Stephen Lynch

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who has dedicated his entire life to the betterment of his community and the success of his family. It is my great pleasure to inform the House of Representatives that Mr. Robert ``Elliott'' Powers of Savin Hill, in the Dorchester neighborhood of Massachusetts, is celebrating his 75th birthday at a surprise celebration with friends and family this Saturday, March 31st, 2007. Bob Powers is a lifelong resident of Boston who attended Boston public schools, including the Edward Everett and Christopher Columbus High School. Then, at the age of 17, Bob volunteered to serve his country by enlisting in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War. The Navy instilled in Bob a lifelong work ethic as well as personal pride and integrity. As a letter carrier, Bob was a familiar face in the South End, Back Bay, and the Prudential Center where for many years he worked to ensure postal customers received their mail in a timely and professional manner. For 38 years, as a member of the National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch No. 43, Bob Powers put on his uniform every day to ensure that the men, women, families, and businesses on his route received their mail. Bob set an example of hard work and dedication to his friends and family that nobly illustrates the best of the American work ethic. Madam Speaker, Bob Powers has also been a man committed to his community and has dedicated many hours and much energy to various activities within his home parish of St. William, including coaching basketball and managing the band. For many years Bob led St. William's Band, helping countless numbers of young people to find a purpose and direction in their lives. Through his thousands of volunteer hours Bob made sure that each young person had an opportunity to grow and learn in a safe, enriching, and fun environment. And most importantly, Bob has had the enormous pleasure and tremendous good fortune to be married to his wife Pat for over 47 years. Additionally, Bob has been blessed with five children: Rosemary, Trish, Kevin, Robert, and Caroline, and is the proud and, from what I hear, doting grandfather to Tierney, Colm, Brendan, Kelli, Erin, and Tara. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with Bob's family and friends to thank him for his service to his community and to wish him a happy and healthy 75th birthday. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating the birthday of Bob Powers and wishing him well in all his future endeavors.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, just on the point of the risk analysis and the risk-based strategy here, I do want to note that in our rail conference, our summit on rail security, at one point I did ask the union representative of Amtrak and some of the train crews that were present where they worked. They explained they are the train crews that travel on the trains that go beneath New York City. They run the Northeast corridor from basically Boston to Washington, D.C. I asked them if they had been trained on evacuation procedures in the tunnels beneath New York City and they explained to me that, no, they had not been trained on evacuating train passengers from the maze of tunnels beneath New York City. I think reason and experience would agree that that is something that would be included in our risk-based strategy.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Bennie Thompson, Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and Ranking Member Peter King for their great work on this bill. This amendment actually strengthens the worker training requirements contained in H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act, by ensuring that Congress is kept informed of the progress that must be made in rail and mass transportation providers providing basic security training to their front line workers. Specifically, this amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security within 1 year of issuing the worker training guidance mandated by section 109 of this bill to submit a comprehensive progress report to Congress on the steps that rail and mass transit entities have taken to meet the bill's worker-training requirements. Notably, this report must also include the result of a worker survey conducted by the Department on whether our front line rail workers and mass transit employees have actually received basic security training. Mr. Chairman, this amendment stems from the reluctance on the part of the Department of Homeland Security and the rail industry carriers to make worker training a priority. Back in November, Chairman Thompson and I addressed the National Rail Symposium here in Washington, a rail security conference attended by rail workers, union representatives, industry experts, and transportation scholars. The symposium marked the release of a key rail security study prepared by the National Rail College which noted that our Nation's rail workers continue to lack basic and necessary emergency and anti-terrorism training. The National Labor College study came on the heels of a 2005 Rail Worker Safety Report prepared by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Rail Security Conference based on over 4,000 surveys completed by the members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way employees. Regrettably, that report revealed that 84 percent, of rail workers surveyed had not received any terrorism prevention training within the last year, and that 64 percent had not ever been trained in their railroad emergency response plan. Mr. Chairman, reports that our locomotive engineers, our train crews, conductors, track workers, bridge and building trade employees, our electricians and all other front line rail employees have not received basic security training, are particularly troubling, given that the pattern of terrorist activity around the globe continues to be markedly centered on rail and mass transit. You can follow the pattern of attacks, Mr. Chairman. Whether it be in 1995 with the sarin gas attacks in Tokyo, the 1995 attacks by the Algerian rebels in Paris, the 2004 suicide bombings of the Moscow metro rail car by Chechen separatists, the 2004 Madrid train bombings, the 2005 London train bombings, or recently the 2006 Mumbai train bombings, terrorists have indicated that this is a preferred area of terrorism, and there is no indication that there is any let-up here. Their willingness to execute bold attacks on rail and transit systems worldwide continues. Yet despite these lessons learned, our rail and mass transit workers still lack basic and necessary security training, and since 9/11 we have spent over $24 billion on aviation security versus less than $600 million on rail and transit. The Rail Security Summit that we had in Boston not long ago revealed the fact that very few of these workers have been trained at all. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, as well as the main bill, bipartisan legislation that is the result of good work on the part of Chairman Thompson, again Ranking Member King of the Homeland Security Committee, as well as Chairman Oberstar and also Mr. Mica, the ranking member of the Transportation Committee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you very much. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to join the rest of the Members here tonight to say how proud we are of the fashion in which you have defended American workers and led this cause for all Americans. I rise tonight to address the House on the matter of the pending trade agreements with Peru and Colombia and the general trade promotion authority. There has been much talk over the past couple of weeks and all of us have heard it about the desire of our country to export democracy to the Middle East. I just have to say that I am a firm believer that you do not export democracy through the Defense Department, as has been suggested by this administration. What we are talking about here in these trade agreements, this is how you export democracy. If you are going to do it at all, it is through trade agreements which give other workers in other countries a fair opportunity to have a decent standard of living, and it is really incumbent upon us through the Commerce Department and these trade agreements to make sure that at the same time we protect our own workers, we also give a fair chance at a decent living to those of our neighbors internationally. Just like the job loss that has been described by Mr. Hare, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Michaud, as the gentleman from Maine indicated, I worked at a General Motors plant in Framingham, Massachusetts, and I saw the impact in Massachusetts and in Framingham of those 2,300 workers getting laid off. The same thing happened at the General Dynamics shipyard where I worked in Quincy, Massachusetts, and I saw the impact there, as well as the steel plants in the Midwest that I worked at which have also been closed down. What really gets me is as an ironworker hearing the talk in Washington, especially this administration, they talk about job loss like they talk about the weather, like it is something beyond their control, like it is a natural disaster that they have nothing to do with, when in reality when you look at the policies this administration has put forward, it is a deliberate cause and effect. The reason we are losing jobs is because of the policies that we have adopted. Just like so many other so-called free trade agreements, this Colombia and Peru trade agreement contain no meaningful language or effective labor and environmental standards for workers in those countries, nor does it provide adequate protections to our own workers. Madam Speaker, these trade agreements are based on deeply flawed models of NAFTA and CAFTA. We continually repeat the same mistakes and offer the same problematic language in our trade agreements. Instead of enforceable labor provisions, these free trade agreements merely suggest that those nations that we deal with adopt and enforce their own labor laws. They offer no assurance that existing labor problems will be resolved, and they allow labor law to be weakened or eliminated in the future with no possibility of recourse for those workers. From our experience, we understand that attaching nonbinding side letters is not enough; especially when you consider, as my colleagues mentioned tonight, the record of deplorable labor conditions in the two countries under consideration: Peru and Colombia. They are among the worst examples of labor laws and protections and enforcements in the world. Peru, as my colleague from Maine has pointed out, the U.S. State Department documented the failure of Peru's own labor laws to comply with U.S. internationally recognized worker rights and ILO core labor standards. Our own State Department included violations of child labor laws with an estimated one-quarter of all Peruvian children between the ages of 6 and 17 employed. The State Department also indicated Peru's noncompliance with minimum wage guidelines with roughly half of the workforce, about 50 percent of the workforce in Peru, earning the minimum wage or below. These conditions are a far cry from free trade. Instead, American workers are being asked to compete with underpaid, exploited and child labor workforces. One would think with such deplorable conditions in Peru, that the U.S. would insert enforceable labor standards in the agreement. However, the labor protections are weak and nonbinding. The same goes for Colombia, a country that is infamous for having the highest trade union assassinations in the world. Mr. Michaud pointed out that more than 2,000 labor activists have been murdered in Colombia since 1990. Until the Colombian government takes action to change this volatile situation, the United States should not offer any enhanced trade agreements with Colombia. We also must consider the national security implications of these agreements. Both Peru and Colombia harbor terrorist organizations with heavy involvement in narcotrafficking. While both countries have established financial intelligence units for analyzing and disseminating financial information connected with anti-terrorist financing regimes, greater cooperation from the Peruvian and Colombian government is crucial in undermining the funding mechanisms for these organizations. This crucial issue of national security cannot be overlooked when we consider these trade agreements. Madam Speaker, while sanctions and serious remedies are granted to the commercial trade and investment provisions of these free trade agreements, the labor, environmental and international security standards are completely ineffectual. There is no quick fix that can make trade agreements with these countries work for Colombian and Peruvian workers. To truly strengthen the trade agreements, Congress must also strengthen its negotiating mechanism. Not only are free trade agreements flawed trade models, it is paired with a flawed blueprint for negotiation, and that is the trade promotion authority. Congress needs a new procedure for trade negotiations because we are being held responsible for the damage all over the world. Under the TPA, Congress cedes its ability to control the content of these U.S. trade pacts. Yet we are stuck time and time again with the political liability for the damage that these trade pacts cause. This damage falls mainly to the American middle class, but also the Peruvian and Colombian agreements are replicating the same model of NAFTA and CAFTA that have been disastrous for the U.S. economy. Since NAFTA, over 1 million jobs have been lost nationwide, with over 23,000 jobs lost in my State of Massachusetts alone. This has reduced wage payments to U.S. workers by $7.6 billion for just 2004. The administration's trade agreement model is killing the American middle class, plain and simple. Not only has NAFTA been harmful for American workers in Mexico, it displaced 1.7 million campesinos and forced them towards overcrowded cities and to enter the U.S. illegally. Yet the administration has evidently not learned from NAFTA's mistakes. Instead, the administration insisted on zeroing out corn, rice and bean tariffs, even in the face of warnings from the Peruvian and Colombian governments. Such measures will expand the NAFTA disaster to Peru and Colombia. In their current form, the Peru and Colombian trade agreements will only export more economic hardship rather than democracy for foreign workers. So I urge my colleagues and I urge everyone to reject the Peru and Colombian trade agreements until the rights of labor and the environmental issues are contained in these agreements. They should be rejected. I believe in the potential of free trade, like my colleagues Mr. Hare and Ms. Kaptur and Mr. Michaud, but along with power, as the major world power, we have a responsibility to use that power in a way that softens the impact of globalization on our own American workers, as well as the workers from Peru and Colombia.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I want to, first of all, thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act. This is contract reform legislation that was reported favorably out of our Oversight Committee by unanimous consent, and I think that speaks to the merits of this bill. As a result of the hard work of Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Davis, this is a good first step in bringing accountability to contracting practices in our government. By minimizing the use, as others have said, of the abusive no-bid contract practice, we will reintroduce competition into this contracting protocol used by our government. As well as limiting the use of cost-plus contracts, we will strengthen the reporting and disclosure requirements for contract overcharges and increase funding for contract oversight personnel. H.R. 1362 will address the glaring weaknesses in our Federal procurement system that have caused considerable waste, fraud, and abuse of American taxpayer dollars. The need to reform Federal contracting law has been with us for some time and demonstrated, I think, glaringly during our series of contracting hearings in the House Oversight Committee, as we continue to examine a variety of misguided and poorly managed, poorly designed, and extremely costly Federal contracts that have been issued. In the area of Iraq reconstruction, where we have spent a lot of time, we have learned from William Reed, the Director of the DCAA, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, of more than $10 billion, 10 billion with a ``b,'' in questioned and unsupported costs related to our Iraq reconstruction and troop support contracts. In addition, based on updated data provided to the committee by DCAA, we know that Halliburton's three massive cost-plus contracts alone are the source of at least $2.7 billion in questioned and unsupported billings. And until recently, unfortunately, we have not had auditors on the ground in Iraq. The DCAA did not have contractors on the ground to review these contracts. They were auditing these contracts from Alexandria, Virginia. We have changed that process and put people on the ground. In the area of homeland security, we recently examined the Department of Homeland Security's $24 billion contract to modernize the Coast Guard's aging fleet and the $30 billion SBInet contract to design and implement a modernized border security plan. Based on thousands of pages of documents provided by DHS to our committee, we have learned that the Department's oversight of these massive contracts is severely limited by what they call the ``prime integrator'' contracts. These prime integrator contracts vest the government oversight responsibility in program design and construction to contractors to do this very work. In addition, we came to find out the Department had actually contracted out oversight functions that it had retained under the contract terms. This is a good first step. And I want to give great credit to Chairman Waxman for his good work and also Mr. Davis for building compromise in this, and I think that the American taxpayers will be better served by the result of the work of these two gentlemen.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chairman, I rise today in proud support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. There has been much said during this debate about what effect this bill will have for American workers and for our business community. In the simplest terms, the operative language of this bill allows American workers to have a voice in the workplace. It allows individual workers greater ability to come together and bargain collectively with their employer. In some cases it would mean that workers would have the opportunity to have a say when the company closes its pension fund or moves jobs overseas and lays off its workers. In some cases these hard-working Americans would have a chance to question exorbitant salaries paid to company CEOs. These workers may actually have a chance to bargain with their employer over health benefits. Now, it may seem threatening to some folks, that these workers will have a better chance to have a voice in the workplace. But that's basically it, that's what this bill is all about. Giving a little bit of power to workers who may have had their pensions eliminated and their jobs eliminated. These workers who would be powerless to have any effect individually will be able to get together, to associate, and bargain as one. For twenty years I worked as a union ironworker, one of the most dangerous occupations in our society. The safety standards that were maintained and enforced to make the job as safe as possible were made possible by the Ironworkers International Union and my brothers and sisters of the American Labor Movement. I can honestly say that I often find it strange that in a country as great as the United States, founded on individual freedom, freedom of expression and freedom of association, that it is necessary to actually have a Federal statute passed so you can join with your fellow workers in order to have a voice in the workplace. This bill actually allows human beings to exercise a moral right, a God-given right. The time is now, our cause is just, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 800, The Employee Free Choice Act and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63, which opposes the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. I do so because I am in total agreement with Generals Casey and Abizaid, who have said that what is needed in Iraq is a political solution and not a military one, and that additional troops are not recommended. I have had a chance to travel to Iraq five times now, and based on my own observations in places like Fallujah and Tikrit and Al Qaim out on the Syrian border, I firmly believe that it is the Iraqi people who must ultimately decide whether they are committed to building a better life for their children through democracy, or whether they are more committed to an all-or-nothing sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia. Madam Speaker, I believe that packing more troops into the narrow streets of Baghdad would be a disaster. As our daily briefings indicate, the dominant conflict now on the ground in Iraq is no longer Coalition forces against al Qaeda and supporters of the Baathist regime. As the daily body counts of tortured and executed Iraqis indicate, the prevailing conflict on the ground in Iraq now is a brutal civil war between the Sunni and Shia militias, with our troops in the middle. In fact, in a recent hearing here in Washington, it was entitled, ``Iraq: What Will it Take to Achieve National Reconciliation?'' Basically, as this hearing pointed out, the key mission that we have given to our troops is to somehow now reconcile the differences between Sunni and Shia in Iraq. Just to be clear on this, Madam Speaker, the Sunni and Shia have been in frequent conflict since the year 632 A.D., following the death of the prophet Mohammed. That is what we have asked our troops to do, in essence, to convince the Iraqis now to stop killing each other and to embrace democracy instead. The President has now asked our brave sons and daughters to take up a police action or essentially a civil affairs action, going door to door in Baghdad. The mission in Iraq has changed. I have to wonder, how many votes would the President and Vice President have gotten initially if they had been honest and said, We want to send our sons and/or daughters to Iraq in order to reconcile the differences between the Sunni and the Shia who have been fighting for almost 1,400 years. Not many, I think. But that is where we now find ourselves and our troops. While the mission in Iraq has changed, the President is staying the course. What's more, he has decided to push even harder in the wrong direction. Now is the time that the American people have fairly asked, What will Congress do? Many of my colleagues believe that this resolution doesn't go far enough; and in honesty, I tend to agree with that assessment. But I do believe that this resolution presents a solid and meaningful step in the right direction. There will be a further debate in coming weeks on the funding on how to best protect our troops while transitioning to Iraqi control in Iraq, and we will have more opportunity to do that. Lastly, I would like to address the argument that the continuing war in Iraq is necessary for fighting the global war on terrorism. As I have said before, I have been to Iraq five times now. One of the questions that I have repeatedly asked our people on the ground is, How much of this fight in Iraq is part of the global war on terror? How much of it is involving foreign fighters in al Qaeda? Unanimously, they have recommended that it is about 10 percent of the fight in Iraq. So 90 percent of our cost, 90 percent of our sacrifice, is in a matter that has nothing to do with the global war on terror. In fact, the Defense Department now says that the Mahdi Army, the main Shia militia, has replaced al Qaeda as the most dangerous force in the increasing violence there. If we are truly committed to the global war on terror, I might point out we have a situation in southeast Afghanistan and in Waziristan, where the Taliban, who actually did support al Qaeda and who actually did involve themselves in the attacks on September 11, are building support. While we spend $350 billion in Iraq, Pakistan has meanwhile allowed a safe haven to be established for the Taliban. If we are indeed committed to protecting America and the global war on terror, I would suggest that there are smarter and better ways to do that. Yes, the American people are waiting for this Congress to take a stand. It is time to step up. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. It is the first step in eventually bringing the troops home safely Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. LYNCH

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

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we are indeed very proud that this post office is being named after a postal employee, a very proud family. On behalf of all the workers of the United States Postal Service, we want to urge swift passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield for as much time as he may consume to my esteemed colleague from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 437, legislation naming a postal facility in Rio Grande City, Texas, after the former postmaster of Rio Grande City, Lino Perez, Jr. Lino Perez, Jr., was the 18-year-old son of the mayor of the City of Rio Grande, Texas, where he witnessed how a breakdown in a government service could disrupt the lives of nearly all of its beneficiaries. The City of Rio Grande, with a population of over 2,000, was disincorporated in 1933 at the height of the Great Depression over local businesses' refusal to pay taxes, causing young Perez's high school to lose its accredited status. Thereafter, unable to complete in school in town, Mr. Perez persevered with his education, attending classes 100 miles away in Brownsville and eventually receiving his diploma from a school in Austin. Mr. Perez's father, Lino Perez, Sr., had served for 4 years as the Democratic mayor of the now disbanded town of Rio Grande. Some might have feared that a town which had financially defaulted and disbanded its government would suffer the fate of so many ghost towns in the western States, slowly fading from the map. However, Mr. Perez, Sr., continued to look after his community, volunteering for the office of postmaster to his unincorporated neighbors. Mr. Perez, Sr., put his son, Lino Perez, Jr., to work delivering letters that same year. Mr. Speaker, Lino Perez, Jr., succeeded his father as postmaster of Rio Grande on New Year's Eve, 1957. During his first term, Mr. Perez improved service to the growing downtown district and the surrounding rural areas of Starr County. Mr. Perez strove to further serve the city by winning approval for a new post office building. The Perez family, senior, and then junior, ran that post office in Rio Grande from 1934 to 1975. Together, they watched the town heal from economic stagnancy and grow in population throughout the century. When Lino Perez, Jr., retired from the postal service, he continued his public service as State warden, State secretary and finally State treasurer of Texas. Lino Perez, Jr., learned from his father and, in turn, showed his town the strength of a community to weather difficulty as one, and the power of letter carriers to knit the lives of their fellow citizens together, to make all of the neighbors' stories into one story. Many local officials support naming this post office after Lino Perez, Jr., including the city mayor, the county judge, and the area's State Representative. Mr. Speaker, together with my colleagues, we urge the swift passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 437) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 500 West Eisenhower Street in Rio Grande City, Texas, as the ``Lino Perez, Jr. Post Office''.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in this House in the consideration of H.R. 414, legislation naming a postal facility in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico after the local politician, Miguel Angel Garcia Mendez. Mr. Garcia Mendez proudly served the territory of Puerto Rico as the youngest Speaker of Puerto Rico's House of Representatives, serving between 1932 and 1940. He later was elected senator and founded the newspaper, El Imparcial. Born in the town of Aguadilla on November 17, 1902, Mr. Garcia Mendez became an attorney and successful businessman. During his political career, he helped start the Republican Statehood Party, which was the predecessor of today's New Progressive Party, in 1948. Up until his death, he advocated for Puerto Rico statehood in the hope that they would gain the right as American citizens to vote for President and to have a counted vote in the U.S. Congress. Mr. Garcia Mendez passed away in November of 1998, and his dedication to service for all Puerto Ricans should be remembered and celebrated with this small tribute. Mr. Speaker, together with my colleagues in the House, I urge the swift passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 414) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 60 Calle McKinley, West in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the ``Miguel Angel Garcia Mendez Post Office Building''.

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

Mr. LYNCH

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

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 433, legislation naming a postal facility in Little Rock, Arkansas, after Scipio Africanus Jones. Mr. Jones was an African American lawyer, judge, professor and humanitarian. Born in 1863 as a slave, he is most noted for his work to appeal the conviction and death sentence of 12 black sharecroppers for their involvement in the Elaine Race Riot. The Elaine Race Riot is one of the bloodiest racial conflicts in American history. Mr. Jones' work brought the case to the United States Supreme Court, and as a result found mob driven trials violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Mr. Jones also made history when he personally purchased $50,000 worth of Liberty Bonds, which helped support the Allied war efforts in the First World War. Soon thereafter, President Woodrow Wilson appointed him to the Liberty Bond National Advisory Board. Later in his life, he continued to advocate against racial discrimination. He fought for black voting rights and worked with Thurgood Marshall in a case ensuring fair pay for African American teachers. His contribution impacted society's treatment towards blacks in a powerful way, and for this we all should be proud and remember him dearly. I urge the swift passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 433) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1700 Main Street in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the ``Scipio A. Jones Post Office Building''.

Mr. LYNCH

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

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the eloquent remarks of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) as much time as he may consume.