybody else in the country. Most people pay 20, 15, 20, 25 percent of their income, but those retirees on that benefit, on those accounts, the government will take back up to 70 percent of that unless they achieve some remarkable rate of return that is beyond the historical rates of return guaranteed by the marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, it is a rather interesting proposal that that is where they would decide to levy taxes, on those retirees who open those private accounts, to increase savings in this country.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we and the American public found out that the Bush administration once again has not been telling us the truth about the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. It now appears it is going to cost over a trillion dollars. When they debated it on the floor of Congress, they said it was going to cost $300 billion, and at the same time, of course, the administration and the Republican leadership kept the people from coming forward with the real information that they thought it was going to cost $600 billion.

Now it is over a trillion dollars. Where is the Republican outrage?

Where is the Republican commitment to balance budgets and fiscal responsibility? No, they have instead chosen to lower their voices.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that those Members with independent voices in the Republican Caucus lost their positions. Those who had independent voices on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs lost their chairmanship and their positions. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who spoke out independently on behalf of America's veterans lost his chairmanship and even his position on that committee.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what has happened to those independent voices for the good of this Nation and the Republican Party.

Mr. Speaker, very often when we are out among the people we represent and holding town hall meetings and meeting with various organizations, we are asked the question, Why do you not run the government like a business? Unfortunately, today, there is some evidence that we are running it like a business, but we are running it like some of the worst businesses in America.

Today, what we see, as the Republicans gain seats in the House of Representatives, as the Republicans get more and more control of the House of Representatives, there is less and less space for honest debate in the House. There are less opportunities for the minority to offer amendments, to offer bipartisan changes to legislation to come to the floor. If we put together a bipartisan coalition that the Republican leadership does not like, they simply are not allowed to offer that amendment.

This is at a time when young men and women are dying to bring democracy to Afghanistan and to Iraq, and yet we cannot find that democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives. It does appear, as the old saying says, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; and that is the situation we have come to.

We now have the House that has an ethics process that reeks of favoritism, reeks of conflicts of interest, reeks of punishment of those who dare to look at the evidence and make an independent judgment. We now see that those individuals are taken off the committee. The chairman of the committee is sacked for no apparent reason.

There was a unanimous vote in the committee in the last session of the Congress three times to admonish the majority leader of the House. The committee apparently looked at the evidence, listened to the witnesses, and on a unanimous basis decided that that action was warranted. We then see that those individuals who participated, or several of those individuals, including the chairman who participated in that unanimous decision, were taken off the committee.

This starts to look like the businesses that have terrified the American people, the Enrons, the WorldComs, where we see what happens is the CEO starts to appoint his friends to the board of directors. They start to cook the books, they start to steal the shareholders money, they start to mislead the investment communities. What we see here is that apparently the majority leader did not like the outcome of the actions by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and so they started to change the rules.

There apparently is some anticipation that the majority leader could be subject to an indictment out of the State of Texas. As a result of that, there was an effort to change the rules; and in fact, the rules were changed within the Republican Caucus to say that, if indicted, that leader could continue to serve, or a leader in the position of leadership could continue to serve. Of course, that was a voice vote and a secret caucus.

When that vote was exposed to daylight, when they found out that vote was going to be challenged by our side of the aisle, by the Democrats in the House, they, of course, changed that action because it would not stand up under scrutiny; but they did not do anything.

Unlike the old rules, the investigation would have proceeded because the committee is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. It would have proceeded. Now, unless one person from one party or another crosses the party lines and agrees to the investigation, the investigation dies. We now have the situation where the party that may have somebody under investigation, in effect, has a veto.

That is not the ethics process that the public is entitled to or the Members of the House are entitled to. We now see that that is the rules of the House.

We now also see that in the replacement of the Members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, we have two Members of the committee who have contributed to the defense fund for the majority leader. If they are called upon to undertake an investigation, because apparently that matter is still pending before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, they will be in a position of having to decide whether to proceed or not, and they have already cast their vote with their contribution to that defense fund.

So we now have a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that is severely conflicted with respect to its duty to the people of the country and to the Members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, this is not what the people's House should look like. This is not how the people's business should be done, whether it is about allowing space for true and honest political debate, as many Members on the floor today earlier argued for the ability to talk about the asylum provisions in the bill that we will vote tomorrow, but the time was not allotted to do that. The time was not allotted to have that kind of discussion that affects so many people. Why did they do that? Because they do not want the discussion. As our colleague, the gentleman

from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), said, it appears that they know they can win the vote, they just do not believe they can win the debate. Time and again we see that happening.

As severe as that problem is with respect to closing down democracy in the House, the changing and the corrupting of the ethics process is far more severe because our first obligation is to make sure that Congress does, in fact, do its business in an ethical fashion, not in a corrupt fashion, and that Members of Congress are held to an ethical standard that justifies their support by the people of their districts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues and the sponsors of this resolution and my chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), from the committee in congratulating and celebrating the contributions of Catholic Schools and certainly their theme of this year which is ``Faith in Every Student.'' It is something that those of us who have attended Catholic Schools understand is at the very core of Catholic education. Not only is it the faith in every student, but it is the dignity of every one of us as God's children, recognizing whether they be poor, whether they be rich, whether they be working or unemployed, whether they be young or old, each of us carries with us a dignity given to us by God and recognizing our responsibility to one another.

As the Catholic Schools have told us very often, we cannot operate in a solitary world. We must operate within the community. And operating within the community has taught us, those of us who have gone to that school and certainly many of us who have not, that we have obligations. We have obligations to reach down and give a hand up to people who need it. We have an obligation to put our arm around somebody who is in need of comforting and stabilizing in a time of crises. These are the basic tenets that you learn in Catholic School.

When you learn that in Catholic School, hopefully you are able to carry it through the rest of your life. I know, as one who has spent most of my life in public service, have recognized those tenets when I have been engaged in the problems of families at risk and children at risk. When I was chair of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families in this Congress, we spent a great deal of time with Catholic organizations talking about what do we do for the very young, what do we do for the adolescents. It was the Catholic Church that said, if you are going to start this committee, it was going to be the committee on children and families. They insisted that youth be in the title of that committee because they said, for far too often, public policy has been afraid to confront and discuss and try to deal with the problems of adolescents and teenagers at risk and the kinds of policies that this Congress could call into play and that this Nation could use to help those young people as they go through a troubling time in their life and a challenging time in their life and a risky time in their life.

That turn out to be the right move. That turned out to be the right contribution as we had the opportunity to try and see what we could do to better support those young people.

Many of my colleagues and all of us are very proud of our time in Catholic Schools. In the Miller families, Catholic Schools run very deep, from my grandfather, to my father, to my sisters who went to Saint Catherine's, to myself who went to Bellermine High School under the Jesuits. My one son went to Gonzaga and another to De La Salle and to my grandchildren who are at Holy Trinity in Sacramento. We understand the importance of this education. We understand the importance of the moral education and what we can take away from our time in Catholic School, what our grandchildren can take away.

That is why we rise on this floor to support and to congratulate the Catholic Schools and the contributions that they make to American society, an important contribution to American society, recognizing our obligations to one another to create a community where each and every one of us has the opportunity to thrive, and recognizing so very often that sometimes people are not thriving and that sometimes it is almost through no fault of their own and we have an obligation to help those individuals also.

Mr. Speaker, I extend my congratulations to the Catholic Schools in recognition of their contributions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to recognize Judy Hart who is retiring after a 27-year career with the National Park Service.

Judy Hart is the first superintendent of Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park in Richmond, California. The legislation creating the new national park was signed by the President October 24, 2000, and Ms. Hart began as Superintendent on January 15, 2001. Prior to becoming Superintendent Judy coordinated the study for the new park. Judy has been instrumental in moving the Rosie the Riveter National Park from concept to reality. She is the latest in a long list of remarkable women whose contributions here have shaped American history. She has devoted the last 4 years of her career to laying the foundation for a National Park that is not only a part of Richmond's unique heritage, but that also symbolizes a national effort to recognize the women whose important Home Front contributions helped win World War II and also changed the way our Nation thinks about civil rights, child care, health care and labor rights. Judy has skillfully brought together a large group of partners to make this effort a success. The challenges Judy has faced and the obstacles she has overcome are even more remarkable because, as a ``partnership park,'' all of the land and buildings are owned by entities other than the National Park Service, and the federal funds available for start-up are limited. Working with a number of grants, volunteers and her public and private donors, Judy will turn over to her successor a sound structure on which to build.

Her accomplishments at RRNP include the following: overseeing the implementation of the General Management Plan process which she also is coordinating with the City of Richmond's general plan amendment; worked with the Port of Richmond to open Shipyard #3 to visitors; worked on the National Register nominations for all structures but one within the Park; and developed Phases one and two for oral histories of home front workers. Over 9,000 Rosies have contacted the Park to share their names and short stories. After connecting with the Park, over 2,000 Rosies have written out the whole story of their home front adventures, up to 55 typed pages from one Rosie. Over 2,000 Rosies have donated their precious mementos, treasured for over 50 years, and now delivered to the safekeeping of the Park.

Her career in the Park Service spans 27 years. Prior to moving to California for this new position, Ms. Hart worked for 12 years in the Washington, D.C. headquarters. She was the first National Program Coordinator for the National Heritage Areas which are partnership areas privately owned and managed in cooperation with the NPS. Previous to that Ms. Hart developed the Conservation Study Institute, now operated in partnership with the University of Vermont and the new Marsh Billings National Historical Park in Woodstock, Vermont. Ms. Hart served in the Washington Office of Legislation for 6 years, supporting the creation of Petroglyphs National Monument, Marsh Billings National Historical Park, the Mary McLeod Bethune National Historic Site, and Manzanar National Historic Site, as well as many other park units.

Ms. Hart lived for 6 years in Seneca Falls, NY, and was the first superintendent of the Women's Rights National Historical Park in Seneca Falls, after suggesting the idea, working on the study and working on the legislation. Prior to that Ms. Hart worked on park legislation out of the Regional office in Boston, MA.

Prior to her career with the Park Service, Ms. Hart worked for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, City of Boston, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as Director of the Bureau of Relocation. She also worked for the Federal Highway Administration on Environmental Impact Statement reviews.

She began her career in publishing at Little, Brown and Company, and as a company newsletter editor for the Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company, both in Boston. Her graduate degree is in English Literature from Cornell University, and her graduate degree is a Master of Arts in law from Goddard College in Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, because of Ms. Hart's many contributions to preserving and interpreting our Nation's history, it is proper for us, and it is my honor, to recognize her today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity

to extend my support to Sandra L. Seeno, a community leader and friend who will be formally recognized on February 4, 2005, at the grand opening of the Center for Immunobiology and Vaccine Development at Children's Hospital in Oakland, California.

Ms. Seeno has been an ardent supporter of Children's Hospital and Research Center at Oakland for more than 20 years. She is committed to promoting Children's Hospital and ensuring the delivery of high-quality pediatric care. Ms. Seeno has also worked to maintain Children's Hospital as a nationally recognized research program with highly qualified primary care providers and strong education and teaching programs.

For the past 2 years Ms. Seeno has served as a member of the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute (CHORI) Advisory Board, which was established to promote CHORI to philanthropic, scientific and business communities. Over the past year she has been particularly dedicated to supporting the completion of the Institute's new Center for Immunobiology and Vaccine Development (CIVD).

Ms. Seeno's service as a community advisor has been instrumental in present and future development strategies for the Children's Hospital and Research Center Foundation. Along with her husband, Albert D. Seeno, Jr. she has helped oversee the charitable arm of the Albert D. Seeno, Jr. Family Foundation and helped to bring about new projects such as the grand opening of the Center for Immunobiology and Vaccine Development.

I congratulate Ms. Seeno for her hard work and dedication to the community and the Children's Hospital and Research Center at Oakland.

Mr. Speaker, the nation was relieved that on January 7, Edgar Ray Killen was arraigned for the 1964 murder of three civil rights martyrs--Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and James Chaney. The brutal murders of these three men, who were registering African-American voters in Mississippi during the 1964 Freedom Summer campaign, helped to galvanize the civil rights movement in the nation and centuries of legal and de facto mistreatment of our fellow citizens.

In 1967, Killen was one of several men charged with violating the advocates' civil rights, but an all-white jury failed to convict Killen and only lightly sentenced 7 of the men involved. Prosecution in connection with the 1964 killings lay dormant for 40 years and would have continued to do so had Sarah Siegel, Allison Nichols, and Brittany Saltiel, students at Chicago's Stevenson High School, not prompted a reopening of the case.

Mr. Speaker, these young women chose the 1964 Goodman-Schwerner- Chaney case as the subject of their project for the National History Day competition last year. As many of our colleagues know, NHD programs target over half a million students throughout this country, promoting the teaching and study of American history. Entries to its yearly contest are chosen at the school, city and state level and consist of presentations of topics in American history based on themes developed by NHD. Students may prepare research papers, storyboards, video documentaries or performances on their subject.

The reopening of this long-dormant civil rights case demonstrates the NHD's dramatic impact on American historical literacy, and illustrates better than any other development the impact of the study of history on student understanding of and ability to affect world events. Through the creation and promotion of dynamic, participation-driven programs, NHD has changed the way that teachers present American history. Students who engage in NHD programs enjoy a boost in historical literacy and interest in matters of key historical interest.

Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased that the Congress recently authorized federal support for the National History Day program. Under P.L. 108-474, the Secretary of Education may award grants to the NHD program, and we are very hopeful that he will do so. I know that we are joined in that wish by thousands of administrators, teachers, students and historians around the country who share our pride in NHD and in the work of these, and many other talented young students. With the added support of federal funding, NHD will be able to expand its commendable work of promoting historical literacy in our nation's schools.

I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Sarah, Allison and Brittany for their work in publicizing the Goodman-Schwerner-Chaney case. Their research has not only improved our understanding of history; it has helped make history.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to recognize Judy Hart who is retiring after a twenty- seven year career with the National Park Service.

Judy Hart has served as the first superintendent of the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park in Richmond, California. My legislation creating the new national park was signed into law by President Clinton on October 24, 2000, and Ms. Hart began as Superintendent on January 15, 2001.

Prior to becoming Superintendent, Judy coordinated the study for the new park. She has devoted the last four years of her career to laying the foundation for this national park. The Rosie Park recognizes the City of Richmond and its unique heritage as the epicenter of a national effort to memorialize and interpret the contribution of the Home Front. Many of the experiences that began in Richmond not only helped to win World War II but also changed the way the nation thought about civil rights, child care, health care and labor rights.

The challenges Judy has faced, and the obstacles she has overcome, are even more remarkable because, as a ``partnership park,'' all of the land and buildings are owned by entities other than the National Park Service. In addition, the federal funds available for start-up are limited. Working with a number of grants, volunteers and her public and private donors, Judy will turn over to her successor a sound structure on which to build. She made an incomparable contribution to moving the RRNP from concept to reality.

Her accomplishments at RRNP include working with many partners to accomplish the following: oversaw the implementation of the General Management Plan process which she also is coordinating with the City of Richmond's general plan amendment; worked with the Port of Richmond to open Shipyard #3 to visitors; none of the historic structures have been torn down even though every structure in the Park legislation has been threatened with demolition; National Register nominations will shortly be completed for all structures but one within the Park; developed Phases one and two for oral histories of home front workers. In addition, over 9,000 Rosies have contacted the Park to share their names and short stories. After connecting with the Park, over 2,000 Rosies have written out the whole story of their home front adventures, up to 55 typed pages from one Rosie. Over 2,000 Rosies have donated their precious mementos, treasured for over 50 years and now delivered to the safekeeping of the Park. Volunteer hours went from 0 in 2003 to over 3,000 hours in 2004.

Judy Hart's career in the Park Service spans 27 years. Prior to moving to California for this new position, Ms. Hart worked for 12 years in the Washington, D.C. headquarters. She was the first National Program Coordinator for the National Heritage Areas which are partnership areas privately owned and managed in cooperation with the NPS. Previous to that Ms. Hart developed the Conservation Study Institute, now operated in partnership with the University of Vermont and the new Marsh Billings National Historical Park in Woodstock, Vermont.

Ms. Hart served in the Washington office of Legislation for 6 years, supporting the creation of Petroglyphs National Monument, Marsh Billings National Historical Park, the Mary McLeod Bethune National Historic Site, and Manzanar National Historic Site, as well as many other park units.

Ms. Hart lived for 6 years in Seneca Falls, NY and was the first superintendent of the Women's Rights National Historical Park in Seneca Falls, after suggesting the idea, working on the study and working on the legislation. Prior to that, Ms. Hart worked on park legislation out of the NPS Regional office in Boston, MA.

Prior to her career with the Park Service, Ms. Hart worked for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, City of Boston, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as Director of the Bureau of Relocation. She also worked for the Federal Highway Administration on Environmental Impact Statement reviews.

She began her career in publishing at Little, Brown and Company, and as a company newsletter editor for the Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company, both in Boston. Her graduate degree is in English Literature from Cornell University, and her graduate degree is a Master of Arts in law from Goddard College in Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, because of Ms. Hart's many contributions to preserving and interpreting our nation's history, I am delighted to have this opportunity to recognize her unique contributions, especially to the Rosie the Riveter National Park, and to ask all Members of the House to join me in wishing her well in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Superintendent Glenn R. Fuller who has retired after thirty- two years of service in the National Park Service.

During his career Glenn R. Fuller worked in several national parks including Grand Canyon National Park as a back-country district ranger doing search and rescue; Cape Cod National Seashore as a Park Ranger; Rocky Mountain National Park as a Park Technician; Golden Gate National Recreation Area as a Park Ranger; and Site Manager at Muir Woods National Park. He is also a retired law enforcement officer.

Glenn became Park Superintendent at Eugene O'Neill National Historic Site in November 1993. In December 2001, he was promoted to Superintendent of O'Neill NHS, John Muir National Historic Site, and Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial.

Glenn's accomplishments are many and varied including the following:

Successfully negotiating after fourteen years a settlement agreement with the Kuss Road Homeowners allowing access to Eugene O'Neill NHS. The agreement was signed in 1994.

Developing the treatment plan for the Cultural Landscape Report at Eugene O'Neill NHS. This included installation of a deer fence, new irrigation system and removal of hazardous and non-historic trees and shrubs.

Contracting in 2000 with a commercial video company to produce a video tour of areas in the Tao House that are not accessible to wheelchair users.

Securing funding and requesting a Site Assessment for Livestock Pond Wetland Restoration at Eugene O'Neill NHS.

Collaborating with Contra Costa County, Friends of Alhambra Creek, and neighbors on the Strenzel Lane Erosion and Sediment Reduction Projects Stability of Alhambra Creek at the John Muir family gravesite.

Securing funds and initiating the Environmental Assessment and Fire Management Plan for John Muir NHS and Eugene O'Neill NHS.

Securing funds and initiating Environmental Assessments for two large construction projects at John Muir NHS. One project is to create a new parking and staging area on Franklin Canyon Road. This will allow multiple school buses and visitors to park safely and provide a staging area for the entrance at Mt. Wanda. The other project improves the back entrance to the park on Canyon Way and access through the Highway 4 tunnel.

Successfully negotiating with the Navy and Army an agreement for access to the Port Chicago National Memorial. For eleven years, the National Park Service has been trying to get this agreement and, after a concerted effort during the last three years, an agreement was signed November 24, 2004. Port Chicago and the story the Memorial tells has been a personal and professional commitment of Glenn's. He has long believed that the story is of national significance that needs to reach all

Americans. Glenn has, within existing resources, managed to share that story with hundreds of people in the years since the Memorial was created. Most especially, Glenn has coordinated the public observance of the anniversary of the explosion for the past ten years.

Glenn is largely responsible for the overwhelming success of the 60th anniversary ceremony of the 1944 Port Chicago explosion and the 10th anniversary of the creation of the Memorial. The ceremony was a mix of speeches, recognition, personal letters from relatives who were stationed at Port Chicago in 1944 and personal accounts of the injustice to black sailors during World War II.

Glenn is an active member of the San Francisco Network Inventory and Monitoring Program which provides natural resource management for both John Muir NHS and Eugene O'Neill NHS. Under Glenn's watch the park now has a new soil map, Vegetation Management Plan and Watershed Management Plan, moth and butterfly inventories, plans to remove unused fire roads, and containment of invasive plants.

Mr. Speaker, because of Glenn Fuller's many contributions to our nation's history and his commitment to the National Park Service, it is proper for us, and it is my honor, to recognize him today.