Floor Statements

It's an important time in American history in the opportunities for Americans, and in re-stating the value of our Constitution, and our respect for democracy. Through the long history of America, we've come to know the terms ``majority'' and ``minority'' and the words that sometimes fall to our early history and to our relationship with Great Britain--England. We know the words ``loyal opposition.'' This morning, I want to share with my friends in this House how sometimes the loyal opposition can be loyal to a fault.

There are always ways of saying what you would have and should have done, but as I watch the slow process and progress in Iraq, I want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, of the lockstep commitment that they made to the administration on a war that, of course, was misdirected. We're all united behind our soldiers, but 4,000 are dead, and of course, it was the important opposition of the Democrats who persisted and said that Afghanistan has to be the focus. That was the genesis of 9/11. That was where the terrorists were. That was where the Taliban was. We insisted day after day after day that to go into Iraq, to create the destabilization, to, in essence, create the havoc of death, to move the Baathists out of Iraq created the years of devastation and the loss of life--4,000-plus dead Americans and tens and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Of course, I applaud the changes that have been made now. Of course, I recognize the great valor of our soldiers and of the Iraqi soldiers who have managed to overcome through great hardship, but isn't it interesting: As we have the soldiers announced to come home from Iraq, what happens? What the Democrats said should happen. More soldiers are going to Afghanistan. Bloody fights are taking place on the Pakistani and Afghan border. Again, Republicans, loyal to a fault.

Of course, now there is great discussion about drilling. I practice oil and gas law. I come from Texas. I'm not afraid of drilling, but I recognize the American people are smart enough to know that we must have a seamless energy policy. We are like a fruit basket. The fruit basket has a multiple of fruit--some you like, some you don't--but we enjoy it, the seamless energy policy, unlike the loyal opposition that is on one song and one refrain over and over again. There must be alternatives--biofuel. There must be the look-see at what we can do with clean coal. There must be, as T. Boone Pickens has indicated, wind and solar, and yes, you must find a way to organize a drilling program that, in essence, allows States to opt in. Floridians may have a different perspective, New Yorkers and Californians as opposed to Midwesterners. We know that we must become energy independent, but the loyal opposition has one song, one dance, and it won't work.

Then, of course, when you talk about how much affection we have for our veterans, it's the Democrats who fought and fought and fought to get the first GI bill of rights since World War II to give the opportunity to our returning Iraqi veterans more than the yellow ribbons. We want to give them an opportunity for education and home- buying. We want to give them a leg up. I have legislation to declare a national day of honor so that people don't come home when the lights are off, that we welcome our returning soldiers home with a day of honor and celebration in every Hamlet City and everywhere in America. That's what Democrats are thinking out of the box. That's why we want to make a difference, not just the loyal opposition to a fault.

Then, of course, we hear talk of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It so happens that the collapse came under this administration, and my fear is that, as the government seizes it in the dark of night on the weekend when Members of Congress are not here, what special contractors will get the deal? Who is going to benefit from seizing it? Of course I want to stabilize the housing market. Of course I want the hardworking real estate persons across America to work, but let me say that the Democrats are standing up and are being counted on behalf of the American people on health care, education, energy, and otherwise, our loyalty is to them.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 344) recognizing that we are facing a global food crisis, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me indicate to my friends and colleagues that I thank the chairman of the full committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Berman, and the ranking member, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, for their collaborative effort in this legislation that I am now offering today, and it is interesting that we bring this legislation to the floor of the House at a time that we have watched the Caribbean being ravaged by one hurricane after another.

One of the most unfortunate scenes or incidences that have occurred is the constant beating, if you will, of the island of Haiti, the nation of Haiti, a long-time ally and friend of the United States.

My legislation speaks to prioritization of children during the food crisis and this global food crisis that has been occurring over the last couple of months. Now, more than ever, with the ravaging of Haiti through the Hurricanes Ike and Gustav, we know that children are suffering. There are places in Haiti where rescue teams for food and water cannot even rise or locate or be able to reach. Therefore, I rise today to speak to an issue as fundamental as our basic needs as human beings, and that is the travesty that we must address. But, unfortunately, we have to do so.

We are facing a global food crisis, now compounded by natural disasters. Furthermore, this food crisis is not only having a wide impact in countries far away, but also right here at home in our hemisphere.

In a nation with plenty, many of our children are going to bed with nothing to eat. Tackling worldwide hunger is a moral imperative which threatens the political and economic stability of a multitude of developing nations. The recent dramatic increase in food prices will continue to have a destabilizing affect in already unstable regions of the world where so many lives are already vulnerable to ongoing conflicts and political turmoil.

According to the United Nations, over 850 million people in the world are chronically or acutely malnourished, and over 300 million of these are children. The statistics are both shocking and tragic. Can you imagine the impact now with the natural disasters. Globally, a child dies every 7 seconds. Malnutrition caused by chronic hunger leads to the death of an estimated 5.6 million children under 5 years old, and roughly 1 in every 4 children under 5 years old is underweight.

Rising food prices have precipitated a crisis situation. On March 20 of this year, the U.N. World Food Program made an urgent appeal to the United States and other food aid donors for an additional $500 million to fill a funding gap caused by rising food and fuel prices. Since then, this gap has expanded. It is now an estimated $755 million.

As food prices rise, children are the first to suffer. Hunger is a condition of poverty. Living below poverty puts tremendous strains on a household, giving families barely enough money to purchase healthy and nutritious foods, as well as other essentials of life. Nutrition research shows that as income goes down, the nutritional adequacy of the household's diet goes down as well.

According to the data released by the U.S. Census Bureau, 50.9 million people, or 17 percent of all Americans, if we can imagine, lived on less than 125 percent of Federal poverty level in 2007.

This is the ``borrow from Peter to pay Paul.'' This is people who probably are suffering, even with food stamps. This means they are income-eligible for most Federal nutrition programs like food stamps and other child nutrition programs. These programs can help families and children stretch their food dollars and get access to healthy foods.

To set the poverty level, the U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds based on the Consumer Price Index. In 2007, the Federal poverty guideline for a family of four was $21,203. The new Census data shows that 37.3 million persons, or 12.5 percent of our population, lived in poverty. My friends, it is happening worldwide, including the United States of America.

Children continue to be the poorest age group in the country, with 13.3 million children, or 18 percent of all children under age 18, were poor; a larger percentage than any other group; 20.8 percent of related children under age 6 in families lived in poverty; 9.7 of all Americans 65 and over, or 3.6 million elderly, were poor; and the poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites was 8.2 percent, 24.5 for African Americans, 21.5 for Hispanics, and 10.2 for Asians.

As the Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am particularly concerned about the devastating impacts that hunger and malnutrition have on children. Mr. Speaker, I have been in the feeding camps of Africa. I have watched as they have come in trucks to be able to deliver the food. I am sympathetic, and I understand when people are hungry, but the stampede of adults stampeding past children, or even sometimes the children being used to get more food and not having it distributed, is an issue.

Lack of adequate nutrition stunts children's growth, leaves then more vulnerable to numerous diseases, and affects their ability to learn. Even temporary deprivation of essential nutrients can have a lasting impact on children's physical growth and intellectual potential. Under current conditions, more and more children face the prospect of growing up malnourished.

On May 7, with the help of 46 of my colleagues, I introduced H. Con. Res. 344, recognizing the global food crisis, the disproportionate effect rising food prices have on children, and calling for the prioritization of the nutritional needs of children.

My resolution calls for the United States and other G8 nations to continue to monitor the impact of the global food crisis on children and commit to increasing their assistance to respond to the global food crisis, and, specifically, responding to the needs of children impacted by the global food crisis.

I hope in the passage of this legislation that a statement can go forward to those who are helping in sending humanitarian aid to Haiti and others in the Caribbean that we get a focus on the children during this, if you will, this disaster.

It is important to note that along with the Global Health Caucus and the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, we held a briefing on the effect of the global food crisis on children. We heard from UNICEF, the World Food Programme, Save the Children, World Vision, Christian Children's Fund, and the Congressional Hunger Center, and Danny Glover, all emphasizing the importance of this issue. Therefore, I look forward to continuing to focus on this, with rising food prices, families in needs, the loss of nutrition, and yes, the amount of children that suffer.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that when we think, we should think of children who are constantly suffering, being able to have cups of milk, which emphasizes why it is important to ensure that children don't look like this who are here and around the world.

My predecessor, Congressman Mickey Leland, died in Ethiopia, as I always say, on the side of an Ethiopian mountain, because he was trying to end world hunger. In his name and those who have gone on, the Congressional Hunger Center, it is important to recognize the children.

I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives McGovern, Payne, McCollum, and Blumenauer, for their work on hunger and water issues, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of an issue so fundamental to our basic needs as human beings that it is a travesty that we must address it--but unfortunately we do. We are facing a global food crisis. Furthermore, this food crisis is not only having a widespread impact in countries far away, but also right here at home and in our hemisphere.

In a nation with plenty, many of our children are going to bed with nothing to eat. Tackling worldwide hunger is a moral imperative which threatens the political and economic stability of a multitude of developing nations. The recent dramatic increase in food prices will continue to have a destabilizing effect in already unstable regions of the world where so many lives are already vulnerable to ongoing conflicts and political turmoil.

According to the United Nations, over 850 million people in the world are chronically or acutely malnourished and over 300 million of these are children. The statistics are both shocking and tragic: globally, a child dies every 7 seconds, malnutrition caused by chronic hunger leads to the death of an estimated 5,600,000 children under 5 years old, and roughly one in every four children under 5 years old is underweight.

Rising food prices have precipitated a crisis situation. On March 20 of this year, the U.N. World Food Program made an urgent appeal to the United States and other food aid donors for an additional $500 million to fill a funding gap caused by rising food and fuel prices. Since then, this gap has expanded, and is now an estimated $755 million. As food prices rise, children are the first to suffer.

Hunger is a condition of poverty. Living below poverty puts tremendous strains on a household, giving families barely enough money to purchase healthy and nutritious foods, as well as other essentials of life. Nutrition research shows that as income goes down the nutritional adequacy of the household's diet goes down as well.

According to data released by the U.S. Census Bureau, 50.9 million people, or 17 percent of all Americans, lived on less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty level in 2007. This means they are income- eligible for most Federal nutrition programs, like food stamps and other child nutrition programs. These programs can help families and children stretch their food dollars and get access to healthy foods.

To set the poverty level, the U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds based on the Consumer Price Index. In 2007, the Federal poverty guideline for a family of four was $21,203.

The new Census data shows that 37.3 million Americans--or 12.5 percent of our population--lived in poverty in 2007. Children continued to be the poorest age group in the country: 13.3 million children, or 18 percent of all children under age 18, were poor--a larger percentage than any other age group; 20.8 percent of related children under age six in families lived in poverty; 9.7 percent of all Americans 65 and over, or 3.6 million elderly, were poor. The poverty rate for non- Hispanic whites was 8.2 percent, 24.5 percent for blacks, 21.5 percent for Hispanics, and 10.2 percent for Asians.

As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am particularly concerned about the devastating effect that hunger and malnutrition have on children. Lack of adequate nutrition stunts children's growth, leaves them more vulnerable to numerous diseases, and affects their ability to learn. Even temporary deprivation of essential nutrients can have a lasting impact on children's physical growth and intellectual potential, and, under current conditions, more and more children face the prospect of growing up malnourished.

On May 7, 2008, with the support of 46 of my colleagues, I introduced H. Con. Res. 344, legislation recognizing the global food crisis and the disproportionate effect rising food prices have on children, and calling for the prioritization of the nutritional needs of children.

My resolution calls for the United States and the other G8 member states to continue to monitor the impact of the global food crisis on children and commit to increasing their assistance to respond to the global food crisis, and specifically, responding to the needs of children impacted by the global food crisis.

In addition, the Congressional Children's Caucus, together with the Global Health Caucus and the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, held a briefing on the effect of the global food crisis on children. Members of Congress heard from panelists from UNICEF, the World Food Programme, Save the Children, World Vision, Christian Children's Fund, and the Congressional Hunger Center, as well as special guest Danny Glover, to galvanize the United States Congress to take action on this important issue.

As a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I will be hosting the Children Issue Forum on September 25, 2008. The panel will be on the Global Food and Water Crisis. I will again convene experts on this crisis, not only to look at how we arrived at such

disastrous food levels but how we solve this issue.

As a result of rising food prices, families throughout the world, particularly in developing nations but also here in the United States, are increasingly facing a decision between quantity and quality when buying food. With incomes stretched thinner by the day, many families must either buy significantly smaller quantities of food, or purchase less nutritious food. In times of food crisis, families face cuts in expensive foods, such as meat, fruit, and vegetables.

The loss of these nutritious foods, in favor of cheaper staples such as rice and maize, is extremely detrimental to children's development, putting them at greater risk of disease or stunted growth. The full extent of the consequences of deprivation of vital nutrients during essential stages of growth is not known. However, it is clear that once children's growth is stunted by malnutrition, they do not catch up to their peers.

While it is important that we respond to the emergency we currently face, our solutions must take a long-term view as well. We cannot simply provide increased food aid; we must address the root causes of chronic hunger by addressing systemic problems with food production and food prices in the developing world. If we do not, we risk finding ourselves facing recurring food crises in the coming years.

In the midst of this current food crisis, I am reminded of my distinguished predecessor, Congressman Mickey Leland. In 1989, Congressman Leland lost his life in Ethiopia, fighting the same battle against global hunger that we continue to face today. It is tragic that, in the year 2008, we still have not learned to draw the links between hunger, violence, and instability. I thank my colleagues Representatives McGovern, Payne, McCollum and Blumenauer for their work on hunger and water issues. But we cannot leave this to only a few Members, we must all work together now, and we must find a way to win the war on hunger.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.

In closing, I'd like to thank my 46 cosponsors and thank my distinguished friend from Texas for his support of this legislation. As well, having no further speakers, I would like to yield back and ask my colleagues to strongly support prioritizing children and helping us to end or to solve the global food crisis and the negative impact on the world's children and American children.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 937) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the emergency communications services provided by the American Red Cross are vital resources for military servicemembers and their families, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.

First let me commend my colleague from Texas, Dr. Michael Burgess, for introducing this important resolution and for his work in support of the American Red Cross. All of us have watched the American Red Cross reform itself, but we have also known that its brand name has represented the aid to help, the anchor in the time of storm.

In times of emergency and other important events, the American Red Cross has the important and at times difficult duty of notifying military servicemembers on behalf of their families about such events. The Red Cross provides critical information to commanding officers to help them decide whether to release a servicemember from duty in order to join with his or her family in time of crisis.

Regardless of whether it is a birth notice or a tragedy, such as the devastating floods in the Midwest, the Red Cross ensures the timely delivery of vitally important messages and ably provides the families of military servicemembers with the support and assistance they need until the servicemember returns home. This resolution recognizes the critical mission that the American Red Cross undertakes in providing information about these events to military servicemembers. We are all thankful to the Red Cross for carrying out this important work.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say that the Red Cross has often been the comforting arm for the United States military families. I want to thank Dr. Burgess and his cosponsors for the great work he has done on this legislation. I would like to also thank the staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the chairman, Mr. Berman, and the ranking member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

I would also like to add on H. Con. Res. 334, the global food crisis legislation, that I would also like to thank the staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee and my staff, Johannes Tsehai, for their hard work on that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to ask for strong support on the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1069) condemning the use of television programming by Hamas to indoctrinate hatred, violence, and anti-Semitism toward Israel in young Palestinian children, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend from New York, Joe Crowley, for introducing this timely and important resolution. Despite the shaky cease-fire reached between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hamas has neither changed its explicitly stated aim to destroy the State of Israel nor given up the use of terrorism and violence as a means to achieve that end.

But while Hamas' use of terrorism to undermine peace and destroy Israel is well understood in the West, few are aware of its sophisticated use of broadcast media to spread hatred of the United States, Israel and Jews, and to incite Palestinian youth to violence.

Hamas has had its own television station, known as al-Aqsa TV, which is telecast throughout the Arab world. Among its many crude and contemptible practices, al-Aqsa TV utilizes cartoon characters and puppets, one resembling Disney's universally recognized Mickey Mouse, in programming that advocates terrorism, anti-Americanism and anti- Semitism.

On March 30, 2008, this TV station broadcast a puppet show depicting the stabbing and murder of the President of the United States. This morally twisted type of children's programming violates all civilized norms, cynically undermines prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace, and flagrantly violates phase I of the U.S.-backed roadmap for peace, calling for an end to incitement in Palestinian society. It even stigmatizes the Palestinian people who want peace, many of them fighting every day to ensure that there is an opportunity for collaboration and dialogue and peaceful discussion with Israel. In fact, I would imagine that children who are watching are certainly not children who are intending to grow up to be terrorists.

The resolution puts this body on record supporting the overdue designation of al-Aqsa television as a specially designated global terrorist entity. Such a designation would follow logically from the administration's designation of Hezbollah's al-Manar TV as a specially designated global terrorist entity 3 years ago. This designation proved useful in persuading a number of satellite companies around the world not to transmit al-Manar's hate-filled broadcasts. Designating Hamas' al-Aqsa TV would similarly send a strong message to satellite companies transmitting its vile programming, including one of Europe's largest satellite companies, the privately-owned, French-based Eutelsat.

In addition, this resolution calls on Saudi Arabia, the primary shareholder in the Arab League-owned satellite Arabsat, to take the lead in ending Arabsat's transmission of al-Aqsa TV, as well as Hezbollah's al-Manar TV. Thanks to Arabsat, both al-Aqsa TV and al- Manar TV are seen throughout the Middle East and beyond.

Unfortunately, our friend and ally Egypt is also involved in transmissions of hate media. Egypt's state-owned satellite, NileSat, broadcasts at least two terrorist mouthpieces, the Hezbollah station and the Iraq focused station and an Arabic language network affiliated with anti-American insurgent activity. This latter network consistently telecasts material glorifying insurgents and their attacks on American forces.

It would be especially important if our allies and friends would recognize that it is our intent to collaborate and work toward uplifting forthright, educational, politically sound conversation and dialogue. It is not our intent, of course, to control their own sovereignty, but it is important when that gets out into the world marketplace that it is civil, that it is strong, that it is democratic, that it is fair, and that it is reflective of the human dignity of all people.

It is deeply dismaying that one of our strongest allies in the region and one of the largest recipients of U.S. Foreign assistance tolerates the advocacy of attacks on Americans in Iraq on its state-controlled satellite provider.

I know that the terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah will not soon

abandon their mass-media means of hatred and violence, but it is long past the time for all state-owned and privately-owned satellite companies around the world to cease transmitting these destructive messages that encourage the murder of Americans and Israelis.

That is why I strongly support this resolution, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in that support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It is my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, the author of the legislation, Mr. Crowley.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add for the Record that the author of the legislation, Congressman Crowley, is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

It now gives me great pleasure to yield 2 minutes to Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, who is a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, but a former member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Does the gentleman from Texas have any further speakers?

I thank the gentleman. And let me, in supporting this legislation, indicate that there are friends that we have mentioned. And we hope that our allies such as Egypt will work with us to address what has been noted as particularly heinous comments and use of the airwaves.

Respecting our own viewpoints of protecting the first amendment, we do believe in that. But we also know that even though our law is not international law, that crying fire in a crowded theater certainly is not acceptable.

Teaching children to murder heads of states is not acceptable. Let us try to work and collaborate and point out these ills so that we can promote peace and democracy around the world. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1159), recognizing the historical significance of the United States sloop-of-war Constellation as a surviving witness to the horrors of the Transatlantic Slave Trade and a leading participant in America's effort to end the practice.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me first thank Congressman Elijah Cummings for introducing this resolution honoring the USS Constellation, a 153-year-old American Warship that now is restored as a museum in the Baltimore Inner Harbor.

This historic ship serves as a reminder of the role that the United States Navy played in the abolition of the Transatlantic slave trade.

In 1787, our Nation began to adopt legislation to prohibit the importation of slaves to the United States and the transport of slaves from the U.S. to other parts of the Western Hemisphere. Over the next several decades, the U.S. Government joined with the British in deploying naval vessels along the African coastline to intercept slave ships, rescue kidnapped victims and place them under international jurisdiction, and return them to homelands in Africa.

Mr. Speaker, this is sometimes little known history, and I congratulate my colleague from Maryland of highlighting the fact that the good news is, even though it took long years to end slavery in the United States, they began to stop the transportation and importing of slaves, and they vigorously used the United States military in the name of the United States Navy.

The USS Constellation was the flagship of an eight-ship fleet that comprised the U.S. African Squadron. The Constellation captured 14 slave ships and rescued nearly 4,000 Africans from a life of forced servitude in the Americas.

Launched in 1854 from the Chesapeake Bay's Gosport Navy Yard at Portsmouth, Virginia, the USS Constellation served our country for 100 years before its final decommissioning in 1955, I would venture to say, a long, long time. Maybe its good work of preventing the importation of slaves allowed it to have a long life with good health.

After serving the anti-slavery effort, the USS Constellation was charged with chasing Confederate raiders during the Civil War, and served as a training ship for the midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis from 1871 to 1893. The ship was brought to Baltimore's Inner Harbor in 1955 and restored as the USS Constellation Museum.

This is a historic year, 2008, as we watch presidential politics. This legislation is an appropriate testament to the history of the United States and doing the right thing as it relates to slavery here in this country. It also incorporates our recognition of the United States Navy and the United

States military as fighting for the unity of this Nation and the promotion of equality and justice for all Americans. Ending slavery was contributing to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that offered to say that we all are created equal.

I thank our colleague, Congressman Cummings, and I rise in strong support of this resolution, because this resolution celebrates the USS Constellation as a historic reminder of the battle to end slavery and of the role and capabilities of the Navy's elite vessels of that era. They continue to serve us, and I strongly support the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, such time as he might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Congressman Steve Cohen, who is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Let me thank both Mr. Cummings, the author of this bill; Mr. Greg Meeks, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee; Mr. Cohen, and ask my colleagues to enthusiastically support this legislation

that emphasizes the importance of the United States Navy in ending the Transatlantic slave trade, H. Res. 1159.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1254) supporting the values and goals of the ``Joint Action Plan Between the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Government of the United States of America to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Discrimination and Promote Equality,'' signed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Brazilian Minister of Racial Integration Edson Santos on March 13, 2008, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me generally, Mr. Speaker, thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Berman, and the ranking member, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, both of whom are now conducting a hearing regarding the relationship between Georgia and Russia, for their leadership on these legislative initiatives. And I want to thank the Chairs and ranking members of the subcommittees from which these legislative initiatives have come forward.

It is well noted the Foreign Affairs Committee works collaboratively together, and I guess it continues to be in the spirit of our fallen leader, Representative, former chairman, Tom Lantos.

So let me thank our colleagues, Congressman Eliot Engel and Dan Burton, the chairman and ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, for introducing this important resolution.

Brazil and the United States both share a history of slavery in the Americas. The legacy and residual effects of that common history remain with both our countries long after the abolishment of slavery throughout the hemisphere.

The experience of race and the phenomenon of racism has been treated and understood very differently in Brazil than it has in the United States. Brazil holds the largest and one of the most ethnically diverse and racially mixed populations in the world.

Historically, Brazil's multi-ethnicity has taken its own unique path, devoid of the spasms of violence and resentment that have characterized similar historical moments in the United States. In fact, in the 20th century, Brazil's tolerance and accommodation came to be known as ``racial democracy'' and became a source of great pride for its people.

Having been to Brazil on several occasions, I can attest to the fact Brazil and its people seem to be constantly working on finding racial accommodations, racial democracy.

Significant changes have taken place in the U.S. and Brazil in the issue of race and racism in the past two decades. Today, Brazilian self-identity regarding race has become more nuanced. The undeniable fact of Brazilians as a mixture of different races has run headlong into the notion of racial exclusion. To paraphrase Professor Edward E. Telles of UCLA in his book ``Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil,'' Brazilians today grapple with how their society can at the same time reflect inclusiveness and the differences that make them unique.

The United States and Brazil have much to learn from each other in this realm. The ways in which our racial histories have diverged, and more recently the ways in which they have converged, offer much to share and even more to discuss.

As I mentioned, as I have traveled to Brazil, I have seen the opportunity to make everyone a Brazilian. We here are now talking about the fact that different groups want to be acknowledged for their own cultural history, and also, as we have made everyone a Brazilian, different groups have noted that only one group of those Brazilians have been able to ascend to the highest corporate ranks as well as governmental ranks.

Therefore, it is especially timely, then, that we take up this resolution recognizing how our racial histories currently affect minority communities and celebrating the goals of a joint action plan between our two governments on racial and ethnic discrimination.

This resolution supports the ``U.S.-Brazil Joint Action Plan to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Discrimination and Promote Equality'' that was signed by Secretary Rice and Brazilian Minister of Racial Integration Edson Santos in March of this year.

The Joint Action Plan is an agreement between both governments to create opportunities for minorities in the U.S. and Brazil to become active in technical, academic, and cultural exchange programs. It creates the Steering Group to Promote Equality of Opportunity, which will consist of a panel of government officials from both the United States and Brazil to facilitate the exchange of information and the best practices for antidiscrimination measures and develop ideas on how to bilaterally promote racial and ethnic equality.

I want to applaud the Afro-Brazilians Parliamentarians of whom I've had the opportunity to meet with who have been a persistent voice in asking for this approach to avoiding discrimination and promoting affirmative action.

I also want to thank my good friend and member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Gregory Meeks, who has worked on these issues and as we have traveled together to express our concern about discrimination in Brazil.

This Joint Action Plan is only one part of the expanding strategic relationship between the United States and Brazil and is a positive step in strengthening that friendship and promoting racial and ethnic equality.

Yes, we applaud racial democracy in Brazil. We applaud the race- neutral stances that they've taken, but now we applaud even more the opportunity to cite different ethnic groups and their contributions to Brazil in giving them a greater equal opportunity in Brazil.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman's comments in support of this legislation. I, too, agree that this partnership between Brazil and the United States through our respective state departments and foreign ministers will be a great asset to creating equal opportunity in Brazil.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask that our colleagues support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to return to the most do-something Congress in the last 8 years, the Congress that has addressed the plight of soldiers and education benefits and health care, and the Congress that is going to solve the energy crisis: The working Congress.

That's why I stand here today because I would like us to continue to work to help the automobile dealers in Detroit, and as well to help those homeowners who need mortgage repair and mortgage refinance, and give them an opportunity for the American Dream.

I am saddened by the conflict between Georgia and Russia, not Georgia in the United States, but I believe that is a NATO issue. And I would ask that we not give $1 billion for repairing Georgia; we need to give $1 billion to help repair our auto industry and to help those in mortgage crisis. Yes, we can be a partner in their rebuild, we believe in their democracy, but it is time now to reinvest in home. Give them a contribution, along with the NATO efforts. Give them the ability to stand strong. Provide for them the opportunity to engage in conflict resolution between Russia and Georgia. But it is time now not to give excessive funds to ensure that they stand up, we need to stand up here in America.

I ask my colleagues to reflect on this so that we can rebuild America in this do-something Congress.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to rise for a brief moment to congratulate the Senators from Virginia and my good from friend and colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Scott, and, of course, the manager of this legislation and the minority manager as well.

No one who has benefited from the civil rights of the law, if you will, could ignore the contributions of Spottswood William Robinson III. So I rise today to again add my respect for the naming of this courthouse after these two jurists, both Robert Merhige and of course Spottswood W. Robinson III, but particularly want to add my appreciation to what Judge Robinson did for education in the lawsuit that was filed on behalf of 100 parents and 450 students at Moton High School in Prince Edward County, convinced that their only chance was getting this case before the Supreme Court. In addition, his work on the 1954 Brown versus Board of Education, the work of his efforts with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, he laid the pathway for those of us who are the beneficiaries of his great work.

Let me also suggest that the same with Robert Merhige and his work on civil rights issues but also dealing with major corporate litigation cases.

These namings sometimes are alluded to as not being very important, but as we proceed on many important issues such as solving the energy crisis, I'm glad, Mr. Speaker, that we stop for a moment to give honor to individuals who laid the groundwork not only for me and those like me but really for America, and those who stand on the floor of the House that value democracy and equal opportunity, these individuals are deserving of the respect and admiration of this United States Congress and certainly are deserving of the naming of the courthouse after them.

I rise today in support of S. 2403, which designates the new Federal courthouse in Richmond, Virginia as the ``Spottswood W. Robinson III and Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Federal Courthouse.'' I want to thank Senator Warner and the Senate Transportation and Infrastructure, and Senator Webb, for remembering a great educator, civil rights attorney, and judge, along with U.S. Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia who has championed this legislation.

background

Spottswood William Robinson III

Spottswood William Robinson III, was born in Richmond, Virginia, on July 26, 1916. He attended Virginia Union University and then attended Howard University School of Law, graduating first in his class in 1939.

Like his fellow jurist, Thurgood Marshall, he often credited the law school with instilling in its students the notion of social responsibility. He said, ``one of the things that was drilled into my head was . . . `This legal education that you're getting is not just for you, it was for everybody. So when you leave here, you want to put it to good use.' ''

Spottswood Robinson argued one of the Supreme Court cases that led to the 1954 decision striking down school segregation. In early 1951, Robinson, who would later become a Federal judge, and his law partner in Richmond had no plans to attack school segregation in Virginia as unconstitutional. They were more focused on forcing local school systems to invest more in segregated black schools.

But that was before Barbara Johns, a high school junior, called their law office in April. She complained that nothing at her school--buses, textbooks, facilities--even approached the quality of those provided at White schools.

Robinson and his then-law partner Oliver Hill filed suit on behalf of 100 parents of 450 students at Moton High School in Prince Edward County, Va., convinced that their only chance lay in getting the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The issues in that case and four others--including Brown vs. Board of Education--were decided in the high court's historic 1954 Brown decision declaring ``separate but equal'' schools unconstitutional.

Former Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder wrote in a tribute to Robinson that, ``Where one can ride on a bus, a train, or plane, or where one can live and rent or buy a house, or whether public education has to be given the same level to all people are basic Issues. Spottswood Robinson has been there . . . in his quiet, unassuming . . . way, charting and paving a path for countless Americans . . . who owe to him a great debt of gratitude.''

Judge Robinson was a faculty member of the Howard University School of Law from his graduation in 1939 until 1947. Judge Robinson was one of the core attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund from 1948 to 1960. Through the NAACP LDF Robinson worked on important civil rights cases including Brown v. Board of Education and Chance v. Lambeth, 4th Cir., 1951, establishing the invalidity of carrier- enforced racial segregation in interstate transportation.

From 1960-64 Spottswood Robinson became Dean of the Howard University School of Law. He then served as a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights from 1961 to 1963.

In 1964, Judge Robinson was the first African-American to be appointed the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In 1966, Judge Robinson became the first African-American appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit when he was appointed by President Johnson.

On May 7, 1981, Judge Robinson became the first African-American to serve as Chief Judge of the court. Judge Robinson took senior status in 1989 and later retired. He passed on in 1998. Leaving behind a legacy of civil rights leadership and legal advocacy. Robert R. Merhige, Jr.

Robert R. Merhige Jr., was the U.S. District Court judge who ordered Virginia schools desegregated and presided over major corporate litigation cases. His unusually long tenure on the Federal bench--31 years--brought him many cases of national importance. He wrote the decision for a three-judge panel that threw out the appeals of Watergate figures G. Gordon Liddy, Bernard Barker, and Eugenio Martinez, after they were convicted of breaking into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist.

He ordered the University of Virginia to admit women in 1970. He clarified the rights of pregnant women to keep their jobs. He presided over the trials of Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party members accused of injuring and killing members of the Communist Workers Party in Greensboro, NC, in 1979.

No decision made him more unpopular than his orders to integrate dozens of Virginia's school systems. He was widely considered the most hated man in Richmond in the early 1970s and required 24-hour protection by U.S. marshals. Segregationists threatened his family, spat in his face, and shot his dog to death after tying its legs. Protesters held weekly parades outside his home. A guest cottage on his property, where his mother-in-law lived, was burned to the ground.

Not long ago he told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that he was still amazed, disappointed and angry at the public reaction to his rulings. He was known for his kindness and integrity and for brooking no delays or foolishness in his court, part of the Eastern District of Virginia known as the ``rocket docket.'' He once ordered a marshal to remove a man who had fallen asleep in the courtroom. The man, it turned out, was his father.

Born in New York, Mr. Merhige attended High Point College in North Carolina and received his law degree from the University of Richmond's T.C. Williams School of Law in 1942.

He served in the Army Air Forces in World War II as a crewman on a B- 17 bomber based in Italy. Mr. Merhige practiced law in Richmond from 1945 until he was appointed to the Federal bench in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Two weeks into his job, the new judge drew the first of the controversial cases that became the hallmark of his career. He ordered the release of African-American activist H. Rap Brown, who was imprisoned in Virginia after making an impassioned and militant speech in Maryland.

In 1968, Mr. Merhige ruled that the conflict in Vietnam was a war, whether or not it was a declared war. That ruling came in a case in which 96 Army reservists tried to avoid serving in Vietnam. Mr. Merhige denied their request.

On a tour of his memorabilia-filled chambers two decades later, a reporter noted that among signed photographs, which ranged from former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover to former attorney general Ramsey Clark, a copy

of President Richard M. Nixon's resignation adorned the mantelpiece. ``I wanted that since the day he was inaugurated,'' Mr. Merhige was quoted as saying.

Conclusion

Mr. Speaker, Judge Robinson and Judge Merhige were men who stood their ground, followed their conscience and the law. I am pleased to see the good State of Virginia--known as the Capitol of the South-- recognizing two men who sought to change it--for the better.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 2403, and the new Federal courthouse that celebrates these two great civil rights advocates.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2450) to amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation enacts a new Federal Rule of Evidence, proposed by the Judicial Conference, to address a growing problem that is adding inordinate and unnecessary burden, expense, uncertainty, and inefficiency to litigation.

The new rule 502 reaffirms and reinforces the attorney-client privilege and work product protection by clarifying how they are affected by, and withstand, inadvertent disclosure in discovery.

As the author of the companion bill, H.R. 6610, in the House, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Senate-passed bill so that we can send it to the President and enact it into law without further delay.

Doing the research on this legislation and spending time with a number of lawyers, and the American Bar Association, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that this has no negative impact on those lawyers representing defendants or those lawyers representing plaintiffs. In fact, unlike the courthouse and the courtroom, plaintiff lawyers and defendant lawyers, the plaintiff bar and the defendant bar, have come together in a unanimous voice, indicating that this will in fact enhance their ability to represent their clients and to ensure that they may have the broadest based discovery possible.

We have asked and answered a series of questions that impact this particular legislation, including engaging the Federal bench. And so I move that

my colleagues view this enthusiastically and that it be supported.

The attorney-client privilege and work product protection are crucial to our legal system. They encourage businesses and individuals to obtain legal counsel when appropriate by protecting the confidentiality of communications between clients and their attorneys, and documents prepared by attorneys to assist their clients in litigation. In fact, this is the backbone, the infrastructure of civil and criminal litigation.

These legal protections are not absolute, however. Traditionally, persons seeking to rely on them must maintain the confidentiality of the information involved. If the information is shared outside the circle of confidentiality provided by the law, the legal protection is forfeited, or waived, as the purpose for it no longer applies.

This traditional principle can work unfair results in modern-day litigation when privileged information is disclosed by accident. Fast- moving litigation or expensive and vast litigation has both plaintiff and defendant shooting back and forth various documents, particularly in extensive discovery. In the course of the kind of voluminous discovery that often takes place, this can happen, where a privileged document is seen by the other party.

When vast amounts of documents are transmitted and stored electronically and can be searched and collected in the same manner, it is all too easy for a document containing privileged information to be overlooked, despite careful efforts to prevent it. Even in my practice of some years ago, the technology has made it different. I remember being in a massive case, a personal injury case, where documents were going back and forth, but I might say, Mr. Speaker, that it moved a lot slower than it does today.

Unfortunately, the case law has not kept up with these developments of expedited discovery and the electronic use of passing documents. Outdated legal precedents from an earlier era continue to create uncertainty. There are precedents, for example, holding that an inadvertent disclosure of a single document or communication not only can waive the privilege as to that one item, but can result in a blanket waiver as to all information concerning the same subject. That can collapse a case.

Concern about the potential adverse consequences has in recent years forced clients and their lawyers to undertake exhaustive, time- consuming, and expensive examination of documents item by item, often page by page, before they can be comfortable turning them over in discovery. That impacts, of course, negatively plaintiffs and defendants.

The document reviews can be grossly disproportionate in cost to the stakes of the underlying litigation and significantly impede the efficient processing of cases through the courts.

Courts have developed a balance rule in the case law that appropriately protects confidentiality, while guarding against abuses. But one court's order and one district's order and one circuit's order has uncertain authority, at best, in another court. Only a uniform rule can bring the certainty needed, and a uniform rule in the area of evidentiary privileges can only be achieved by an act of Congress.

The rule we are submitting today, submitted to Congress last year by the Judicial Conference, is a product of careful deliberations in its Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, informed by years of examination of the issue in its Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Advisory Committee enlisted the help of eminent jurists, practitioners, and legal scholars, and sought and obtained extensive public comment both in written submissions and at two hearings. The rule that resulted has wide support in the legal community. I know, Mr. Speaker. I have spent time, my staff has spent time with lawyers on both sides of the bar, and I can assure you their voices were one in arguing for the passage of this change.

In order to more fully explain how the new rule is to be interpreted and applied, the Advisory Committee also prepared an explanatory note, as is customary, for publication alongside the text of the rule. The text of the explanatory note appears in the Record in the Senate debate.

The proposed rule has now also undergone careful review in the House, as well as the Senate. During its consideration in the House Judiciary Committee, a number of questions arose regarding the scope and contours of the effect of the proposed rule on current law regarding attorney- client privilege and work product protection. That is a very important and cherished right, to ensure that privilege does not interfere or hamper the rights of a plaintiff, sometimes the underdog, and the defendant.

The Judicial Conference was able to answer all these questions satisfactorily, without need to revise the text of the rule as submitted to Congress. In order to further reduce any potential uncertainty regarding how the rule is to be interpreted and applied, the committee has asked and the Judicial Conference has agreed to augment the explanatory note. I would like to insert the agreed addendum to the explanatory note in the Record at this point.

Statement of Congressional Intent Regarding Rule 502 of the Federal

Rules of Evidence

During consideration of this rule in Congress, a number of

questions were raised about the scope and contours of the

effect of the proposed rule on current law regarding

attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. These

questions were ultimately answered satisfactorily, without

need to revise the text of the rule as submitted to Congress

by the Judicial Conference.

In general, these questions are answered by keeping in mind

the limited though important purpose and focus of the rule.

The rule addresses only the effect of disclosure, under

specified circumstances, of a communication that is otherwise

protected by attorney-client privilege, or of information

that is protected by work-product protection, on whether the

disclosure itself operates as a waiver of the privilege or

protection for purposes of admissibility of evidence in a

federal or state judicial or administrative proceeding. The

rule does not alter the substantive law regarding attorney-

client privilege or work-product protection in any other

respect, including the burden on the party invoking the

privilege (or protection) to prove that the particular

information (or communication) qualifies for it. And it is

not intended to alter the rules and practices governing use

of information outside this evidentiary context.

Some of these questions are addressed more specifically

below, in order to help further avoid uncertainty in the

interpretation and application of the rule.

Subdivision (a)--Disclosure vs. Use

This subdivision does not alter the substantive law

regarding when a party's strategic use in litigation of

otherwise privileged information obliges that party to waive

the privilege regarding other information concerning the same

subject matter, so that the information being used can be

fairly considered in context. One situation in which this

issue arises, the assertion as a defense in patent-

infringement litigation that a party was relying on advice of

counsel, is discussed elsewhere in this Note. In this and

similar situations, under subdivision (a)(1) the party using

an attorney-client communication to its advantage in the

litigation has, in so doing, intentionally waived the

privilege as to other communications concerning the same

subject matter, regardless of the circumstances in which the

communication being so used was initially disclosed.

Subdivision (b)--Fairness Considerations

The standard set forth in this subdivision for determining

whether a disclosure operates as a waiver of the privilege or

protection is, as explained elsewhere in this Note, the

majority rule in the federal courts. The majority rule has

simply been distilled here into a standard designed to be

predictable in its application. This distillation is not

intended to foreclose notions of fairness from continuing to

inform application of the standard in all aspects as

appropriate in particular cases--for example, as to whether

steps taken to rectify an erroneous inadvertent disclosure

were sufficiently prompt under subdivision (b)(3) where the

receiving party has relied on the information disclosed.

Subdivisions (a) and (b)--Disclosures to Federal Office or

Agency

This rule, as a Federal Rule of Evidence, applies to

admissibility of evidence. While subdivisions (a) and (b) are

written broadly to apply as appropriate to disclosures of

information to a federal office or agency, they do not apply

to uses of information--such as routine use in government

publications--that fall outside the evidentiary context. Nor

do these subdivisions relieve the party seeking to protect

the information as privileged from the burden of proving that

the privilege applies in the first place.

Subdivision (d)--Court Orders

This subdivision authorizes a court to enter orders only in

the context of litigation pending before the court. And it

does not alter the law regarding waiver of privilege

resulting from having acquiesced in the use of otherwise

privileged information. Therefore, this subdivision does not

provide a basis for a court to enable parties to agree to a

selective waiver of the privilege, such as to a

federal agency conducting an investigation, while preserving

the privilege as against other parties seeking the

information. This subdivision is designed to enable a court

to enter an order, whether on motion of one or more parties

or on its own motion, that will allow the parties to conduct

and respond to discovery expeditiously, without the need for

exhaustive pre-production privilege reviews, while still

preserving each party's right to assert the privilege to

preclude use in litigation of information disclosed in such

discovery. While the benefits of a court order under this

subdivision would be equally available in government

enforcement actions as in private actions, acquiescence by

the disclosing party in use by the federal agency of

information disclosed pursuant to such an order would still

be treated as under current law for purposes of determining

whether the acquiescence in use of the information, as

opposed to its mere disclosure, effects a waiver of the

privilege. The same applies to acquiescence in use by another

private party.

Moreover, whether the order is entered on motion of one or

more parties, or on the court's own motion, the court retains

its authority to include the conditions it deems appropriate

in the circumstances.

Subdivision (e)--Party Agreements

This subdivision simply makes clear that while parties to a

case may agree among themselves regarding the effect of

disclosures between each other in a federal proceeding, it is

not binding on others unless it is incorporated into a court

order. This subdivision does not confer any authority on a

court to enter any order regarding the effect of disclosures.

That authority must be found in subdivision (d), or

elsewhere.

The new rule protects the confidentiality of privileged information against waiver in several ways. It protects information inadvertently disclosed in discovery, as long as the party has taken reasonable efforts to avoid disclosing privileged information and, upon learning of the disclosure, promptly takes reasonable steps to rectify it.

It protects against a waiver extending to other, undisclosed documents except where privileged information is being intentionally used to mislead the fact finder to the disadvantage of the other party, so that fairness requires that other information regarding the same subject matter also be available.

And it authorizes courts to enter orders enforceable in all jurisdictions permitting parties to make initial discovery exchanges efficiently without waiving the right to appropriately assert privilege later for documents culled for actual use as evidence.

This is sort of a back-up protection. This is your guarantee. This is an assistance to the idea of protecting privilege. This is extremely important, in that vast majority of documents exchanged in discovery, in some cases running to millions of pages, ultimately prove to be of no interest.

Importantly, the rule does not alter the law regarding when the attorney-client privilege or work product protection applies in the first instance. It is narrowly targeted to address the question of when the specified kinds of litigation-related disclosures do or do not operate as a waiver of the privilege that would otherwise apply.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation enjoys strong support in the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee and, of course, the House Judiciary Committee, with both sides of the aisle supporting it. I would like to especially commend Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner for encouraging the Judicial Conference when he was chairman of the committee to pursue developing a new rule of evidence to address this problem.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his

very kind remarks about the bipartisan negotiations at the level of the House Judiciary Committee. I was delighted again to also have the companion bill, H.R. 6610, on that legislation.

I do want to add a particular point of contention dealing with subdivision E, party agreements. This subdivision simply makes clear that while parties to a case may agree among themselves regarding the effect of disclosures between each other in a Federal proceeding, it is not binding on others unless it is incorporated into a court order.

I think this is very important, and it was certainly a point that others, various counsel raised, because of the impact that it might have, the far-reaching impact it might have. This particular subdivision does not confer any authority on a court to enter any order regarding the effect of the disclosures. That authority must be found in subdivision D or elsewhere. So we see that this rule has been meticulously refined in order to ensure that the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege is preserved.

This is good legislation, and I would ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time, asking for support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2135) to prohibit the recruitment or use of child soldiers, to designate persons who recruit or use child soldiers as inadmissible aliens, to allow the deportation of persons who recruit or use child soldiers, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me note what a tragedy it is that we have to stand on the floor of the House in 2008 to speak about the exploitation of children as soldiers. Up to 250,000 children are exploited each day around the world in state-run armies, paramilitaries and guerilla groups. These child soldiers, boys and girls as young as 8 years old, are forced to serve as combatants and human mine detectors. They are often used to conduct suicide missions, and many are used as sex slaves. In fact, we have seen many of them turn themselves in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Colombia. In many cases they are provided with drugs and alcohol to numb them to the atrocities they are required to commit. In all cases, their childhoods are taken from them, their health and lives are endangered, and their psyches are destroyed.

It is a war crime under customary international law to recruit or use children under 15 years of age as soldiers.

I am reminded of an early amendment when I first came to the United States Congress that I added to an appropriations bill that we should restrain the use of appropriations foreign aid for those countries that would not commit to releasing their child soldiers. It is an ongoing and persistent problem.

It is a violation of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which 110 countries, including the U.S., have ratified, to recruit or use child soldiers under the age of 18. But such actions do not currently violate U.S. criminal or immigration law. We are thus hindered in our ability to prevent those who use or recruit child soldiers from coming to our country, and we are unable to punish those perpetrators who make it here. In contrast, other grave human rights violations, including torture, are punishable under U.S. criminal and immigration law.

The Child Soldier Accountability Act of 2008 would correct this disparity by making it a Federal crime and violation of immigration laws to recruit or use child soldiers under the age of 15.

This bipartisan legislation was sponsored in the Senate by Senators Dick Durbin and Tom Coburn, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law. They worked together on this bill to ensure that war criminals who would exploit children cannot find safe haven in our country.

The bill we vote on today is slightly changed from the bill that was sent to us by the Senate. It now includes changes agreed to in bipartisan and bicameral discussions between Senators Durbin, Coburn, Jon Kyl and Jeff Sessions, as well as numerous House Members, including Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott and Ranking Member Louie Gohmert, and Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren and Ranking Member Steve King.

The United States must hold accountable the war criminals who steal the childhood of innocents by turning them into killers or human fodder. I thus urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee, Bobby Scott of Virginia.

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

By listening to my two colleagues from Iowa and from Virginia, you can see the commonality of viewpoints on this persistent and cancerous aspect of our world society, the continuous use of child soldiers.

I offer to my colleagues the words of a child soldier, and I read them as follows:

``My parents refused to give me to the LITE, so about 15 of them came to my house. It was both men and women in uniforms with rifles and guns in holsters. I was fast asleep when they came to get me at one point in the morning. These people dragged me out of the house. My father shouted at them, saying, `What is going on?' Some of the LITE soldiers took my father away towards the woods and beat him. They also pushed my mother onto the ground when she tried to stop them.''

This girl was recruited by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka at age 16.

Another story from a young child:

``Early on, when my brothers and I were captured, the LRA explained to us that all five brothers couldn't serve in the LRA because we would not perform well. So they tied up my two younger brothers and invited us to watch. Then they beat them with sticks until two of them died. They told us it would give us strength to fight. My youngest brother was 9 years old.''

Martin, recruited by the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda at age 12.

This legislation of course is long overdue. And I would ask my colleagues to consider that it may be time after time and year after year that we have to continue to pass this legislation, but I would hope that we would be persistent, hope that the President signs this legislation, and, as well, that we can stamp out the cancer of using and victimizing these wonderful children.

I would like to submit these statements into the Record from Human Rights Watch: Child Soldiers, The Voices of Child Soldiers.

the voices of child soldiers

``The section leader ordered us to take cover and open

fire. There were seven of us, and seven or ten of the enemy.

I was too afraid to look, so I put my face in the ground and

shot my gun up at the sky. I was afraid their bullets would

hit my head. I fired two magazines, about forty rounds. I was

afraid that if I didn't fire the section leader would punish

me.''--Khin Maung Than, recruited by Burma's national army at

age eleven.

``My parents refused to give me to the LTTE so about

fifteen of them came to my house--it was both men and women,

in uniforms, with rifles, and guns in holsters. . . . I was

fast asleep when they came to get me at one in the morning. .

. . These people dragged me out of the house. My father

shouted at them, saying, ``What is going on?'' but some of

the LTTE soldiers took my father away towards the woods and

beat him. . . . They also pushed by mother onto the ground

when she tried to stop them.''--girl recruited by the Tamil

Tigers in Sri Lanka at age sixteen.

``I was captured in Lofa County by government forces. The

forces beat me, they held me and kept me in the bush. I was

tied with my arms kept still and was raped there. I was

fourteen years old. . . . After the rape, I was taken to a

military base. . . . I was used in the fighting to carry

medicine. During the fighting I would carry medicine on my

head and was not allowed to talk. I had to stand very still.

I had to do a lot of work for the soldiers, sweeping,

washing, cleaning. During this time, I felt really bad. I was

afraid, I wanted to go home, but was made to stay with the

soldiers.''--Evelyn, recruited in Liberia by government

forces at age fourteen.

``I had a friend, Juanita, who got into trouble for

sleeping around. We had been friends in civilian life and we

shared a tent together. The commander said that it didn't

matter that she was my friend. She had committed an error and

had to be killed. I closed my eyes and fired the gun, but I

didn't hit her. So I shot again. The grave was right nearby.

I had to bury her and put dirt on top of her. The commander

said, ``You did very well. Even though you started to cry,

you did well. You'll have to do this again many more times,

and you'll have to learn not to cry.''--Angela, joined the

FARC-EP in Colombia at age twelve.

``Early on when my brothers and I were captured, the LRA

explained to us that all five brothers couldn't serve in the

LRA because we would not perform well. So they tied up my two

younger brothers and invited us to watch. Then they beat them

with sticks until two of them died. They told us it would

give us strength to fight. My youngest brother was nine years

old.''--Martin, recruited by the Lord's Resistance Army in

Uganda at age twelve.

I ask my colleagues to enthusiastically support this particular legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow for morning-hour debate; and further, that when the House adjourns on Wednesday, September 10, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Thursday, September 11.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on September 10, 2008.

I thank you very much.

This is such a wonderful story that I'm listening to as we honor Stephanie Tubbs Jones, so I'm going to speak on some issues that showed her in her fullness and in her love of life.

And that was as a House basketball coach. She was that woman with a smile. She was a Good Samaritan. She was also like Ruth; if she was your friend, she was going to stick with you. She loved life, loved her family. How wonderful it was to be part of her family. And she allowed this Congress to be part of her family because everyone knew Mervyn, her husband; her son; her sisters; her mother and father, who I got a chance to know. But yet when she got on that basketball court and she was the coach, I tell you that was a winning smile, a winning coach, and a winning team.

And there was nothing more exciting than being at the 2008 House basketball team game. This was a game for charity. But you couldn't tell Coach Stephanie Tubbs Jones that she was out there for charity. She was out there to win, and I think it was the NBA championship, for she ran up and down that court. She gave the best coaching. She told the guys, who happened to be Members of Congress and others, what they could and could not do. And even though she wasn't the referee and she wasn't the penalizer, she'd penalize her team.

And what an exciting time to see in this year's 2008 winning basketball effort, Mervyn, her son, make the winning basketball shot. It was so exciting that those of us that were in the stands ran out onto the court, of course in violation, but we were able to get away with that. And I was so excited, in my short stature of 5'2\1/2\'', I asked the greatest coach that I knew that I work with her next year, and she gave me the greatest honor and said ``yes.'' That was Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the lover of life.

But yet as a prosecutor, one would think she would be hard nosed and she'd be running toward prosecution and incarceration. But she teamed up with her dear friend Danny Davis, and they shed their light all around this campus, both the House and the Senate, to work on what we call the Second Chance bill.

So I rise today on behalf of the incarcerated whom Stephanie loved whom she gave an opportunity, through her work with Danny Davis and those who cosponsored this legislation, to say to these individuals they could have a second chance.

May God allow her to rest in peace, but may her star shine continuously through us. We love her and we love her family.

I feel like family has gathered here on the floor, and I thank my good and distinguished friend. We are like family. And his mother, and as he has come here, and the extended family relationship.

And so, even as I spoke on the bereavement resolution, I wanted to come and be part of the Congressional Black Caucus special order because I could feel the warmth and spirit just continue to flow through. And I hope the Congressional Record doesn't mind us talking about spirit flowing through.

I want to acknowledge her staff that is staying here till the end that are in the gallery there, and they are like family as well. And we know that Stephanie would say she loved her staff, both in Washington and in Cleveland.

Certainly, I think the most poignant moment of the going home service was my friend and brother, the Honorable Kendrick Meek, and Congressman Ryan, having stood together, stoically, strongly, and specially to talk about Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and, as well, as they did so, you could feel in that huge, huge Cleveland Convention Center, everyone just pouring love toward them. And I think it drew Mervyn, her son, out of his seat to go up on the stage and to see the most powerful embrace that one could ever see. It will be lasting. I think it will go down in the annals of her record, when you pull her up and you look at this celebration, this homegoing service, you will note that there was this kind of experience, this moving experience. And I want to thank my distinguished Member of Congress from Florida, Congressman Meek, for just pouring his heart out during that service. I think all of us just paused for a moment to see the largeness and the bigness of our relationship with Stephanie.

So I wanted to come because I didn't get a chance to just mention more extensively, someone who allowed you to know most of her family members during her time here in Congress. And the goodness is, I think we should celebrate that her family members lived, her mom and dad lived to see her become a Member of Congress. Her husband, of which, someone mentioned they had celebrated 25 years together or more, lived to see her in the United States Congress and enjoyed being part of her commitment to the Congressional Black Caucus, with the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. They were a couple. They were a pair.

In fact, I am envious and dream of the fact that I used to hear the stories about the yachting that they did together as a couple, and always said one day I would have the time to go. But just to think about how she used her life experiences of joy and large living to touch everyone's life.

When we talked about airlines, when we talked about the troubles airlines were having, I remember her talking after 9/11. She would always get in there that her dad was a skycap. When they were talking about salaries or talking about working conditions at the airlines, she had an affinity because she would get in there that her dad was a skycap, and she was proud of that.

And I want everybody to know, since we live in this kind of multi- cultural society, that being a skycap was a big, big deal for an African American and an African American man. It was a

middle class, it was a working job that had benefits, but it was an important responsibility. I know that because my uncle was a skycap. So that was an important, if you will, connection for her dad who supported this family.

And of course, her mom and her sisters, and the sister who I had a chance, as Congressman Meek mentioned, I had a chance to visit Barbara and Mervyn when I went to visit them at home.

There were friends, and I know that I will get in trouble, but I know that the Mayor of Warrensville I believe is the name, Mayor Fudge, a dear friend and a part of the Delta family. But I know the guy that she calls Joe Hewitt; never a single name, just calling him Joe Hewitt, larger than life, someone that she cared about; he cared about her. We had a chance to fellowship with their family.

So I wanted to just come and say that, as we talk about sisterhood, it is really real. And as we talk about traveling with her, it is really real. As we talk about being larger than life, it is really real as well.

And I want to close simply by just adding to what my good friend, Marcy Kaptur from Cleveland said, as I looked at the three Congresspersons, one from Maryland, California and New York, three beautiful young women. And we lost Congresswoman Julia Carson, Juanita Millender-McDonald, and now Stephanie Tubbs Jones, all mentors. And look at the legacy that they have left.

Look at the legacy of Stephanie Tubbs Jones, who I call a great patriot, a great American, because she could fight you for her love for America. She would not take a back seat. Whether or not she was talking about predatory lending or whether she was talking about health care that did not occur in her community around the Nation, or those incarcerated persons who were treated unfairly and didn't get a second chance, she still loved America.

So I want to leave us with the words of Sojourner Truth. And it was when she was sitting in the back of the room, and it was during the abolitionist movement, suffragette movement. And it was crowded, and she saw they saw her hand raise up, and the person called on sir, or indicated that she was a man. And Sojourner Truth stood up and said, ain't I a woman? I born 13 children into slavery. Ain't I a woman?

To Stephanie Tubbs Jones, there will be no doubt that she was a woman's woman and a leader's leader.

And finally, in closing, if I can read from Philippians Chapter 4, verse 8: Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things.''

Let us think on the life of Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and let us, in all of our imperfections, and we have them, embellish those things in ourselves. And as the Congressional Black Caucus, let us live on, and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, of which my distinguished colleague is the Chair, let her spirit live on as we do her work and do the work of the Lord.

I rise today with a conflict of emotions to recognize Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. I stand with a heavy heart enriched and gladdened that I had the opportunity of knowing and working with such a beacon of light here in Congress.

Before heading to the funeral I was reminded of the words of, Mother Teresa, ``There is a light in this world, a healing spirit--more powerful than any darkness we may encounter. We sometimes lose sight of this force, when there is suffering, and too much pain. Then suddenly, the spirit will emerge through the lives of ordinary people who hear a call and answer in extraordinary ways.''

That is why although I rise with a heavy heart at the loss of a colleague and friend, I stand with a realization and gratefulness for all that Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones was able to do for her family, for her constituents, and for her country in her brief time here on this earth. I also believe that Congresswoman Tubbs Jones is in a better place and is looking down on us with that contagious smile and generous nature that made us all love working with her.

As Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus members, the Congresswoman and I spent a lot of time working together and talking about our lives, our unique work, and the issues facing our nation.

History

I had the opportunity to get to know this great woman and learn that she was born in Cleveland, Ohio, where she graduated from the city's public schools, later earning degrees from Case Western Reserve University, the Flora Stone Mather College, and Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

I knew that she was a proud member of Delta Sigma Theta; and even more proud to have been married to the love of her life, Mervyn L. Jones, Sr., for over 27 years until his passing in 2003. Together she and Mervyn had one son; Mervyn Leroy Jones, Jr., who was the light of her life.

Like me, Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a lawyer who had been a local judge. She served on the Cleveland Municipal Court in 1981, and later on the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County before becoming the Representative for the 11th District of Ohio.

She was selected to be the Chairwoman of the House Ethics Committee to watch over the standards of ethical conduct for members of the House. She also served on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee where she fought for economic development and financial opportunities for all. She was loved by her district, and was routinely reelected against nominal opposition.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones spent 58 years on this earth and she was a blessing and her memory will always be a treasure. She was loved beyond words, and will be missed beyond measure by all that knew her.

Over the last few months, Congresswoman Tubbs Jones and I travelled across the country together. She was always focused on doing the ``right thing''. She understood that in this unique work of ours we serve the people, but we must also answer to our conscience. Doing the ``right thing'' in this job is not always an easy task--but she did it day in and day out as she worked to help the people of Ohio, Americans across this great Nation, and our men and women overseas.

She was an outstanding example of what it means to be leader. She epitomized service before self. Indeed, as a society, we must do all we can do to build upon the strength of service to help strengthen the fabric of the Nation. I offer the Tubbs-Jones family encouragement in their time of bereavement by saying, ``Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.'' Her work on Earth is complete. We join the Lord in saying, well done, thou good and faithful servant. She was a fighter for issues that affect the least among us and in all the years she was in Congress--she never forgot that. Now let us not forget her.

conclusion

The Bible states in Philippians chapter 4 verse 8: ``Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.''

Let us remember Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a public servant, a colleague--a friend.

[From the New York Times, Aug. 21, 2008]

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Lawmaker, Dies at 58

(By Dennis Hevesi)

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the first African-American woman

elected to the House of Representatives from Ohio and a

leader in the fight against predatory lending practices, died

Wednesday. She was 58.

The cause was a ruptured brain aneurysm that Ms. Tubbs

Jones suffered Tuesday, Eileen Sheil, a spokeswoman for the

Cleveland Clinic, which owns the Huron Hospital in East

Cleveland where the congresswoman died, told The Associated

Press.

Ms. Tubbs Jones, a Democrat, was in her fifth term as

representative of the 11th Congressional District, which

includes most of the east side of Cleveland. Two years ago,

she was re-elected with 83 percent of the vote. Before her

first election to Congress, in 1998, she had been the chief

prosecutor for Cuyahoga County in Ohio.

Considered a liberal, Ms. Tubbs Jones was a co-sponsor of

legislative efforts to broaden health care coverage for low-

and middle-income people and of programs supporting the re-

entry of convicts into their communities. She was also the

author of legislation requiring certification for mortgage

brokers and stiffer penalties for predatory loans.

In June, Ms. Tubbs Jones voted against emergency

supplemental financing for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

``I feel it important that we have a plan for a timely

redeployment of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan before

we continue funding what has become a seemingly endless

war,'' she said at the time.

When Congress officially ratified President Bush's re-

election in January 2005, Ms. Tubbs Jones joined Senator

Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, in initiating a rare

challenge to what has historically been a polite formal

ceremony. They were objecting to accepting Ohio's 20

electoral votes for Mr. Bush, citing voting irregularities in

the state.

Instead of holding a courteous joint session to certify the

election, lawmakers were forced to retreat to their separate

chambers for two hours of debate. In the end, the House voted

267 to 31 against the challenge; in the Senate, the vote was

74 to 1.

Stephanie Tubbs was born in Cleveland on Sept. 10, 1949.

She graduated from Case Western Reserve University in 1971

and received her law degree there three years later.

From 1976 to 1979, she was an assistant Cuyahoga County

prosecutor. In 1981, she won election as a Cleveland

Municipal Court judge, and 10 years later she was appointed

chief prosecutor.

As chief prosecutor, Ms. Tubbs Jones was at the center of a

controversy in 1998 when she refused to reopen an

investigation into the 1954 murder of the wife of Dr. Sam

Sheppard, dismissing new DNA evidence that Dr. Sheppard's

supporters said would have exonerated him.

The case had received nationwide coverage in the 1950s. Dr.

Sheppard spent 10 years in prison before the Supreme Court

ruled that his trial had been prejudiced by publicity. He was

acquitted at a second trial, in 1966, and died in 1970. With

the new evidence, Dr. Sheppard's son was seeking to collect

damages on behalf of his father. Ms. Tubbs Jones argued that

the new DNA results would be inadmissible because the samples

were too old.

Ms. Tubbs Jones's husband of 27 years, Mervyn L. Jones Sr.,

died in 2003. She is survived by her son, Mervyn II.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1332, ``Recognizing the importance of connecting foster youth to the workforce through internship programs, and encouraging employers to increase employment of former foster youth''. First, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, Dennis Cardoza of California, for introducing this important piece of legislation. This resolution will recognize the significance of creating links between foster youth and the workplace through internship opportunities while also urging employers to pursue former foster youth. The creation of internship and employment opportunities for current and former foster youths has the potential to dramatically shape the lives of thousands for the better. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this act.

There are over 500,000 children and youth in foster care. As the youth age out of the system, 50 percent become homeless within the first 18 months of emancipation. Less than half of these youth are employed 2.5-4 years after leaving the system. Only 38 percent remain employed for over a year. Former foster care youth are twice as likely to have children in foster care. This problem is systemic, yet through opportunities and internships we can break this cycle of impoverishment and failure.

This bill is an appeal to our Nation's employers to help us address this issue by providing internships for disadvantaged foster youth, and by providing employment once they ``age-out'' of the foster care system. Such action will instill knowledge and work-ethic. These experiences will open up a new world of opportunity to a group that was struggling, not due to a lack of inherent qualifications, but rather due to the misfortunes of their upbringing.

This resolution will express the desire of Congress to address the problems of foster care youth, and this resolution will express Congress' widespread support of partnerships and initiatives between businesses and foster care programs, to help better prepare foster care youth for the working world.

This resolution seeks to benefit the over 500,000 foster care children and youth by providing them with the opportunity to further themselves through educational and work experiences. As these experiences accrue, they will present the foster youth with an idea of the opportunities latent within their world, and will hopefully inspire them to move forward in pursuit of job and educational opportunities.

As of 2003 there were 26,133 children in the Texas foster care system. Since then, the number has only risen. For many of these children the future will include stints in jail, poverty, and homelessness, yet strong action on the part of businesses and foster care programs in creating internships and partnerships may save many from this fate, leading them to secure jobs and successful lives. I have often concerned myself with issues regarding the safety and success of our future, our Nation's children. By preventing toxic lead levels in houses, by ensuring the safety of children in schools, and by encouraging businesses to form partnerships with foster care, we take small, but significant, steps toward guaranteeing the well-being of our children and the security our Nation's future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.