Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of a civic-minded giant and one of our nation's leading legal minds: Thomas Hale Boggs, Jr., who passed earlier this week at the age of 73.

Thomas Boggs, Jr. belonged to a great American family--a family devoted to public policy and leadership. His father, Congressman Hale Boggs, represented the people of Louisiana in the House for almost 28 years, elected by his colleagues to become Democratic Whip and Majority Leader. When Leader Boggs tragically died, Thomas's mother Lindy won the election to fill his seat, serving for 18 years as a forceful and dynamic Congresswoman unafraid to know her own power and make her own mark. Tommy's late sister Barbara Boggs Sigmund won public office as mayor of Princeton, N.J., and his sister Cokie Roberts is one of our nation's finest journalists.

Thomas Boggs's family taught him that public service was a noble calling, leaving a sterling legacy of leadership and civic engagement that would guide and define his entire life. As an undergraduate at Georgetown University, he studied government from within the halls of Congress, working as an elevator operator in the House of Representatives. As a law student at Georgetown, he worked with the Joint Economic Committee, at one point helping to advance President Johnson's 1964 anti-poverty tour of Appalachia.

Later, he spent 15 months as Assistant to the Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, before leaving to pursue a life in law.

In 1966, he joined the law firm that would become Squire Patton Boggs, building a list of accomplishments that includes critical victories for American automakers and preserving thousands of American jobs. Although he lost an election for Congress in 1970, he continued his commitment to public service as part of the Presidential Commission on Executive Exchange and as a Presidential Delegate to our trade mission to China in 1979.

In recognition of his intellect and ability, The National Law Journal has named him to their list of the top 100 lawyers in the United States every year since the list's inception.

Thomas Boggs was a towering advocate for American workers and middle- class families--carrying forward the legacy of public service that his family continues to exemplify. I hope that it is a comfort to his wife, Barbara, his children, his sister Cokie, and all of his loved ones that so many people throughout the world share their grief and mourn the loss of the devoted and loving patriarch of the Boggs family during this most difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership in helping us all uphold the oath that we take when we become Members of Congress to protect and defend the American people. I believe that the McKeon amendment that is on the floor today helps us to do just that as well.

Last week, the President presented to the American people a forceful strategy to degrade and destroy ISIS, a strategy built on a firm foundation of nonmilitary action.

The President is to be commended for his strong leadership and humanitarian, political, and diplomatic components that must be part of any successful mission. In a humanitarian vein, for acting to help assist those impacted by ISIS and avert the genocide of religious minorities. Who could ever forget those people isolated on the mountain until the United States and others came to the rescue? Politically, for insisting and pushing for an inclusive government in Iraq.

And I commend the Vice President, as well, for his leadership. Without a change to an inclusive government that respects not only Shia, Sunni, and Kurds but also the religious minorities in the country as well, militarily actions would not be so productive.

And, again, in a nonmilitary vein, the President bringing together NATO allies, a coalition, as well as regional partners, to assist in degrading and destroying ISIS. This comprehensive strategy includes increasing our intelligence, disrupting ISIS' finances, and interdicting the flow of foreign fighters.

I have said in the past, in my view, the President already has the authority to do what he is doing. And, I will add, this House has voted overwhelmingly that should the President's actions go farther comprehensively, then Congress should vote on that authority.

Today we are called upon to authorize a discrete but critical component of the overall plan: the President's request to train and equip moderate, vetted Syrians outside of Syria to fight ISIS.

This is not an authorization for use of military force, as we had in 2001 and 2002. I do not support, nor will I support, combat troops on the ground. That is not what this is about.

I believe that the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and those who have worked so hard to put this amendment together took many precautions and set a high standard in terms of the criteria and standards that the administration must meet with this training: where it would occur, who would be trained, extensive vetting of the moderates and the rebels. That is probably the most frequently asked question: ``How do we know?'' Well, we can do the best we can to vet, to ensure that we are doing what we set out to do.

The brutality of ISIS, ISIL--whatever they call themselves on any given day--is outside the circle of civilized human behavior. We wish that this action that we are called upon to do today was not necessary. But it is really hard for us to uphold our oath of office all the time to protect and defend. It is not always easy. And most of the time, it is hard for anything that takes us down a military path.

But the fact is that with the diplomatic, political, and humanitarian foundation that the President has laid, with the narrowness of the request that he is making to us, it is not pleasant, it is not easy--it is hard, but it really is necessary for the House to approve this.

We all wish, again, that it wasn't necessary. But we will approve it to help the Syrian people take responsibility for building peace and stability in their country, to stem the threat that ISIS can pose to U.S. interests abroad and to our national security.

Now, I have frequently quoted Hannah Arendt, who said, ``Nations are driven to an endless flywheel of violence because they believe that one last, one final gesture of violence will bring peace, but each time, they sow the seeds for more violence.''

I would hope that what we are doing today takes us in a different direction, one that is predicated on a nation of inclusion in Iraq, one that defeats ISIS by the moderates in-country defeating ISIS, because ISIS is now cross-border--in Iraq and in Syria, and who knows where they may try to go next.

So this is important. It is urgent. And I hope that it will have the support of our colleagues.

As with all votes, I have never asked a Member to vote with any vote of use of force or, in this case, training of moderates. But I just wanted you to know why I am proud to support the President and salute him for his efforts.

I thank Mr. McKeon for his leadership in shaping this resolution, and I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

The time is late, the cause is great. We must, we must have clarity in how we understand what is before us.

Today, we had an opportunity to work together to address humanitarian emergency at the border. Instead, it is a day of missed opportunity. The Republican leadership has rejected our hand of friendship to compromise on this supplemental. Instead of bringing legislation forward that could solve this problem really and truly, it has resisted the appeals of humanitarian and religious leaders across all faiths.

The Evangelical Immigration Table calls on us to ensure that our response strengthens our country's tradition of providing safety and refuge to the vulnerable.

This legislation that we have before us does not do that. It is wrong. But don't take my word for it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urges Members to oppose H.R. 5230 and work together to craft legislation that is more befitting the United States of America and the American people's history of compassion and generosity to vulnerable children and refugees.

The Archbishop of Miami, Thomas Wenski, speaking on their behalf, has said of this legislation, the two pieces of legislation before us:

This is a sad day for our country. A Chamber of Congress is

poised to send vulnerable children back to danger and

possible death. It violates our commitment to human rights

and due process of the law, and lessens us as a Nation.

In their letter, the bishops further state their opposition to H.R. 5232 and say that it ``stems from its elimination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program,'' otherwise known as DACA.

In conclusion, the bishops write:

How our Nation responds to this humanitarian challenge is a

moral test of our national character. We ask that you oppose

H.R. 5230 and H.R. 5272, which we feel fail to live up to

that test.

Others, such as the American Bar Association, write:

Due to their age, lack of education, language, and cultural

barriers, and the complexity of U.S. immigration law, these

vulnerable children face insurmountable obstacles to proving

their claims before an immigration judge on their own.

It is the children who are most likely to be eligible for

some relief under the law who may be least able to articulate

their experiences under this proposed procedure.

They have been through a lot of trauma, and we want to add to that. Yet, this has not been enough to stem the path that the House Republicans are going down. To further poison the pie they offer their caucus the chance to even be less compassionate in their vote to end DACA and to deport the DREAMers.

It is not enough for Republicans to send desperate children back to the violence of their home countries. They must also vote to deport the best young immigrants and brightest in our schools, vote to send victims of domestic violence back to their abusers, vote to hand witnesses back to drug lords, vote to remove the parents of American children.

These pieces of legislation dishonor America. They are a rejection of our values. But don't take it from me, take it from the bishops, the Evangelical Table, and others. They run counter to the respect for the spark of divinity that we believe exists in every person, the respect for the dignity and worth of every person that we share, but these pieces of legislation ignore.

House Republicans have truly lost their way. I certainly hope that you will consider rereading the parable of the Good Samaritan who helped a stranger. He did not ignore or harm a stranger he saw on the road. Perhaps that may be a path back for you. I pray that it is so.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the record letters from the bishops, the Evangelical Immigration Table, and the ABA who oppose these pieces of legislation.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Committee on Migration,

Washington, DC, August 1, 2014.

Dear Representative: I write to reaffirm the opposition of

the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to H.R. 5230

and express our opposition to H.R. 5232.

Our opposition to H.R. 5230 stems from four troubling

aspects of the measure. First, it would make crippling

changes to current U.S. trafficking victim protection law

that we fear would send these vulnerable children, and others

in the future who have fled trauma, exploitation, and

violence, back into

harm's way, likely resulting in continued degradation,

injury, and death for many of them. Second, it would not

provide adequate funding for the Department of Health and

Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to enable

it to care for vulnerable unaccompanied children in U.S.

custody. Third, its level of funding for ORR is so low that

it would severely hamper the agency's ability to fulfill its

responsibility to care for refugees, asylum seekers, special

immigrants, trafficking victims, and torture victims. And

fourth, the measure contains no provisions to address the

root causes that have compelled so many children to make the

arduous journey from their homes in Central America to the

United States and elsewhere in the region.

Our opposition to H.R. 5232 stems from its elimination of

the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. It

is our view that this program has helped protect a vulnerable

group of children who for all extensive purposes are

Americans. It would subject them once again to removal to

countries they do not know. We urge its defeat.

How our nation responds to this humanitarian challenge is a

moral test of our national character. We ask that you oppose

H.R. 5230 and H.R. 5232, which we feel fail to live up to

that test.

Sincerely,

Most Reverend Eusebio Elizondo,

Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle, WA,

Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, who, from day one of knowing about this challenge that we have with the children at the border, has reacted in a very wise, humanitarian--yes--and practical way as to what the best way is to address the challenge, honor the values of our country, and save the children.

I was interested in the back and forth between the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, and our ranking member on the subject of the change in the law that is in the legislative language that is in this supplemental, because I agree with our distinguished whip, Mr. Hoyer, and other who have said: There are two things happening here. We need to address the humanitarian challenge. We need resources to do that for particular purposes. And we should do that in the supplemental.

Another is to change the law, which we shouldn't do in a supplemental. It is legislating on an appropriations bill in a manner in which all kinds of statements can be made which may be anecdotally significant but not significant in terms of the difference that they make, a difference enough to change the law.

So when people talk about witnesses in one context or another, just saying something on the floor of the House, it is interesting. But there should be hearings. If we are going to change the law, there should be hearings where testimony can come forth, be challenged, confirmed, whatever it may be. But a serious discussion worthy of the country that we are, worthy of the Congress that passed the Wilberforce law, which was a very bipartisan initiative. And I salute my Republican colleagues who played such an important role in passing the bill. And that bill directed agencies of government to incorporate antitrafficking and protection measures for vulnerable populations, particularly women and children, into either post-conflict or humanitarian emergency assistance and program activities, according to the law.

There was a purpose for the law. But with a phrase in an appropriations bill, we want to undermine that purpose. That is not necessary to do here. Why does this belong in a bill where we are allocating resources to meet a humanitarian challenge that we have?

Now let's get to what is in the actual supplemental.

I had hoped that we could work in a bipartisan way, and I thought that is the path we were on. The Republican majority wanted to decrease the amount of resources and the amount of time--well, that is commensurate, if it is a lower amount of money and a shorter period of time, that is okay, but when you change what that money is for, then you are doing a disservice to the entire issue.

Instead of providing adequate resources to meet the humanitarian needs--the immediate humanitarian needs--largely of these children, that is just totally inadequate in this legislation, in terms of its proportionality in the bill, whether it fails to provide any resources for legal assistance to these children to plead their case.

They may have a legitimate cause for asylum--refugee status to come into the United States or not, but they should be represented, and they should be represented in a way that repatriates them back to their home country, if they do not qualify in a way that is safe. This legislation does not do that.

The American people are fair-minded, they are wise, they are practical, and they want to help, but they want to do so in a way that is fair to everyone involved. They want to feed the children. There are not enough resources here to do that with the humanitarian side. They want us to honor who we are with due process for these children. This legislation does not do that.

They want to have judges to quickly facilitate giving these people a hearing, in addition to the representation that they should have due process. The bill does not. It tramples due process to rush terrified children back to the violence of their home countries.

That is not who we are as a country, and it also poses a particular danger to children victims of gang violence and human trafficking, which takes us right back to the Wilberforce bill--human trafficking. It is a global crisis. It is happening at our border.

We have a bill to stop it. This legislation on the floor today weakens that and then, in a manner of distribution of funds and paucity of funds, does not address the challenge. It takes us backward. It is hard to understand.

Now, what we should be talking about, what Mr. Tierney suggested, how do we help communities that are receiving these children into their communities and our country? Again, how do we help? This bill hurts.

Madam Speaker, in addition to this--I guess the way you were able to get the votes for this bill--which is even opposed by people who are anti-immigration because it is not bad enough--was that you had to sweeten the pie by having a followup bill that would only be taken up if enough of your Members agreed to vote for this bad bill, and that again does not address who we are as a country.

We are a great country because we are a good country. Others have said that as long ago as 200 years ago or longer, so let us be good and let us be great, and let us do something that really was closer to what the Republicans were talking about earlier in this discussion. It seems that in order to get more votes, you had to make the

bill worse; the worse the bill, the more votes on the Republican side.

No, let's find common ground in the middle, where we can get the most votes to do the best possible job that we can do. It may not be every good thing we would ideally like to do, but it is a reasonable place to go forward to honor what the national Catholic Conference of Bishops have talked about, where all the people of faith are urging us to do here in the Congress and the United States, and that is to honestly respect the dignity and worth of all of these children, all of them children of God.

I get mocked for quoting what the bishops have said because it is so generous to the children, but let's give the children a fair shot. Let's do better than this, and you know that this bill isn't going anywhere, so once again, it is a waste of time. It is not a statement of values. It is a statement of meanness.

The Republican bills responding to the humanitarian crisis at the southern border are the latest evidence of their breathtaking extremism.

The Republican proposal is unjust, inhumane and abhorrent to our values as a nation. Their supplemental:

Fails to provide any resources for legal aid to children with legitimate asylum claims;

Does not authorize enough judges to adjudicate extensive case backlog;

Tramples due process to rush terrified children back to the violence of their home countries; and

Poses a particular danger to child victims of gang violence and human trafficking.

To coax their party into voting for even that much, Republicans are also teeing-up a vote to bar any adjustment or expansion of DACA.

No additional relief for children and students;

No relief for parents of DREAMers;

No relief for parents of young U.S. citizens; and

Certainty that we will continue to tear apart immigrant families.

It is appalling that Republicans' price for doing next-to-nothing for vulnerable children is the opportunity to vote against the young immigrants who want nothing more than a future in the only country they have ever known.

We should be acting on comprehensive immigration reform, but this Republican Congress is allergic to meaningful solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Slaughter, our ranking member on the Rules Committee, for the time and also, more importantly, for her great leadership in so many ways. In so many ways, it has been about her advocacy for the priorities of the American people.

So today we have on the floor of the House legislation that is a serious matter about suing the President of the United States instead of doing the people's business, which is what Ms. Slaughter and others have advocated for, whether it is bringing good-paying jobs home, creating jobs by building the infrastructure of America, reducing the cost of higher education for families, investing in our children, raising the minimum wage, passing legislation to have equal pay for equal work, everything that would increase the financial stability of America's families. Instead, we are wasting the taxpayers' time and money on the floor of the House on a matter that is serious but is a waste of time.

There are those who have said that this initiative to sue the President of the United States is about a step toward impeachment. Others who say, no, it is instead of impeachment.

I told the Speaker that I had a similar situation years ago--not similar in terms of the subject, because I think there is no basis for this and no standing in this House on the subject of suing the President, but similar in that there were calls by some to impeach President Bush when we took the majority and people were very unhappy about the Iraq war and the false claims made to draw the American people into support of that war effort, which proved to be untrue. It wasn't about people in your caucus clamoring for suing the President. It was about hundreds of thousands of people in the streets objecting to the war in Iraq and the false basis on which we went in.

But when I became Speaker, and people clamored for the impeachment of the President, I said what I advised the Speaker to say right now: Impeachment is off the table. If this isn't about impeachment, that simple sentence will be a clear one: Impeachment is off the table.

Why hasn't the Speaker said that? Why are there those in your caucus who won't deny that that is a possible end in sight for this ill-fated legislation that you bring to the floor?

We are going to adjourn tomorrow for 5 weeks, leaving unfinished business here. We need to solve problems for the American people, to create opportunities for them, but that kind of legislation is nowhere in sight, whether it is job creation, reducing the cost of higher education, equal pay for equal work, raising the minimum wage, some of which I already mentioned.

We have precious few hours remaining to act on the priorities of the American people and finish the ``can't wait'' business before the Congress. So much needs to be done: the humanitarian situation at the border, which

provides an opportunity for us to do the right thing; the highway trust fund, to deal with it appropriately and give it the proper amount of time instead of rushing it through. But once again, Republicans are putting the special interests and the howls of impeachment-hungry extremists before the needs of the Nation.

The lawsuit is only the latest proof of House Republicans' contempt and disregard for the priorities of the American people. It is yet another Republican effort to pander to the most radical rightwing voters at taxpayers' expense: $2.3 million spent defending DOMA, a doomed case; more than $3 million on the select committee to exploit Benghazi--by the way, something that had been investigated again and again at the very admission of leaders on the Republican side. Why are we doing this? And then this, which we don't have a pricetag on that they will reveal to us.

Again, why would you sue somebody unless you want to prove something? And why would you go down that path unless you wanted to do something about it?

But the fact is, Republicans in Congress have no standing in this suit. Most constitutional scholars have admitted or do admit that. Even the Republicans' expert witnesses have in the past said you don't have standing on it.

Middle class families don't have time for a Republican partisan grudge match with the President. They know that this is a funny thing because--well, funny in the one strange interpretation of the word ``funny.'' But a couple of weeks ago on the steps of the Capitol, House Democrats were there to launch our middle class jump-start about some of the issues I raised--job creation here in the U.S., affordability of college, early childhood education, all of those things, equal pay for equal work, raise the minimum wage. We were doing that on the steps of the Capitol. And in the Capitol buildings, the Republicans were launching their lawsuit against the President. What could be more different in terms of addressing the needs of the American people?

We made the point that this was all happening on the same day. But the fact is, that difference of focusing on progress and job creation and process and do nothing is what we live through here every single day. And today is another one of those days on the floor of the House.

So let us recognize what this is. Serious, serious, on a path to nowhere, or maybe, amongst some of your ranks, a path to impeachment. But if we just want to talk about the lawsuit, it behooves the Speaker of the House to say, Impeachment is off the table. I hope we can hear that soon, and then we will see what the merits of this case are. It has no standing. It has no merits. It has a political basis. And let the American people judge it for what it is.

If you don't want to hear people use the word ``impeachment,'' as your people have done, then tell them, Impeachment is off the table. That is what I had to do. That is what this Speaker should do.

Good morning, everyone.

Hi, Connie. We see each other so often. We really do. Say hi to Tony.

Good morning, everyone. My pleasure to welcome you once again to the Capitol, to take the occasion to thank you all very much for your service to our country, for the contributions that you have made over time. Many of you, as I look around this room, served at a time when it was a little more collegial atmosphere here. We hope to return to that.

But so much of the work that we do is built on foundations that you all have laid. And we thank you for that. Your legacy will live into the future. I saw in the paper this morning that our former Chairman Roe passed away. The paper called him ``Mr. Jobs,'' and I thought, what a wonderful title. Wouldn't we all like to be having that as what people remember us by? But that's what our thrust is going to be.

I just might add, Madam Chair and Madam President, that this morning on the steps of the Capitol Members will be going out there to talk about jobs, about how to keep America number one. And all that we have in there is stuff that we worked for in a bipartisan way, which is to recognize the productivity of the American worker, the most productive in the world, so to recognize that and have policies that help people, as Steny would say, make it in America. That is A, American-made.

Build the infrastructure of our country and build small businesses. It is about building. It is about recognizing that that entrepreneurship and that innovation to keep America number one begins in the classroom.

So our investments in education, especially making higher education affordable, is a critical part of our agenda and recognizing also that education begins at the earliest time. That is the childhood education.

But what I am excited about is to say the central core of what we are about is, when women succeed, America succeeds. That is the title of our economic agenda for families and the middle class. But it is not just a title; it is a statement of fact. When women succeed, America succeeds. The best thing we can do to grow our economy is to unleash the power of women, increase the involvement of women, and that is with fair pay, with paid sick leave, with, again, getting back to the affordable child care, children learning, parents earning.

So we are very excited about helping that in the debate and the coming elections--that it is not just about who wins, it is about how the debate centers on family, American workers, our productivity, their productivity, our economic success to keep America number one--anything that we all haven't worked together on in the past.

So it's wonderful to see all of you. Congratulations.

Did I hear Lee Hamilton was getting the award? How lovely. Congratulations to him and you, he bringing luster to your award, you bringing honor to him.

But again, on behalf of all of our Members, I extend the warmest of welcomes back to you, and in friendship and in love of our great country. So good morning, good luck in your conversations and your deliberations. I look forward to seeing you in the Halls of Congress as you do your work here on this visit. It is always a very special treat to see. I am looking at each and every one of you and having very happy memories about it all.

And thank you, Madam Chair, for your leadership; Connie, for yours. Thank you all very much.

All right.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a tireless champion for a quality education for all Americans, Dennis Van Roekel. When he retires as President of the National Education Association this month, he will be concluding decades of service as a teacher and advocate--a career dedicated to our children and the hard-working professionals who devote themselves to education. He leaves both NEA and our nation's schools and classrooms stronger for his leadership.

A graduate of the University of Iowa, Van Roekel holds a Master's Degree in math education from Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. For 23 years, he taught high school mathematics, building an intimate understanding of the challenges facing our children and our teachers.

This experience would serve as the foundation of his work to improve student learning and enhance the professionalism of education employees. It deepened his faith in the importance of public education and the right of all children, regardless of race, background or location, to a world-class education.

After holding key positions with NEA at all levels of the association, including two terms as Vice President and Secretary- Treasurer, Van Roekel was elected President in 2008. Shortly after taking office, he established the Commission on Effective Teachers and Teaching, a national, independent panel whose findings formed the basis of NEA's ``Leading the Profession'' plan to strengthen and empower teachers and students across America.

Van Roekel has also shouldered leadership positions in education associations from the local to the international, ranging from Paradise Valley Education Association President to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Executive Committee and the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education Executive Board.

No investment brings more revenue back to the Treasury than education. It is the greatest investment people can make in themselves, and that our nation can make in its future. For decades, we have been fortunate to have Dennis Van Roekel helping us make that case, and helping to improve the quality of public education available to all Americans.

As he enters the next chapter of his life, I join with many others in thanking Dennis for the many years of energy and determination he has given NEA and our nation. Congratulations on many successes at NEA, and good luck in all your future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, our country has lost a great visionary, civic leader, businessman and dedicated public servant, William Matson Roth. Mr. Roth passed away on May 29th in Petaluma, California at the age of 97, surrounded by his loving family

Bill Roth was born into a prominent and respected family in San Francisco, grandson of Captain William Matson, founder of the Matson Navigation Company, and son of Luriline and William Philip Roth. He chose to use the opportunities afforded by his privileged family to make life better for his community, his state and his nation.

He was widely known for the redevelopment, with his mother Luriline, of the popular Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco, buying the property as a dilapidated factory and growing it into a world-renowned collection of shops and restaurants that has been one of our City's top attractions and has been imitated in cities across the country. It is now considered a forerunner of what urban planners call ``adaptive reuse,'' and is listed on the National Historic Register.

Mr. Roth served the public throughout his long life, including as a Cabinet-level Trade Ambassador in ``the Kennedy round'' of negotiations under President Lyndon Johnson. Mr. Roth was appointed to the University of California's Board of Regents by Governor Edmund G. ``Pat'' Brown, where he served for 16 years. He helped found the Ploughshares Fund, an advocacy group working for the elimination of nuclear weapons. He was President of the Board of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, a director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and president of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR). He was a proud and progressive Democrat who ran for Governor of California in 1974.

I hope that it is a comfort to his beloved wife Joan, his daughters Anna, Jessica and Maggie, and his grand and great-grandchildren that so many people throughout the world share their grief and mourn the loss of a generous, civic-minded and visionary leader.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the distinguished career of a steadfast champion for working men and women, Chuck Loveless. For decades, Chuck has stood as a guardian for working families in America--a tireless leader who has been at the center of some of the most important policy debates and struggles in the last 20 years. He leaves the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees with an enduring legacy of leadership and action, and a long record of battles fought and won for the middle class, the backbone of our democracy.

A native of Pennsylvania, Chuck earned a Master's Degree in political science from the University of California, Berkeley, and a law degree from Georgetown University Law Center. A man of faith and principle, he has poured his heart and soul into a career of advocating for working people.

As Director of Federal Government Affairs for AFSCME, Chuck has always been a steadfast partner in our efforts to build a stronger, fairer, and more prosperous America for all people.

He and AFSCME led the fight against President Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security. He was on the front lines in the budget wars to protect Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security from Republican cuts. And he was an invaluable force in passing the historic Affordable Care Act that is providing newfound health security, and the personal and economic freedom that comes with it to millions of hard-working Americans.

Most recently, Chuck has devoted himself to the nationwide effort to raise the minimum wage, and renew emergency unemployment insurance for the millions of Americans who worked hard, played by the rules, and lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Yet perhaps most impressive is the personal commitment he has maintained throughout his positions of leadership--from his active involvement in his church to caring for those with AIDS as a volunteer at the Whitman-Walker Clinic.

As he enters the next chapter of his life, I join with many others in thanking him for the many years of energy and determination he has given AFSCME and our nation. We know that his achievements will make a difference in the lives of Americans for generations to come. Congratulations on your long and illustrious tenure at AFSCME, and good luck in all your future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the distinguished career of a great tribal leader, Chairman Buford Rolin. For more than three decades, Chairman Rolin has worked tirelessly to build stronger, healthier and more prosperous communities--for his fellow Poarch Band of Creek Indians and for native peoples across the country. He retires with a towering legacy of leadership and accomplishment, built through the vision, determination and energy that has long defined his many years of service.

Rolin was born in Atmore, Alabama in 1940. He spent eight years in the Army, occasionally hitchhiking home from Fort Benning, Georgia to enjoy his weekend passes back in Poarch. His first job after the army was as a haberdasher in Pensacola, Florida. Eventually Rolin found a job with Dixie Asphalt and Paving.

Over the years, his insight and expertise has fueled work in positions involving diverse groups including the National Committee on Indian Work, the Episcopal Church, the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, the Creek Indian Arts Council, Creek Indian Heritage Memorial Association, and the State of Alabama Public Health Board.

His hands-on experience with Indian health issues led to his appointment as Tribal Co-Chair National Steering Committee (NSC) for Reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) in 1998. After his service as Tribal Co-Chair for the Tribal Leaders Diabetes Committee, President Bill Clinton appointed him to the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy. The National Congress of American Indians recognized his leadership by appointing him to the NCAI Tribal Leaders Health Information Technology Task Force in 2001. Diabetes prevention has long been a focus of Rolin's leadership, and just last year, he received the IHS Director's Special Recognition Award for his many years devoted to tackling this challenge.

Chairman of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians since 2006, Rolin has been a tenacious and devoted advocate for tribal sovereignty, the duty of the trust responsibility, and the health and prosperity of his people. Today, the state-of-the-art Buford L. Rolin Health Center-- named in recognition of a lifetime improving health across Indian Country--carries forward his great work, caring for his home community with a host of primary care, nutrition, diabetes, diagnostic, and rehabilitative services.

As he enters the next chapter of his life, I join with many others in thanking him for the many years of service and leadership he has given Indian Country and our Nation. For while Chairman Rolin is ending his career, we know that his achievements will make a difference in the lives of his community for generations to come. Congratulations on a well-earned retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I welcome him to our group, and I appreciate his very important remarks as we observe the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

As always, I am absolutely honored and pleased to join my colleagues, the distinguished former chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and now chair of the subcommittee, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. Wolf and Mr. Smith and I have been fighting this fight together for decades. I thank them for their courage. We both oppose our own Presidents--they are Republican, I a Democrat on a Democratic President--on this subject. This is a bond that we have had about respecting the dignity and worth of every person.

When we saw what happened in Tiananmen Square, it was almost unbelievable to see the Government of China turning on its own people, having tanks run over their children in Tiananmen Square who were speaking out against corruption, who were speaking out for more openness, for speaking out to speak out.

I have treasured this poster in my office over the years, for 25 years. It has been signed by every major dissident who has been able to leave China. Not many of them can go back. But it is the symbol that Mr. Chris Smith talked about of the man before the tank. It is one of the most iconic figures in the history of democratic freedoms in the world.

However, if you were to go to China and ask young people about this poster--they know this picture--they know nothing about it. It has been censored. They don't tell people what that is. Some said: Maybe it is a commercial for something. I don't know what that is.

So powerful is it that even any discussion of it in China for young people at the university, Peking University, which was a place where many of these young people came forth and said they would like to end corruption, expand freedom of expression. What form of government they will have, as Mr. Smith has said, remains to be seen and up to the Chinese people. The fact that they could not even talk about it without being run over by tanks, it was stunning. It was really remarkably stunning because we have really not seen anything quite like that.

The spring of 1989, 25 years ago, a community of activists, dissident students, and Chinese citizens stood up for their rights in Tiananmen Square. People were inspired by a path of political reform advocated by some of China's leaders who were purged--Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang.

The people spoke out against the abuses of their government, a people who demanded respect, dignity, liberty, a voice. A people cried out for freedom, their souls yearning for a better future. They called for the elimination of corruption, an acceleration of economic and political reform, for freedom of expression and assembly. They called for a dialogue with China's leaders on how to make progress.

People protested, demonstrated, marched. A military was turned against the people it was supposed to protect. The People's Liberation Army turned on the people of China. The young man, again, stood alone in the street bringing a line of tanks to a grinding halt.

You don't see it here, but the tanks turned, they turned away from this lone man and did not run over him for all the world to see, an image seared into the memory of all who saw it, a photograph unforgettable to anyone committed to the promise of human rights, a moment that then and now challenges the conscience of the world.

We cannot have any moral authority to talk about human rights in the world if we ignore the violations in human rights in a big country, a prosperous country, an economic engine.

I remember--and my colleagues do too--that at the time the trade deficit with China, with the U.S., we had a deficit of $5 billion a year. That was an

enormous trade deficit, and we thought it would give us leverage to free the students who were arrested in Tiananmen Square. We just wanted to free them, to respond to the moms, the parents, free those students. Others in the Chamber had said we could use that $5 billion at the same time to stop China from blocking U.S. exports into China, or stop them from transferring technology, missile technology and the rest, to Pakistan and beyond.

But there were those also in the Congress and in the country--and actually on the Chinese payroll, because they were lobbyists, advocates, lawyers, and all the rest, they hired everybody--who said: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, you can't use that $5 billion for leverage to free those prisoners, to stop those barriers to our trade, to stop their transfer of technology to countries that might then turn them over to rogue countries, you can't do that. But if you remain calm, there will be peaceful evolution and all this will be improved. In fact, our trade with China will grow, their freedom will increase.

These people are still arrested, the trade deficit is no longer $5 billion a year, it is $7 billion, but not a year--from $5 billion a year to $7 billion a week--and not 1 cent of it used for any leverage to free prisoners or to challenge the Chinese in terms of the violations of human rights in China and in Tibet. It is stunning. They own the show. That is just the way it is--$5 billion a year to $7 billion a week. Oh, my God, progress has been made, but not by the American worker, but not by our economy--no, by the Chinese Government. It is really stunning, it is really one of, I think, the stories that has to be told by the U.S. to stand up for who we are and what we stand for.

Twenty-five years ago, Tiananmen became synonymous with the battle for human rights in China--again, an iconic site for an iconic struggle for justice and democracy. Twenty-five years later, the spirit of Tiananmen endures in the hearts and minds of those continuing to struggle, both in China and around the world. What moral authority do we have to say to a small country, you cannot violate the human rights of your people, but we will take anything the Chinese have to dish out because we have a commercial interest there?

The heroes--and we have to talk about them because the Chinese tell them nobody cares about you anymore--these heroes still display the unmatched courage required simply to speak up and speak out. I thank Congressman Chris Smith for bringing this resolution forward, and Speaker Boehner for tomorrow, this week, holding an official remembrance--again, it is tomorrow--to allow us to stand united with these heroes.

Today, any mention of these events of June 4, 1989, is censored from the Chinese people. The victims and their families are imprisoned and persecuted by the Chinese Government, and the human rights situation in China and Tibet continues to deteriorate.

Today, the Chinese people may not know the truth about Tiananmen. It was a long time ago. Many of the young people weren't even born yet. Corruption, though, they do know is rampant in the Chinese Government. The rule of law is not applied in a fair manner. They suffer injustices with no redress of grievances. Air and water pollution are making them unhealthy and destroying their environment. That may be something that gets the attention of the government.

Mr. Wolf, thank you for your leadership, for your courage. When Mr. Smith talks about going to Chinese prison number 1, I know that you led the way there.

Today, Ding Zilin and the Tiananmen Mothers bravely keep up their calls for dialogue, and their supporters worldwide join their demands that the Chinese Government provide an honest accounting of the crackdown, stop persecution of the families of the demonstrators, and allow the families to mourn publicly without interference.

Today, Liu Xiaobo remains the world's only imprisoned Nobel Prize Peace Prize Laureate, as he and his wife, Xia, join so many others still languishing in prison for criticizing their government or trying to exercise and secure their basic human rights. We had the privilege of being asked by the family--some of us--to go to Norway when Liu Xiaobo received the Nobel Prize. As some of you may recall, there was an empty chair because the Chinese Government would not allow him out of prison to go to receive the Nobel Prize. So we joined some Members that were selected to be part of the delegation. Was that one of the great honors of our lives? I think we all agree that it was.

We are not here today just to acknowledge history. We are here to learn from the memory of a dark chapter of our past and to write a brighter chapter of freedom and justice in the future. We are here to support the Tiananmen movement. How many of those young people who got out of China, who came through here, told us their stories of courage. We cried together. They tried together to make sense of how they could make a difference for those people who were left behind.

We are here to support the Tiananmen movement, which endures, inspires, and cannot be stopped. I am hopeful. I am hopeful because there are conversations that happened with the Chinese Government. I have had my own on the subject of climate change and environmental issues like clean air, et cetera, that are problematic in China. Maybe there can be some communication that can be constructive. I am hopeful that the visits that we have had to each other's countries to talk about one subject and another without getting anywhere near that taboo, in their view, of our talking about people or their freedom, that perhaps in the communication that exists in the world today that maybe we have reason to be hopeful.

But with the passage of this resolution, Congress will say to the people of China and freedom-loving people everywhere: Your cause is our cause. We can never forget. We must never forget. We will never forget.

Again, the Chinese Government likes to say the prisoners, nobody knows you are here, they don't remember who you are, they don't remember why you came here. Well, we want to give lie to that, because over the years we have always joined together in a strongly bipartisan way to come to the floor or to go to public events to say the names of people whom we have not heard of their fate but that their mothers want an accounting for. As we do this, we look forward to a day when the world's most populous country can be called a country where people can speak out, be respected, and when the Chinese Government respects its own people it will command much more respect then.

Again, I thank you Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen so much for taking the lead to bring this to the floor; Congressman Castro for your very, very important remarks; to my pals Mr. Wolf and Mr. Smith, you have done so much, you have made such a difference. It is an honor to serve with you and to work on this important project together.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and I thank my colleague from California, Mr. Royce, the chairman of the committee; and Mr. Smith and others who have brought this resolution to the floor.

I am especially proud of the work of Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, for her work on the resolution before the House to condemn the abduction of female students by armed militants. Thank you, Congresswoman Wilson.

We have been fortunate to have the leadership of our Congressional Black Caucus, led by Congresswoman Fudge--who I see on the floor right now--Congressman Keith Ellison and Congresswoman Barbara Lee, among others who have come and gone in the course of the debate.

We have called the Congressional Black Caucus the conscience of the Congress, helping to rally our Nation to the cause of these abducted girls and working to address the broader threat to women and girls in Africa and around the world.

I associate myself with some of the remarks of my colleague, Mr. Smith, about the fact that so many bills today on the floor address human trafficking, the trafficking of children, that passed earlier, and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee was very much a part of that.

I rise this evening, Mr. Speaker, in support of the resolution introduced by Congresswoman Frederica Wilson and to stand in solidarity with the young Nigerian girls who are still held in captivity by Boko Haram.

Their kidnapping is outside the circle of civilized human behavior. It is a despicable and abhorrent crime that cries out for justice, nor is this the first time that Boko Haram has attacked young Nigerian students.

They have murdered dozens of young boys, shooting and burning more than 50 of them to death in their boarding school. Their assault on communities is an affront to the human rights of men, women, and children everywhere.

I think it is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that we have a moral responsibility to help, certainly to find and rescue these girls. We must not and will not rest until we bring them back; bring back our girls.

But when we bring them back, we have to bring them back without the taboo, without the stigma that they have been kidnapped and assumptions made about their treatment. Whatever that has been, I know that their families want to welcome them back with open arms, and we have to be a party to that.

The worst thing, the most cruel form of torture for someone who has been kidnapped, as Mr. Smith knows as a champion for human rights throughout the world, is to tell those who are kidnapped or abducted or imprisoned that nobody really cares about them anymore, that nobody knows that they are kidnapped and nobody cares about them anymore.

In this case of these young girls, to also say because you have been kidnapped and certain assumptions have been made about your treatment, you will no longer be welcomed home, even if you are freed, that is vicious. That is vicious, and I know it is a view not shared by the families of these girls and should not be shared by anyone.

As the resolution states, women and girls must be allowed to go to school without fear of violence and unjust treatment, so they can take their rightful place as equal citizens and contributors to society.

It is an outrage that women and girls in any part of the world face this kind of intimidation simply for seeking an education. It is an outrage that human trafficking continues to threaten communities anywhere, and I thank all of my colleagues, again, for the participation and the long debate about trafficking that preceded this debate now.

Today, we join together to say to those girls in captivity in Nigeria and around the world that we will not abandon you. We will stand up for you until justice is done. The thoughts and prayers of the world are with them, their families, and their communities.

As I have said, the capture and captivity of these girls challenges the conscience of the world in a very specific and different way, and perhaps that difference will make a difference in how we deal with it.

Again, I thank our colleagues for bringing this resolution to the floor. I commend Congresswoman Wilson for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, today, at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, hundreds of friends will join the family members to pay tribute to the life of a great entrepreneur, philanthropist, and gentleman, Frank Montgomery Woods, Jr.

I rise on the floor of the House to join them in spirit, to share in the grief of Frank Woods' beautiful family, to celebrate his life and legacy. With his passing, we have lost not just a good man, but a remarkable innovator who leaves an indelible mark on California and San Francisco.

Born in Chattanooga, Tennessee, he spent his childhood in Birmingham, Alabama, and Nashville, Tennessee, before heading to Cornell University. After that, he served as a second lieutenant in the Army in Korea. And from Korea, it was on to Cincinnati, our Speaker's hometown, where he joined the advertising and marketing department of Proctor & Gamble. After that, he came to San Francisco to start his own successful business.

In 1961, he met Kay Harrigan, of Alabama, in San Francisco. They married a year later in Mobile, and then had three beautiful children: Dorine, Montgomery, and Alexis.

During the 1960s and 1970s, Frank was deeply involved in politics. Although a Republican, he was tapped to serve with Ronald Reagan's ``Democrats for Reagan'' gubernatorial campaign. He was tapped again by Ronald Reagan, in charge of 11 States at the convention, helping to secure delegates. Reagan lost to Nixon at that time, but Frank went on to work with Governor Reagan, and my statement for the Record will describe how.

He went later on to cofound Clos du Bois winery in California, which was consumer friendly and elegant, a combination that was new. His leadership in the wine industry was recognized across the country. Over the years, he chaired the Wine Institute, and in the nineties he represented the U.S. in negotiations on NAFTA and GATT on the subject of wine.

In San Francisco, he was a leader of the arts, serving on boards of the Fine Arts Museum, Young Audiences of San Francisco, and the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation.

Frank's life will be celebrated today for his accomplished legacy as an energetic and generous leader. My husband, Paul, and I and our entire family offer our deepest sympathy for the loss of our dear friend.

We hope it is a comfort to Kay; their children; their grandchildren; his brother, Bill; his sister, Rhoda; and all of Frank's family that so many people across the country and across the world share in their grief and are praying for them at this sad time.

Thank you, Mr. Leader, for yielding. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving the House this opportunity to speak this afternoon about this despicable crime. I thank the distinguished majority leader for his remarks, and I associate myself with his remarks in their entirety. That is how important all of this is.

I want to commend Congresswoman Frederica Wilson for her resolution, H. Res. 573, condemning the abduction of female students by armed militants from the terrorist group known as Boko Haram in the northeastern provinces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that what happened in Nigeria is outside the circle of civilized human behavior. It is unconscionable, and these despicable acts must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The capture and captivity of these girls challenges the conscience of the world in a very specific and very different way, and perhaps that difference can make a difference.

I wholeheartedly support the decision by President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and the administration to deploy aid, personnel, law enforcement, and military experts to Nigeria to partner with local authorities to find these girls and return them home.

I commend the women Members of the House. In a bipartisan way, 100 percent of the women have signed a letter condemning these actions. I salute the First Lady for her #BringBackOurGirls tweet and hope that Members will also be doing that because the most horrible form of torture for someone who is held by terrorists is when their captors tells them: nobody knows you are here, who you are and is even worried about you.

We want to remove all doubt every minute of every day. As we go into Mother's Day, think of those mothers, think of those fathers, think of the siblings of these girls. Our thoughts and prayers rest with the mothers and fathers and siblings of each girl kidnapped and separated from her family and all of the victims of human trafficking around the world.

As horrible as it is, as unthinkable as it is, it is happening all the time, this trafficking issue, so maybe this horrible, heinous crime will give the attention that human trafficking needs in order for us to end it, and so let us all subscribe to #BringBackOurGirls.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you, again, for giving us this opportunity to focus on this despicable action, but to do so prayerfully, hopefully, and determined to bring back our girls.

Mr. Speaker, for nearly 15 years, Michael Kaiser has served excellently as President of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in our nation's capital. Throughout his distinguished career, Michael's talents and devotion to the arts have helped establish the Kennedy Center as one of the nation's premiere performance venues, a destination for artistic talent and a bustling hub of creativity. This weekend, the Kennedy Center community will gather to pay tribute to Michael's outstanding leadership as he steps down from his post later this year.

Since he took the helm in 2001, Michael Kaiser has enthusiastically and passionately embraced the mission of the Kennedy Center, always maintaining, as President Kennedy once said, that ``The life of the arts . . . is close to the center of a nation's purpose--and is a test to the quality of a nation's civilization.''

Under Michael's leadership, the Kennedy Center has featured voices and visions across the disciplines of the performing arts. He has produced wonderful theatrical works that received national acclaim-- some of which have garnered Tony Award nominations when they appeared on Broadway. He has presented multiple international festivals that showcased arts from around the world and established the Center as a model for cultural diplomacy. He has hosted every major national and international dance company. Most recently, he oversaw the Center's merger with the Washington National Opera, ensuring that our nation's capital will continue to experience the wonders of the opera.

Michael has embarked on an extensive effort to train arts managers across the country and throughout the world. Acknowledging that great art demands great managers, he conceived a program to bring the next generation of arts leaders together to learn best practices for directing cultural institutions, small and large. He launched a program called ``Arts in Crisis'' to provide free consultation to arts managers across the country. As part of this effort, he traveled to all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia to lead arts management symposia.

Michael has a unique vision that advances both artistic expression and cultural diplomacy--the power of the arts to connect peoples, communities, and nations. He has dedicated himself to enriching artistic expression and disseminating it in a way that builds bridges across borders and fosters international good will.

Michael's intellect, enthusiasm, and passion helped the Kennedy Center grow and thrive. We thank him for his years of leadership and wish him the best in the years to come.