Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on Saturday, the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis was reopened. It is a spectacular display with all of the up-to-date technologies of civil rights in America, from the Middle Passage to April 4, 1968, which was the assassination of Martin Luther King at the Lorraine Motel, the site of the museum.

As I toured the fabulous museum, I thought about how far America had come and how much farther it needs to go. There are stories about the Voting Rights Act; yet I thought about the Supreme Court's striking down provisions and about the impossibility of getting sponsors here sufficient to pass a renewed Voting Rights Act, which is so necessary to America's fulfilling its purpose.

I thought about the Affordable Care Act and efforts to repeal it, to simply give health care to individuals, many of whom are poor and haven't had health care before. I thought about jobs bills because, without economic justice, you don't have social justice in full effect.

You need infrastructure bills. You need minimum wage, and you need unemployment insurance. We have a long way to go to fulfill Dr. King's dream.

I am pleased the museum reopened. It is spectacular. I urge all people to come to Memphis and visit it, and I urge all people to think about Dr. King and to try to fulfill his dream by passing those measures that are necessary.

I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding, and I appreciate the whip for bringing this hour to the attention of Members of Congress and the opportunity to speak on this historic 20th anniversary of this slaughter.

I had the opportunity to visit Rwanda in the company of one of the great men who served in this House, Congressman Donald Payne of New Jersey. Congressman Payne had made several trips to Rwanda and several trips to Africa.

We visited the memorial there to the victims, which is a very special place in the world, burial spots and flowers and plaques and the museum company there, too. It made a great impression on me, and it would make a great impression on anybody.

One thing that came out of the trip was my realization that today, in Rwanda, the Hutus and the Tutsis get along and that what was horrific 20 years ago, in one of the most horrific ethnic cleansings--or attempted ethnic cleansings and hate, atrocities, murders, over time, the Rwandan people have overcome them.

The distinctions are no longer present, and the people do get along. Obviously, because of the horrific situation, there is an imbalance in the populations, and I am sure there are still some memories; but we do need to learn, as I am sure has been said, about when we turn to thinking of other people as different because we are all the same.

There was a time a little after this, I think it was about 1999, when I was at Union Station. President Clinton was there, and we had some time to talk, and he related how the Human Genome Project that Dr. Francis Collins--now the head of the NIH--was heading up and how that we are all 99.96 percent the same, and we are.

He mentioned the Hutus and the Tutsis and how they were just so, so, so, so, so alike, but the minor differences that were visible caused them to have this awful, awful, horrific genocide.

It pained President Clinton. Whip Hoyer mentioned that this is something that he brought up before, that it was a mistake while he was President not to intervene. It was right after the difficulty that we had in Mogadishu with the helicopter and the way the American soldiers were killed and horrifically treated in the streets of Mogadishu by the Somali groups there.

It was a reticence to get involved in another situation in Africa, and it is a tight line sometimes to determine when you go in and when you don't. Well, the President made a mistake there, as he has admitted over the years.

If we look at other situations that might present themselves to us, as Members of Congress, we have to realize the United States of America has a special place in the world.

We are the only country that has the ability to see that mankind doesn't engage in horrific genocides again, so when the opportunity for the United States to get involved and prevent a slaughter, prevent a genocide, the United States has a responsibility.

Inasmuch as it is difficult after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to commit our troops to action when situations like Rwanda present themselves, it is incumbent upon us, I think, to support--whoever is the President--in taking the proper actions to preserve humanity.

So I thank Whip Hoyer for calling for this hour and Mr. Cleaver for leading it, and I just wanted to add my thoughts and my reflections after having visited Rwanda with a great Member of Congress, Donald Payne.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and achievements of First Lieutenant David Darwin Silberberg. Mr. Silberberg served as an accomplished attorney in Memphis and has been internationally recognized for his discovery during World War II of countless documents and priceless works of art that were hidden by the Nazis in Germany. Although not technically a member of the famed ``Monuments Men'' now receiving acclaim in Hollywood, his achievements were no less notable.

Lieutenant Silberberg was born in Niedenstein, Germany on March 20, 1921 to Lee and Rosa Silberberg. In 1936, as the Nazis were gaining power, he and his family moved to Memphis, TN. When World War II broke out, he joined the U.S. Army and went to fight against his native land. While with his unit in the Harz Mountains of Germany he came across a broken down truck in a ditch outside of Degenershausen with various papers scattered around. As a German speaker, he could read the papers and they appeared to be important, including one signed by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, so he investigated them further. This led him and his unit to the Chateau Degenershausen, where he and his group uncovered numerous files full of military command papers dating back to World War I. Some of the documents were even signed by Adolf Hitler, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and Otto von Bismarck.

Upon questioning of the Chateau's owners, he learned the locations of two other hiding places for similar documents, both of them located in the Harz Mountains. One of the locations was Castle Falkenstein, where the Lieutenant not only found archives dating as far back as the Franco-Prussian War, but also numerous crates holding paintings, sculptures and other artistic works, comprising the entire Library of the Berlin Academy of Arts. After discovering that officials in Berlin had ordered that the documents be burned Lieutenant Silberberg prevented their destruction, thereby saving countless historical artifacts, enough to fill fifty C-47 transport planes.

In the midst of these critical discoveries, it was learned that 250,000 German soldiers had made a major defensive stand outside Berlin. Thus, Lieutenant Silberberg left the archives behind and joined the Allies' effort in one of the War's last big campaigns in Europe. The military career of Lieutenant Silberberg is truly one for the history books. His accomplishments earned him much honor and respect and were noted by the BBC, Memphis Commercial Appeal and the Ninth Infantry Division Association. He served overseas twice during World War II: first with the 9th Infantry from Normandy to VE Day and then with Military Intelligence and Counter Intelligence during the initial occupation of Germany. Because of his honorable federal active duty service, he held the rank of Major in the active Reserve and was assigned to Military Intelligence at the Memphis Army Reserve School. Finding importance in community involvement, Silberberg was also a member of the prestigious Leila Scott Lodge F. & A.M. and the American Legion Post 189.

Once he resettled in the United States after World War II, Silberberg attended Loyola College in Baltimore, Maryland and earned an L.L.B Degree from the University of Baltimore Law School in 1951. Soon after, he returned to Memphis to earn a B.S. Degree from Christian Brothers University (CBU) in 1956. Among his several awards, Silberberg was recognized for his contributions to society as a recipient of the CBU Distinguished Alumnus Award of 1974. He also served as the President of the National Alumni Board at CBU.

In addition to being a war hero, Lieutenant Silberberg was a successful attorney and civic activist in the city of Memphis, including within the Memphis Jewish community. A year following his death in 2007, Silberberg was one of a few notable lawyers and judges honored at the 2008 Memphis Bar Association Memorial Service during Law Week. The city of Memphis and the state of Tennessee lost a legend on July 14, 2007, and the difference he made each and every day will always be remembered. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in remembering Lieutenant David Darwin Silberberg. His was truly a life well-lived.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 46th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King being gunned down in Memphis, Tennessee.

Dr. King is well-known for his speech, ``I Have a Dream,'' about civil rights and social justice. When he died, he was fighting for economic justice. He was fighting for the right to organize and for better wages for human beings and to attack poverty.

Unfortunately, in this House, too often we hear about opposition to jobs bills, opposition to the minimum wage, opposition to health care for individuals who cannot afford it.

We even see the voting rights bill being struck down by the Supreme Court and the difficulty of getting a new one in this House, and we see people in the other Chamber who even

question the need for the civil rights bill.

Dr. King's dream is still just that, a dream. Many of us share that dream. One day, all of us will wake up and see reality, that the dream must be fulfilled. I hope that day comes soon.

In Memphis, it is a holiday for Dr. King. It should be a holiday for everyone, and we remember a great man and his great works.

I thank the gentlewoman for the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act hit a significant milestone yesterday: over 7 million people signed up for health care. I was very proud of it. I voted for the Affordable Care Act.

I suffered a debilitating illness when I was 5 years old, and my father was a doctor, but, beyond that, just knowing human beings and the need for health care, it was so important for me to see that people got health care. Fifty million Americans don't have it.

It was a great day when we gave the opportunity to these 7 million people, plus the many people that got Medicaid extended to them in States where the Governors were responsible and are accepting money to provide health care to people who needed it, while some other States are not, and the children who are able to stay on their parents' health care until they are 26. We are talking over 7 million people. When you add in the children and the Medicaid folks, it is a lot more people. It is a day America should be celebrating. It boggles my mind to see the other side bringing, for the 51st or 52nd time, a bill to repeal what is an effort to give 10 million Americans, or more, health care. We should be celebrating.

What you do unto the least of these, you do unto me. Health care is an essential basic element of life, and if you don't have health care, you are not going to have a fruitful and long life.

So I celebrate the passage of the bill and am in bewilderment at the fact that the Republicans are proudly having a 51st or 52nd opportunity to attack what is a bill that gives health care to people; gives parents the knowledge that their children are getting health care; gives children the relief that their parents, when they have illnesses, will be treated; and that nobody will be shut out because they have a preexisting condition. Being a woman won't be treated as a preexisting condition, and insurers will not be allowed to deny them health care because of their gender. The doughnut hole will be filled. This is a day to celebrate.

Above the Speaker's rostrum, Daniel Webster says: Let's do something great in our time here. Well, we did it, and we need to be proud of it.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in a meeting in my office and was unable to be present for rollcall Vote number 138, the Lowenthal Amendment to H.R. 2824.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the importance of the ongoing negotiations in Cyprus between Greek and Turkish Cypriots that would bring about a peaceful resolution to the dispute on a unified Cyprus. On February 24, 2014, Greek Cypriot negotiator, Andreas Mavroyiannis, and his Turkish Cypriot counterpart, Kudret Ozersay, resumed talks in what the United Nations has deemed as ``substantive discussions.'' This is promising news and it is my hope that these talks will mark the first, new steps toward a final settlement that will achieve a unified Cyprus.

The Republic of Cyprus has endured a long history of ethnic and religious battles between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. While Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities remain divided, with the latter isolated from the international community, a unified Cyprus has much to offer to the region and global community. A peacefully unified Cyprus would see increased tourism, exchanges of close culture ties, expanded trade opportunities, and a new and stable source of energy. Additionally, a unified Cyprus would create a state and society that protects the rights of all its citizens and help establish a sound government that reflects its rightful place in Europe.

During a phone call with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President Barack Obama thanked the Prime Minister for his role in reviving negotiations. Turkey's leadership in bringing this conflict to an end is welcomed during this time of heightened intensity in the region. Any resolution agreed to should emulate the UN mission in Cyprus' declaration that a settlement ``will be based on a bi-communal, bizonal federation with political equality.'' I ask my colleagues to join me in encouraging both parties to see past the roadblocks that have held back progress and redouble their efforts as they move forward on a solution. Likewise, I hope the Obama Administration will continue to use its influence to push for a swift resolution on the Cyprus question.

I stand with all Cypriots--in both communities--who seek to build a better Cyprus together.

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that reduces our deficit by $900 billion over the next 2 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and $200 billion in

the first year, and gives people an opportunity to participate out of the shadows of government and yet, be taxpaying citizens out in the front of society and be Americans who contribute to our economy and provide workers that we need to be a 21st century economy that is effective in keeping us as the world's number one economic power.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you yielding.

Mr. Chairman, as some of my colleagues said so eloquently during last week's Judiciary markup on this bill, that the majority's attempts to turn routine exercises of Presidential discretion into constitutional violations is nothing but a show and a pretext to attack the President of the United States.

The hearing we had reminded me of a Woody Allen saying in a movie called Bananas. Acting as Fielding Mellish, he said this is ``a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.'' That is what this bill is, that is what that hearing was, and that is what this proceeding is.

H.R. 4138 would establish a process by which one House of Congress could sue the President when it determines the President failed to faithfully execute a law--one House, not two Houses. They talk about the separation of powers.

The separation of powers is executive and legislative, and legislative is Senate and House. The House originates spending bills, and the Senate confirms judges and things like that.

There was some discussion yesterday, and the chairman brought up a situation where the Senate went to the court on an issue concerning some appointments, which the Senate had exclusive jurisdiction on, but it is when they had exclusive jurisdiction.

In situations where there is a bill passed and the Senate and the House coshare equally, unless the Senate and the House both want to act, it is not separation of powers; it is one House trying to act as a star Chamber to take down the President of the United States.

This bill would, if enacted, represent a massive upending of the carefully calibrated separation of powers of our Constitution--one House, not the two Houses of Congress acting.

One of the gentleman who tried to defend this law in Rules Committee talked about something in Florida. Well, Florida, whatever they have got, they have got some kind of situation; but that was a quo warranto action where the Governor was acting beyond his authority, ultra vires.

It wasn't where the President is acting within his authority in his discretion and determining what is the best way to act, a difference between taking action and not taking action and taking action you are authorized not to take and taking action you are authorized to take. They didn't defend their position once correctly.

Congress lacks the standing to sue, and Mr. Conyers has brought that up. Standing requirements are necessary. Also, by drafting Federal Courts into deciding what are essentially political questions, the bill further upsets that separation of powers.

Questions about when and how to implement and enforce laws are within the President's discretion as the Take Care Clause makes clear. It is the President's duty alone to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, not the courts' and not Congress'. The

courts rightly avoid involving themselves of disputes between the branches on questions of how law is executed. This bill flies in the face of such.

Ultimately, though, this bill and the larger debate surrounding it have nothing to do with the finer points of constitutional law. That is a red herring. It is a part of a broader attempt by Republicans to delegitimize anything that this President, Barack Obama, does.

Here, the majority complains, among other things, about the fact the President delayed implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act, like the employer mandates for medium and large businesses. The Rolling Stones had a song, sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you get what you need.

With the Affordable Care Act, they got what they wanted and what the President thought the country needed. Now, they are against it, holding the President up to ridicule and claiming it is the process, even though they are in agreement with the substance.

In Yiddish, that is called chutzpah; in law, it is called estoppel. In a Congress, it is called not being able to take yes for an answer.

I find it odd that this is what they choose to emphasize, that this President is acting in an allegedly unconstitutional way to undermine his own signature legislation.

It shows the depths of what Dana Milbank referred to as Obama derangement syndrome, where the President's opponents are so determined to thwart him, they will say anything, including reversing their own long-held views, if they believe doing so will weaken his stature.

This is unfortunate because President Obama has led where this Republican House has failed on immigration reform, on financial reform, on environmental protection, on the minimum wage, and, yes, on health care.

The thanks President Obama gets from this majority for his efforts to implement and enforce the laws as thoughtfully as he could is to be accused of violating the Constitution.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, more of the same. As with our consideration of the ``ENFORCE Act,'' H.R. 4138, I must note the lack of deliberative process pertaining to consideration of this bill.

The gentleman from South Carolina spoke eloquently on the other bill and talked about the need for process--the importance of process. Process can be important, but process was not important on this bill.

It wasn't important in the other bill. Like that other bill, the Judiciary Committee failed to hold a single legislative hearing.

The process is you have a hearing. People come in and talk--experts--

then you have a markup. You first start at the subcommittee. The subcommittee has a hearing, and they have a markup, and then you have a hearing and a markup in the full committee.

This one, not a hearing in the subcommittee, not a markup in the subcommittee, not a hearing in the committee; simply, all of a sudden-- presto--markup, process nixed. That is how we came up with the last bill and this bill.

When coupled with the fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle provided only the minimum notice regarding this bill, it is hard to believe that this is a serious attempt to legislate because it tramples on the legislative process, the rights of the minority to have notice, the rights of the public to have notice, and the right to have a hearing with experts testifying.

Unfortunately, the end product evidences what happens when you don't follow regular order, which is due process, notice, and a hearing. We do the same thing here.

Here are just a few of the problems with this bill: H.R. 3973 would impose burdensome and wasteful requirements on the Justice Department to the detriment of its law enforcement functions. They would probably have to hire new personnel and increase the debt, which, of course, the other side always talks about being passed on to the next generation.

Section 530D of title 28 of the United States Code already requires the Attorney General to report to Congress any instance in which the Attorney General or any Justice Department official establishes or implements a formal or informal policy against enforcing, applying, or administering a provision of Federal law on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional, and there are 94 U.S. attorneys and a whole bunch of agency heads and a whole bunch of cabinet members and folks.

Current law, therefore, allows an administration to refuse to enforce a law in the extremely limited circumstance where law is deemed unconstitutional. No other reason is sufficient.

H.R. 3973 fails to define exactly which individuals in the Federal Government would qualify as a ``Federal officer.'' There is nowhere in the USCA that I have seen--and we have researched it--where this Congress has defined a Federal officer, and yet we are instructing Federal officers.

Now, the courts might have had some gibberish, but this Congress never did.

As a result of this oversight, the Attorney General would have to review enforcement decisions by hundreds--if not thousands--of individuals who work in the executive branch and may qualify as officers in order to determine whether their decisions trigger the requirements in this bill. This burden would drain already limited resources in the Justice Department for its law enforcement responsibilities, which is its charge.

The majority's real purpose of H.R. 3973 is to prevent the President's implementation of duly enacted legislative initiatives that they oppose and to stymie the President's discretion in enforcement of those laws.

Allowing flexibility in the implementation of a new program, even where the statute mandates a specific deadline, is neither unusual nor a constitutional violation. And it has happened with administration to administration to administration.

Such flexibility is inherent in the President's duty to ``take care'' that he ``faithfully'' execute the laws. And the exercise of enforcement discretion is a traditional power of the Executive.

Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the exercise of such discretion is a function of the President's powers under the Take Care Clause, and this was reiterated by the Court as recently as 2012 in Arizona v. United States. This is particularly true if the bill's proponents intend to reach decisions like the deferred action on removing DREAMers from the country. That decision was a routine exercise of enforcement discretion, but H.R. 3973 would require the Attorney General to report on every such routine decision to Congress. You can't enforce every law to the fullest, and prosecutors and people make decisions on which are the most important and which are prioritized.

Professor Christopher Schroeder, the minority witness on the Judiciary Committee, noted that the number of such enforcement decisions is simply too numerous to count.

Given the foregoing, I must reiterate that this process is a waste of our time, especially when there are other far more pressing concerns to address.

How many times have we had people call us and tell us that they need unemployment compensation, that they don't have money to buy goods, to buy food for their child, to buy food for themselves, or to provide shelter? And yet unemployment insurance has lapsed.

How many times do we have people say they want to work and get a job, but we haven't passed an infrastructure bill. That is usually a bipartisan measure. For years, it has been bipartisan. Mr. Bill Young worked well on these bills getting things done. We don't have infrastructure bills to keep us going and deliver goods and services and put people to work.

How many times have people come up and talked to us about their concerns about health care, when we could be maybe coming together and finding ways to make health care even more affordable? The Affordable Care Act was a beginning, giving a lot of people health care they otherwise didn't have. In my district, the differential between African American women and White women in morbidity on breast cancer is the greatest it is in the country. And throughout the country, African American women are more likely to die of breast cancer than Caucasian.

Why is that?

It is not in their genes. No, Madam Speaker, it is not in their genes. It is because they have not had access to insurance and health facilities to get mammograms, to get checkups, and to get treated. They don't have the ability to get to those health centers which have been funded through the Affordable Care Act, more and more community health centers because of the Affordable Care Act, and to get insurance, which they are getting insurance. But in the past they haven't gotten it, their morbidity rate is greater, and they have died. Sometimes it is because they don't have transportation to get to the doctors, and that is because of our limited resources that we put in funding mass transit.

So in so many areas which we have neglected and should be dealing with now on health care issues, on the environment, on immigration, taking people out from the shadows and putting them to work legally where they pay taxes and where young people brought here with their parents made great grades in school, could go to college and stay here, participate and fulfill their dream and fulfill their potential, work hard and play by the rules, we are not doing that.

Instead of using this limited legislative time we have got, this is yet another opportunity to bash immigrants or to rail against giving health insurance to those who would otherwise be without it. We should be addressing these broken systems that we have on immigration, helping struggling homeowners and students buried in debt and fighting discrimination among many other challenges facing our great Nation, allowing people every opportunity to vote rather than taking voting opportunities away from them at every opportunity possible. That is the antithesis of America, trying to deny people the opportunity to vote under the veil of identity.

We are doing a disservice to the American people in choosing to spend our time on these issues which are issues that are not going to pass the Senate and see the light of day--and we know it--instead of trying to come together and work with each other. I have reached out to Members on the other side and said: Why don't we find common ground and pass something? They kind of look at me and say: I get my orders, too. Unfortunately, the orders aren't working for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Before I yield to Ms. Lofgren, I would just like to comment a couple of things.

Without disrespect to our Founding Fathers--I revere them all alike-- but Mr. Franks was talking about President Madison and the noble experiment and asked the rhetorical question, all people were equal under the law--except for African Americans who were slaves, people who couldn't pay a poll tax, and women. So let's get away from this homogenized perspective of the way the world was and try to get to the way the world should be.

Daniel Webster has a quote up there, by bringing forth all of our resources, develop our resources and our land and its institutions, so that while we are here, we, in our day and our generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered.

Well, we are not doing that today. And the references to the IRS have been debunked. They were equally applied to people who used organizations, 501(c)(4)s, beyond their original purpose. It was not anything political. And that goes to show the basic nature of this, because it is another attack on the President of the United States.

The President said: whenever I can take action without legislation. When he can take it without legislation, when he is permitted.

With that, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to say that Federal officer may be mentioned many times in the code, but not defined; not defined.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just like to respond a little bit to what was said, and it was said in a previous discussion by my friend from South Carolina about why Congress is in such disrepute. He was thinking, if we pass this bill, people will think better of us.

I would submit the reason Congress is in such disrepute is because the GOP shut down the government. People don't know about how you make a bill, per se, but they know they want their government opened. When they come to Washington, they want to go to different places. The GOP shut down the government for 17 days, and that is wrong.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

First, I want to set the record straight before we get too much revisionist history here. Yesterday in the Rules Committee, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, said that President Obama liked the law so much--the Affordable Care Act--that he had it named for himself. Today, my friend from Iowa said they put his name on it.

Well, he didn't define ``they.'' It wasn't us. It's the Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection Act. It was the opponents of the bill, them, that started calling it ``ObamaCare,'' thinking that would be a pejorative, and they have gotten so used to it, they think we did it. Take credit for what you do, but forgive them, for maybe they don't know what they do.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Yes, I am.

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

I would just like to say that while this legislation and the previous legislation is going nowhere, we should be dealing with the issues that face the American people, the serious issue of jobs and the environment and global warming and immigration reform and drug reform and freedom and liberty and justice and the American way.

I admire the Speaker. She is a fine woman and does a great job and has done a good job presiding today. And many of the Republicans, even though I don't agree with them, I think they are nice people, and most people here try to do the right thing. Unfortunately, some of the policies that they have I think put the country in a wrong direction, but they are basically nice people.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

You said you would definitely get a whole bunch of folks on both sides of the aisle?

Madam Speaker, I rise today to applaud the Minority Business Development Agency on its 45th anniversary.

The Minority Business Development Agency was established by executive order on March 5, 1969, and has worked to promote the growth and global competitiveness of a critical segment of

the U.S. economy, the minority business community. Through their nationwide network of MBDA Business Centers, the MBDA has helped minority firms access contracts, capital, and enter market opportunities, both domestic and global.

Over the last 5 years specifically, this assistance has provided minority firms access to nearly $20 billion in contracts and capital. I thank the MBDA for all it has accomplished over the last 45 years, especially the work at the Memphis MBDA Business Center in Tennessee Nine, my congressional district in Memphis, Tennessee.

In the coming years, the growth of America's workforce will come from minorities, and we need strong minority businesses to achieve maximum economic growth. I am certain the MBDA will lead the Nation to achieving our full potential.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 22nd anniversary of the Khojaly massacre in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. Khojaly, once the home to 7,000 people, was the site of the largest killing of ethnic Azerbaijani civilians in the course of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. On February 25, 1992, Armenian armed forces descended on Khojaly killing 613 people, of which 106 were women and 83 were children. Fifty-six people were reported to have been killed with extreme cruelty and torture. In addition, 1,275 people were taken hostage, 150 went missing and 487 people became disabled. Also according to records that have been maintained, 76 of the victims were teenagers, 8 families were wiped out and 25 children lost both of their parents while 130 lost one of their parents.

The extent of the cruelty of this massacre against women, children and the elderly was unfathomable. Today, the Nagorno-Karabakh region is under Armenian occupation, and this year's anniversary serves to remind us of the need to redouble efforts to help resolve the Armenia- Azerbaijan conflict. As the U.S., Russia and France are co-chairs of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's (OSCE) Minsk Group, which is charged with finding a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, we all must work diligently to bring about a swift end to this ongoing conflict.

The United States and Azerbaijan enjoy a strong partnership based on shared strategic interests. Our countries share many values, including a vision for greater diversity and tolerance as well as respect for minorities and gender rights. We have worked together to prevent the spread of extremism and Azerbaijan's vital contribution to the U.S.-led operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo cannot be understated. The United States, along with our European allies, also recognize Azerbaijan's leadership role in bringing stability to energy markets in the region and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan is a strong ally and friend of the United States in a strategically important and complex region of the world. As Azerbaijanis around the world observe this painful chapter in their country's history and remember lost loved ones, let us remember our support of peaceful efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and reforms that promote regional stability. I ask my colleagues to join me and our Azerbaijani friends in commemorating the tragedy that befell the town of Khojaly.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday in Memphis at 10 o'clock, I will be holding the first of a series of health forums on issues of importance to the people of the Ninth District. The one on Thursday will be on the racial difference in breast cancer morbidity. A New York Times story told of a study which showed that African American women have a greater likelihood than Caucasian women of dying from breast cancer in Memphis than any other city. We will have a panel to discuss it and try to find ways to have people get mammograms, change their diets, and see their physicians.

Under the Affordable Care Act, you don't have to pay a copay or a deductible to get preventative care. The Affordable Care Act could reverse that morbidity difference in Memphis. People need to get their mammograms.

People can go to community health centers that have been funded through the Affordable Care Act to get mammograms, watch their diet, and reverse this horrible trend. I encourage people to come to the Church Health Center on Union at 10 o'clock Thursday morning in Memphis to learn about this problem.

Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents, Memphian Command Master Chief Evelyn ``Vonn'' Banks, will retire on Saturday from the Navy with the honor of being the senior-most enlisted female in the United States Navy.

Her tours have ranged from the Navy recruiting district office in Memphis to a 10-month deployment on the USS Abraham Lincoln in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. She most recently served as command master chief at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis and has inspired countless young midshipwomen throughout her career by demonstrating that women can succeed and be influential in the Navy.

Command Master Chief Banks was at the Navy Yard in Washington on September 15, the day of the tragic shooting. She knew many, if not all, of the victims personally and attended the funeral of each of the 11 victims and the shooter.

Command Master Chief Banks has worn black for 120 consecutive days to mourn the lives of each: 10 days for each, and 10 for the shooter as well.

I appreciate the service of Command Master Chief Banks, wish her the best in her well-deserved retirement from the Navy, thank her for her service to our country, and welcome her back to Memphis, Tennessee.

She is an outstanding constituent who has served our country in the United States Navy for the last thirty years.

Command Master Chief Evelyn ``Vonn'' Banks will retire on February 1 with the honor of being the senior-most enlisted female in the United States Navy. After completing her recruit training in Orlando, Florida, her tours ranged from the Navy Recruiting District in Memphis to the USS Germantown in Japan to embarking on the USS Abraham Lincoln for a 10-month deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. She most recently served as Command Master Chief at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis.

A native of Memphis, Command Master Chief Banks sets a high standard for compassion. She was at the Navy Yard in Washington, DC on September 15, the day of the tragic shooting there. She knew many of the victims personally and attended the funeral of each of the eleven victims and the shooter. Command Master Chief Banks vowed to wear black for ten days for each of those who died. The shooting was nearly four months ago. True to her word, when I sat next to her on an airplane last month, she was dressed head to toe in black in honor of the lives lost that day.

Known to her grandchildren as ``Grandma Navy,'' Command Master Chief Banks kept her sights high. She was the first female Command Master Chief to serve at three different commands and was inducted into Career Communication's Group Black Engineer of the Year/Women of Color Hall of Fame. As she advanced through the ranks, Command Master Chief Banks recognized both the challenges and opportunities presented by serving in the Navy. Because of her demanding travel schedule, she enrolled in an online university and earned Associates, Bachelor's and Master's degrees and is currently working towards a Ph.D. She has inspired countless young midshipwomen by demonstrating that women can succeed and be influential in the Navy.

I appreciate the leadership of Command Master Chief Banks and urge others to look upon her career as an example. I wish her the best throughout her well-deserved retirement from the Navy and we thank her for her service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Judge Russell B. Sugarmon, Jr. on receiving the 2014 Be the Dream MLK Legacy Award. This special award is given to those individuals whose lives have ``embodied the spirit and legacy of service, sacrifice and hope'' that characterized the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As a trailblazer for African-American stewardship in public office in Memphis and a leader in the Civil Rights Movement, it is fitting that this award be bestowed upon Judge Sugarmon in recognition of his accomplishments and contributions.

Judge Sugarmon was born in Memphis, Tennessee on May 11, 1929, and graduated from Booker T. Washington High School in Memphis. He attended Morehouse College before receiving his B.A. degree from Rutgers University in 1950 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1953. He then served in the Army for two years, where he received a letter of commendation for his tour of duty in Japan. Upon returning to Memphis, in 1956, Russell began his work in private practice and later became a founding partner in the Memphis law firm of Ratner, Sugarmon, Lucas, Willis & Caldwell, the preeminent firm for civil and human rights cases. This was the first integrated law firm in the South.

In 1959, Russell Sugarmon became the first African-American in Memphis to run for a major city office when he ran for Public Works Commissioner. While this race was marred by heavy racial opposition to his candidacy, Russell's tenacity during this campaign paved the way for other African-Americans in Memphis to seek public office. Never one to be deterred by racial injustice, Russell successfully ran for a position on the Tennessee Democratic Party Executive Committee in 1964. Two years later, he was elected to the Tennessee General Assembly, becoming the second African-American in Tennessee to be elected to the Assembly post Reconstruction. From 1976 to 1987, Russell was a Referee in the Memphis Juvenile Court System before being appointed to serve as a judge for the General Sessions court. Judge Sugarmon was subsequently elected and re-elected to the bench and held his seat for 20 years until his retirement in 2006.

Over the course of Judge Sugarmon's life, he has been an active member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Working alongside notable Memphis pioneers and leaders in the fight for racial justice and equality, including the late Judge H. T. Lockard, Vasco and Maxine Smith, and A.W. Willis, Judge Sugarmon was instrumental in using the courts to desegregate public transportation, restaurants and public facilities. He also made headway in desegregating Memphis public schools. Both the NAACP and ACLU have honored Judge Sugarmon for his contributions to Memphis.

Judge Sugarmon was often a behind-the-scenes strategist in nearly every progressive political campaign in Memphis, including helping me during my State Senatorial and U.S. Congressional races. I am honored to know Russell Sugarmon as an attorney, a judge, a civil rights leader, an instrument of change and a friend. There is no doubt that his work is worthy of this award named after Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating Judge Russell B. Sugarmon, Jr. on being awarded the 2014 Be the Dream MLK Legacy Award.