Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6229) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint Paul, Minnesota, as the ``Mayor William `Bill' Sandberg Post Office Building''.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to Representative McCollum of Minnesota.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I present for consideration and support H.R. 6229, which names a postal facility in North St. Paul, Minnesota, after Mayor William ``Bill'' Sandberg. H.R. 6229 was introduced by Representative Betty McCollum on June 10, 2008, and was reported from the Oversight Committee on July 16, 2008, by voice vote. The measure has been cosponsored by the entire Minnesota House delegation and pays tribute to one of the State's most well known public officials.

William ``Bill'' Sandberg was a longtime resident of North St. Paul, Minnesota, who served his beloved city as

mayor for 30 years until his death on April 20, 2008.

First elected in 1978, Mayor Sandberg was reelected seven times. Known for his good sense of humor, Mayor Sandberg once joked that the reason he kept getting reelected was simply because no one else wanted the job.

As mayor, Mr. Sandberg earned a reputation for his ability to bring people together by his warm, personable style. During the controversial meeting of the North St. Paul City Council, Mayor Sandberg once remarked that ``we were friends before the meeting, and while we may not agree on this, we will be friends when we walk out.'' He exhibited this same unique ability in bringing people together when he successfully solved divisive issues, such as the reconstruction of Highway 36.

Before assuming the position of mayor, Bill Sandberg served in the United States Army during the 1950s. He then went on to a successful business career, joining his parents' funeral home business in St. Paul and White Bear Lake, Minnesota.

So, Mr. Speaker, given Mayor Sandberg's commitment to his community, his State and to our country, I urge swift passage of this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time and urge passage.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6338) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4233 West Hillsboro Boulevard in Coconut Creek, Florida, as the ``Army SPC Daniel Agami Post Office Building''.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein), who introduced this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the House subcommittee with oversight authority for the United States Postal Service, I stand in support of H.R. 6338, which renames a postal facility in Coconut Creek, Florida, in honor of Specialist Daniel Agami.

H.R. 6338 enjoys the support of the entire House delegation from Florida

and was introduced by my colleague, Representative Ron Klein, on June 20, 2008. The measure was taken up by the Oversight Committee on July 16, 2008, where it was passed by voice vote.

H.R. 6338 calls for honoring Specialist Daniel Agami for his unwavering commitment, service and sacrifice to America. Army Specialist Daniel Agami died on June 21, 2007, in Baghdad from injuries he suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Schweinfurt, Germany.

While in college in 2005, he enlisted in the Army and was deployed to serve in Iraq the following year. Army Specialist Agami not only served as a combat soldier, but he was also a mentor for orphaned children in Iraq. Described as having a sunny personality, he was loved by the children he worked with and is certainly missed.

Daniel's parents were presented with his Purple Heart and Bronze Star at his funeral. Agami was also posthumously honored with the Good Conduct Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Iraqi Campaign Medal and the Combat Infantryman's Badge.

In honor of his tremendous service to this country, I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 6338 and renaming the postal facility on West Hillsboro Avenue in Coconut Creek, Florida, after Specialist Daniel Agami.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would urge passage and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that from 2001 to 2007, Republicans controlled all levels of power here in Washington. It was their opportunity to put the conservative economic ideas that they have been talking about for decades into law, and they did it.

Today we see the effect of these policies. Middle-class families are being squeezed by wages that have actually fallen by $300 since President Bush took office, 3.4 million more Americans are unemployed, 5.7 million more Americans are living in poverty.

Foreclosure rates have hit a record high with 2.5 million families expected to lose their homes this year. The dollar remains weak because President Bush continues to borrow record amounts of money from other countries.

This is the economy Washington Republicans created with policies towards the needs of the wealthiest few over those of hard-working, middle-class Americans. Now Senator McCain vows to continue those same economic policies if he wins the Presidency.

That does not sound like change to me.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 6842.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act.

The bill before us this evening has been crafted with great care and with utmost concern for the safety and well-being of our Nation's capital--its residents, businesses, visitors, and the Federal Government.

I would like to recognize and thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) as well as Committee Chairman Henry Waxman for their leadership in bringing today's bill to the floor and for not turning a blind eye to the concept of home rule and self-governance by attempting to rewrite the District's new gun laws since the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller case.

The measure has been considered and debated thoroughly by the oversight committee and was approved by a vote of 21-1, which demonstrates the bill's bipartisan support.

As chairman of the subcommittee with oversight authority over the District of Columbia, I am well aware of the long history behind the District's gun regulatory efforts as well as the city's continual efforts to protect its citizens against violence and crime. As chairman, I'm also well aware of the effect that the presence of the Federal Government places on the security concerns of the District.

H.R. 6842 seeks to highlight this issue by urging the District's city council to take into consideration such issues as homeland security, military functionality, threats of terrorism, and foreign dignitary protection as they continue to amend their laws to be in compliance with the Supreme Court's Heller decision.

The measure being considered today serves as a commonsense and practical approach to ensuring the requisite protection of our Nation's capital, while at the same time supporting the District in its efforts to reform its own gun laws versus rewriting the laws for them.

That is the job that the District's elected officials are tasked with, not Congress, and I am happy to see that this legislation recognizes that, especially since according to information from the District City Council, efforts are already underway to address several outstanding second amendment issues from the Supreme Court's Heller decision and expressed by Members of Congress in other pieces of legislation. The Council is revisiting the definition of ``machine guns'' and ``semiautomatics'' and making current gun storage requirements advisory versus mandatory.

In light of the city's efforts today, today's bill, H.R. 6842, represents both the least and the most we should be doing at this moment and at this level. The bill upon enactment gives the District 6 months to finalize its laws governing the possession and use of firearms as necessary to comply with the decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.

As the city continues to perform its work to produce a permanent gun law reform package, I am sure that at some point in the future Congress, under its legislative review authority, will have the chance to revisit this issue under regular and proper protocol. But until then, let us continue promoting the importance of self-government and home rule for the District of Columbia and the importance of safety and security in our Nation's capital by supporting H.R. 6842.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the primary author of the Norton bill, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton from Washington, D.C.

I yield another 30 seconds to the lady.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of Oversight and Government Reform, Mr. Henry Waxman.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Chairman, I would just say you can certainly kill more people with automatic weapons.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Representative Elijah Cummings.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a strong proponent of sane, sensible gun legislation, Representative Carolyn McCarthy from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Representative Lynn Woolsey.

Mr. Chairman, I'm absolutely certain that the people in Morton Grove, Illinois, would not suggest that they have a high-crime community.

It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Representative John Lewis.

Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to Representative Donna Edwards from Maryland.

I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, we've been debating tonight a gun issue. But it also is a home rule issue, an issue that simply says that the people of the District of Columbia should have the opportunity to make a decision about themselves. We're also debating a homeland security issue, a crime prevention issue, a safety issue. It's a foreign dignitary protection issue. But it's also a commonsense issue.

Common sense tells us that the more weapons you put on the street, the more likely you are to have disaster. And so H.R. 6842 represents and protects all of what we have discussed relative to the ability of the people of the District of Columbia to make their own decision.

I urge that we vote in favor of the Waxman-Norton bill and reject the Childers substitute.

I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment being offered.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Mississippi. The amendment, which is largely taken from the base bill H.R. 6691, goes way beyond the ruling that's been handed down by the Supreme Court in the Heller case and, ironically, would lead to less security and safety and greater risk in the Nation's capital.

Moreover, in light of the ruling in the Heller case, the gentleman's amendment touches on more than just the issue of gun ownership in the home for purposes of self-defense.

The amendment would allow the unfettered transport of guns and/or firearms and the possession of guns in businesses, and as written, the amendment only says businesses and nothing about businesses in which property is owned.

And what is even more disturbing about the amendment is that it strips the District of Columbia from issuing or enacting any rule, law, or regulation dealing with homeownership. Nowhere in the case was such an order or action addressed or even mentioned in the Heller Supreme Court decision as written by Justice Scalia. In fact, it is my understanding that the decision clearly stated that a range of gun regulations

are presumptively lawful. However, the gentleman's amendment fails to take that part of the Court's ruling into consideration.

When the Court overturned the District's long-standing gun laws, in order not to infringe upon the second amendment rights of District residents, it set in motion a process that would require the District Government to rewrite the laws and not the United States Congress or the House of Representatives. This would be the case in Tupelo, Mississippi. Therefore, the elected officials of the District of Columbia should have an opportunity to develop permanent legislation to bring the city into compliance with the Heller ruling.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, let me point out just what the amendment before us does. For starters, it would eliminate any form of gun registration which would prevent the city's police department from knowing who owns what type of gun or firearm.

Secondly, the language is written so broadly that it would permit individuals to carry assault rifles openly in public and on D.C. streets.

Lastly, I'd also like to point out that the amendment creates a gun show loophole that will allow D.C. residents to avoid background checks when purchasing weapons from private individuals and at gun shows without background checks.

While Members from both sides of the aisle agree on the importance of preserving individual rights, we must also recognize that we live in perilous times, and with lone-wolf terrorists and copycat shootings on the rise, flat out ignoring the homeland security interests of the District of Columbia and the Federal Government is downright reckless and risky.

But yet, this is exactly what this amendment has the potential to do, if adopted. As stated earlier, the District has already begun to revamp its laws, and in the coming months, we will have an opportunity to review the newly adopted gun ownership laws under our already well- established congressional review authority.

I ask my colleagues to recognize and respect this fact and to join me in opposing this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Maryland, Representative Donna Edwards.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentlelady.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentlewoman.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Representative Henry Waxman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Much of the discussion is about crime and crime prevention and protection. We sound as though people are invading people's homes and are murdering them and are attacking them. Much of the murder that I read about and that I hear about is really from drive-by shootings. It's really by individuals with semiautomatics who are engaged in turf battles over drugs, who are killing each other. They're not by people who are necessarily invading homes. They're by people who have access to these high-powered guns, people who are killing each other on the streets.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve. I understand that Mr. Childers is ready to close.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to certainly acknowledge the not only newness of the gentleman from Mississippi, but also his demeanor, his debate and his introduction of legislation. It occurred to me though if we were in West Point, Mississippi, or if we were in Fort Wayne, Indiana, or if we were in Western Pennsylvania telling the people in those communities what we thought they ought to be doing or the way in which we felt they had to be in compliance with the Supreme Court as they were wrestling with those decisions themselves, they probably would say that we were unwelcome.

I think that the people of the District of Columbia would say that this amendment is unwelcome, that it further takes away their right to self-governance. Here they are, they don't have a representative in Congress with a vote. Now we are saying that your City Council and your representatives on the City Council can't decide the way in which you would be in compliance with the highest court in our land.

Let me just mention that a previous speaker said that the District passed a law prohibiting District residents from bringing in weapons from across State lines. That was incorrect. In fact, Congress passed this law, not the District of Columbia. But this amendment would remove this restriction.

So I think Members should understand that this is the first step in the NRA's plan to repeal Federal gun control laws, not just in the District of Columbia. But I think it is a matter of using the District of Columbia to work one's will for other parts of the country and to work a national will using the people of the District of Columbia.

I think the protections that are needed and the compliance that is needed can be found in the Waxman-Norton bill, and that this amendment, the Childers amendment, unfortunately strips that bill of its impact. For that reason, I would urge that we reject the Childers amendment vote for the Norton-Waxman bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, we celebrate National Grandparents Day on the first Sunday after Labor Day every September. In honor of the 2008 National Grandparents Day, I wish to recognize the contribution of the millions of grandparent caregivers who raise their young relatives. In the United States, more than four and one half million grandparents are raising over six million children. These grandparents have embraced the role of full-time caregivers--juggling car seats, monitoring homework, and stretching fixed-incomes--to protect young children whose parents cannot provide them safe, permanent homes. This is not the vision of retirement that most of us hold, but it is a reality for millions of Americans.

In Illinois, approximately 80,000 grandparents head households that include young children. Indeed, my Congressional District has the highest percentage of children living with kinship caregivers in the Nation, followed by the First District of Illinois with the second highest percentage and the Second District with the tenth highest percentage in the nation. I know the sacrifice and dedication of these grandparents. I know the lengths they go to identify the resources and obtain supports for these youth, foregoing their own needs to provide for their grandchildren.

I am pleased that Congress is advancing legislation to support these grandparent caregivers. In June, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6307, the Fostering Connections to Success Act. This bill includes important provisions that I have championed for 4 years that will support kinship caregivers. Specifically, the bill includes the three core elements of my bill, H.R. 2188, the Kinship Caregiver Support Act, which I introduced with Representative Tim Johnson: It allows states to use Federal funds to support family caregivers' raising relatives who were in the foster care system; it provides funding to establish kinship navigator programs; and it requires notification of relatives when a child enters the foster care system. The Senate Committee on Finance is advancing related legislation this week. It is important that Congress acts quickly to support grandparent-headed families. Research clearly shows that kinship foster care families are safer, more stable placements that are more likely to keep children connected with their siblings and communities than non-relative placements. Further, these placements are cost effective. In Illinois, cost studies found a projected savings of approximately $48 million over 10 years. We know that millions of grandparents care for grandchildren who never entered the foster care system, and we need to include supports--such as kinship navigator programs--to help these families identify and access services as well.

National Grandparents Day reminds us to care for our seniors. It is a fact of nature that all of us will turn grayer. I hope that Congress will succeed in implementing key supports for kinship caregivers who have done so much to protect and care for some of our most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform be authorized to file a supplemental report to accompany H.R. 6322.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 5683) to make certain reforms with respect to the Government Accountability Office, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, we come to the House floor to consider and pass what, in my opinion, is a vitally important piece of legislation designed to ensure the continual effectiveness of the U.S. Congress. H.R. 5683, the Government Accountability Act of 2008, will allow the Government Accountability Office to regain its footing as a premier government agency that both promotes its employees as the best and the brightest, as well as treats them as such.

On April 2, after a 2-year investigation and several subcommittee hearings, I introduced H.R. 5683, which would restore the 2006 and 2007 annual

across-the-board increase to GAO employees who met expectations but did not receive the adjustment.

In summary, the legislation sets a ``floor guarantee'' that would preserve GAO's performance-based compensation system, while ensuring that GAO employees receive an annual increase in their permanent pay, provided they meet expectations, that is at least equal to the congressionally approved across-the-board increase. The floor guarantee will be comprised of the annual adjustment to the GAO pay schedule plus the permanent merit pay increase received by an employee under GAO's merit pay system.

Other provisions in the bill include creating a statutory Inspector General for GAO, permitting the Comptroller General greater flexibility to administer oaths to witnesses when auditing and settling accounts, enabling the CG to expenditures for meals and other expenses in connection with recruitment, and eliminates the statutorily employed GS-15 pay cap to allow the Comptroller General the authority to pay employees up to the rate for Executive Level III.

After consideration by our colleagues in the Senate, H.R. 5683 returns to us in the House amended and, in some respects, strengthened by the inclusion of language requiring the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, or any other Federal agency that the GAO elects to audit, to reimburse the GAO for the cost of performing such audits during fiscal year 2007. The most recent iteration of the bill also makes sure that GAO would be reimbursed by an agency that asks to be audited and elects to pay for the audit.

While the bill represents a significant step forward, the subcommittee and many Members of the House still recognize that more work needs to be done at GAO. Nevertheless, H.R. 5683 will help improve the morale at GAO and remedy the inequities that resulted from the denial of the 2006 and 2007 across-the-board adjustments.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will once again join GAO and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers and support the passage of this bill.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his support of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6168) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 112 South 5th Street in Saint Charles, Missouri, as the ``Lance Corporal Drew W. Weaver Post Office Building''.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I present for consideration and support H.R. 6168, which names a postal facility in St. Charles, Missouri, after Lance Corporal Drew Weaver, a heroic marine and great American.

H.R. 6198 was introduced by a colleague, Representative Akin of Missouri, on June 3, 2008, and has been considered by and reported from the Oversight Committee. I should mention that the measure had the support of the entire congressional delegation from Missouri before the committee approved the bill by a voice vote on July 16, 2008.

Lance Corporal Drew Weaver was assigned to the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division I, Marine Expeditionary Force Twenty-Nine out of Palms, California, and was serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom during the time of his death. A true hero and American serviceman, Lance Corporal Weaver was well known not only for his service to his country, but also for his service to his local community of St. Charles, Missouri.

St. Charles, Missouri is proud of their hometown hero for the sacrifices he so nobly made, and those of us in the House of Representatives are as well. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, let us remember and pay tribute to the life and legacy of the courageous Lance Corporal Weaver and pass H.R. 6168 without objection.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6169) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 15455 Manchester Road in Ballwin, Missouri, as the ``Specialist Peter J. Navarro Post Office Building''.

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

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

As a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform I am pleased to join my colleagues, particularly the gentleman from Missouri, in the consideration of H.R. 6169, which names a postal facility in Baldwin, Missouri, after a fallen hero, Specialist Peter J. Navarro.

Introduced on June 3, 2008, H.R. 6169 is sponsored by Congressman Todd Akin, representative of Missouri's Second Congressional District, and co-sponsored by Missouri's entire congressional delegation and a total of eight Members of Congress. H.R. 6169 was reported from the Oversight Committee on July 16, 2008 by a voice vote.

Upon graduating from Lafayette High School in Wildwood, Missouri, Specialist Peter J. Navarro was assigned to the Army's 2nd Battalion and served in that capacity as an outstanding member of his regiment. While conducting combat operations, an improvised explosion device was detonated near his Humvee, killing the 20-year-old.

His mother had asked him not to return to Iraq, but being the dedicated soldier that he was, Specialist Navarro returned because he believed in the mission. Described as a strong willed and caring young man, Specialist Peter J. Navarro served his country in Iraq with pride and distinction. In honor of this sacrifice, Mr. Speaker, let us also pay tribute to the life of Specialist Navarro and pass H.R. 6169 and designate the Manchester Road Post Office Building in Baldwin, Missouri, after this fine and outstanding American soldier.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join with Representative Akin. And we would urge passage of this legislation in honor of an outstanding American soldier.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues as we come this evening to pay tribute to our colleague, Stephanie Tubbs Jones. I am pleased to follow so many of my distinguished colleagues, because they have said so much until there isn't much to say. But the interesting thing is that with Stephanie Tubbs Jones, you never run out of things to say, because she was so much and meant so much to so many.

It is interesting that when you knew Stephanie, you knew her whole family. You just didn't know her, you knew her sister; you knew her father; you knew her mother; you knew Mervyn; you knew her husband, Mervyn the first; you knew Mervyn the second; you knew nieces and nephews; you knew friends; and you almost got to know the whole of Cleveland if you knew Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

Stephanie, as many people have already indicated, had a great legal mind. Prior to coming to Congress, she served as both a prosecutor and a judge. And the interesting thing about prosecution is that you are generally trying to make sure that the law is upheld, and that once people commit infractions, that they pay a price. Of course, that is what prosecutors often do.

Well, Stephanie had another interest in the law, and she wanted to make sure that the law also had a sense of justice. And even though she was a prosecutor, brother Kendrick, even though she was a prosecutor, she was a champion for those who had committed crimes, who had been convicted of crimes, and was one of the staunchest supporters of something called the Second Chance Act.

That is a bill which simply says that once individuals have fallen, that they also need to be lifted up; that once they have had problems, they need to be reclaimed; and, once they had committed crimes for which they may have been punished, they also needed to be redeemed. And so it was very pleasant for me to work with Stephanie on the Second Chance legislation.

She befriended people from all walks of life. It didn't matter if they were Democrats or Republicans, or they had been prosecuted.

As a matter of fact, when I think of her, I often think of the poet Homer, who talked about the kind of house that he wanted to live in, and I think Stephanie was an embodiment of that kind of house. And when he said,

``Let me live in my house by the side of the road, where the race of men go by. Men who are good, men who are bad, wise, foolish. But then, so am I. So why would I sit in the scorner's seat or hurl the cynic's ban? But let me live in my house by the side of the road and be a friend to man.''

Stephanie was indeed a friend to mankind, to humankind.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus I would like to honor the 60th anniversary of the integration of the United States Armed Forces, which began on July 26, 1948. When talking about an issue that happened in the past, we tend to think of it as something that happened overnight or that it was easy. Integrating the military was not at all easy, but it was a critical step to moving our nation forward in terms of civil rights.

President Harry S Truman initiated the effort to integrate the Armed Forces at the request of many black civil rights leaders. Not too many people expected the President to embrace integration within the military. Truman was born in Missouri, and his opinion on the issue was that of any average Missourian of his time. However, as he learned about the atrocities that were being committed against blacks, especially against those that had served in World War II, he became much more committed to civil rights issues and integrating the military. Indeed, President Truman outlined in his administration's policies key civil rights efforts, including forming agencies to address voting rights and fair employment. The most progressive of his actions was the desegregation of the U.S. Armed Forces, which was proposed by the President's Committee on Civil Rights.

Support, however, did not come readily from Congress which was uninterested in civil rights issues. Indeed, the civil rights of Truman's priorities drew widespread criticism from Southern Democrats. Members of the military also were skeptical, with particular concern about legislation that would end racism overnight rather than more gradually. The argument offered by opponents was that, if blacks were allowed to be integrated into the Armed Forces, many whites would not want to join. Proponents of integration countered that the Federal government must take a leadership role in integrating; if Congress did not integrate Federal jobs, the private sector would definitely avoid doing so. To achieve advances in civil rights, Truman appointed The President's Committee on Civil Rights, which was charged to determine how to strengthen and improve Federal, State, and local laws to safeguard civil rights. The Committee identified multiple policies for Congressional action; however, Truman asserted that civil rights in the services fell under executive purview. On July 26, 1948, Truman signed Executive Order 9981 which mandated equal treatment and opportunity for black members in the Armed Forces. In the end, it was through the commitment and persistence of various leaders that we have an integrated military.

The world would be a different place today if such proposals were not made against the status quo. The integration of the Armed Forces served as an instrument of social change. As we see from the civil rights movement, sometimes the best choices require going against the majority. So, tip my hat to

the many leaders who made the integration of the military a reality, and I celebrate this integration on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of its enactment.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to cast a vote on the following legislative measure on July 15, 2008. If I were present for the roll call vote, I would have voted Yea on the following:

Roll No. 491, July 15, 2008: On Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding: H.R. 6331, To amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to extend expiring provisions under the Medicare Program, to improve beneficiary access to preventive and mental health services, to enhance low-income benefit programs, and to maintain access to care in rural areas, including pharmacy access, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I support the passage of the conference report.

I commend full Committee Chairman Miller, Subcommittee Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Members McKeon and Keller for their leadership on this bill. I extend my deepest thanks to the chairman for his commitment to enhancing minority education and for his steadfast support on multiple issues that were especially important to me and to institutions serving the black community.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the Education and Labor staff, who so skillfully worked to establish the many wonderful programs that will improve higher education for so many.

There are multiple provisions of this bill that will benefit Chicago and other places throughout the country. I am especially pleased that the bill strengthens minority-serving institutions, especially HBCUs and Predominantly Black Institutions, or PBIs. I am very glad that the bill strengthens the TRIO programs that serve first-generation low- income students, and the prohibition on the Department of Education's Absolute Priority within the Upward Bound program.

At this time I would like to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Miller.

I yield.

I thank the chairman of the committee for his clarification and appreciate his and the conferees commitment to writing the statute to promote unity among the higher education community that serves mostly African American students.

It is an excellent bill. I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I support the passage of the conference report for H.R. 4137, which authorizes the Higher

Education Opportunity Act. This bill reauthorizes the higher education act for the first time in 10 years. I commend full-Committee Chairman George Miller and sub-Committee Chairman Ruben Hinojosa for their leadership on this bill. I extend my deepest thanks to the Chairman for his commitment to enhancing minority education and for his steadfast support on multiple issues that were especially important to me and to institutions serving the Black community. I would be remiss if I did not thank the Education and Labor staff who so skillfully advocated to establish so many wonderful programs that will improve higher education opportunities for so many.

There are multiple provisions of this bill that will benefit Chicago and Illinois. To begin, this bill greatly expands access to higher education for low-income and minority students. By increasing Pell grants to $8,000, extending the grants to year-round, and allowing part-time students to qualify for Pell grants, this bill will enable many more of my constituents to attend college.

I am especially pleased that the bill authorizes programs for both undergraduate and masters programs at Predominantly Black Institutions. PBIs represent a growing cadre of four-year and two-year institutions that serve as the access point for a growing number of urban and rural Black students whose family and financial situations limit their ability to gain access to college in many states. Many of these students come from low-income families and are also ``first generation'' college students, whose educational preparation for college and family finances present special challenges to educational success. PBIs are not eligible to receive funding under the HBCU capacity-building funds given that PBIs were not established prior to 1964. The undergraduate PBI program will provide federal support to strengthen the institutional capacity of schools to attract, retain, and graduate their students. Chicago has many PBIs that provide high quality education for many low-income, minority students, including: Chicago State University, Malcolm X College, Harold Washington College, Olive-Harvey College, Kennedy King College, East-West University, Robert Morris College, and South Suburban College. In addition, the new PBI masters program promotes the development of more Black masters- level professionals in the science and health fields by providing specific institutional support. For example, Chicago State University will qualify for valuable aid to strengthen its masters programs in the biological sciences and computer science as well as strengthen its first professional program in pharmaceutical science. Together, these new PBI programs will enhance the access for low-income African American students to higher education.

I also am pleased that the bill strengthens both HBCU undergraduate and graduate education. As a graduate of an HBCU, I am very familiar with the benefits these institutions provide to low-income students. The new masters program for HBCUs in Title VII fills a void in current law. Title III, Part B includes institutional support for undergraduate education at HBCUs, and Section 326 provides institutional support for doctoral and first professional programs at HBCUs. The new Section 723 completes this continuum by supporting HBCUs with masters programs in the fields of science and health as well as clarifies the congressional intent that the existing Section 326 pertains to doctoral and first professional programs.

Further, the bill strengthens the TRIO programs, which are key supports for low-income, first-generation college students to prepare and succeed in higher education. Importantly, the bill institutes an appeals process when applicants have evidence of errors in the handling or scoring of the applications. A number of Chicago institutions unfortunately have had difficulties in the last few years with denial of applications for suspect reasons and due to glitches with the Grants.gov system. Having a procedure in place to allow due process for these applicants is an important element to ensuring a fair application process. Further, the bill prohibits the implementation of the absolute priority that the Department imposed on the Upward Bound program, forcing programs to dramatically alter the nature of the services provided. I am happy that any future evaluations of Upward Bound will exclude the cohorts of students chosen under this well-intentioned but ill-conceived priority.

Chicago also has many for-profit institutions of higher education that serve an important role in educating students. I am glad that the Conference Report provides additional flexibility for these institutions in terms of the 90/10 rule, including flexibility in the types of revenue that count toward the 10 percent, the Departmental response to violations of the rule, and exceeding loan limits as a result of the enactment of the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act. Further, I support the increased monitoring and reporting requirements of for-profit institutions as a means to provide transparency and safeguards for students.

I am happy that the bill emphasizes the need to support populations that are underrepresented in higher education. One such population about which I am particularly concerned is African American men. The under-representation of minority males, especially African American men, is a matter of public record that is reinforced by high drop-out rates in urban and rural school districts, and lower participation/ enrollment rates of these groups in colleges and universities. The American Council on Education's Minorities in Higher Education Annual Reports have consistently documented these factors for almost two decades. For example, although the enrollment of black men in higher education increased between 2000 to 2001, less than 3 percent of black men received a combination of associate's, bachelor's, or master's degrees. Clearly, ensuring success of students in higher education necessitates examining and promoting the success of minority males. To this end, the Conference Report includes a study of minority male access to and success in higher education that will provide key data to lawmakers so that we can better tailor our policies to promote minority men in higher education. The bill also encourages the involvement of individuals--such as African American men--who are from populations underrepresented in higher education in the TRIO programs, in teacher residency programs, in teacher preparation courses at minority serving institutions, and in loan forgiveness programs. These provisions will help ensure that the higher education community better reflects the diversity of our Nation.

Another population about which I am particularly concerned is individuals in prison. After Congress barred prisoners from receiving Pell grants in 1994, provision of postsecondary correctional education dropped greatly. Multiple empirical studies demonstrate that postsecondary correctional education improves the atmosphere in prisons, increases successful reentry, increases employment after release, and decreases criminal behavior. For example, studies show that such education helps improve communication among staff and inmates, develop positive peer role models, and reduce disciplinary infractions. Further, multiple studies show that postsecondary education saves taxpayers' money. In 2001, government analysts in Maryland calculated that such programs saved state taxpayers more than $24 million annually, more than two times what the state spent on such programs. Given that the average annual cost of incarceration is more than $22,000 per prisoner and that more than half of formerly- incarcerated people return to prison with 3 years, providing higher education within prisons promises to be a cost-effective investment of taxpayer dollars.

Currently, only approximately 5 percent of the total prison population is enrolled in postsecondary education. Current Federal postsecondary correctional grants target youth, resulting in a great need for such programs for adults. The Conference report expands higher education opportunities for older students by extending the qualifying age for such programs to 35 and by allowing up to 7 years to study while in prison. These provisions will allow greater flexibility to states to identify and serve individual inmates who are best able to benefit from postsecondary correctional education. In addition, the bill authorizes a study on the effectiveness of postsecondary correctional education. This study will greatly advance our understanding of what makes programs effective in educating individuals and reducing post release offending.

Further, I am pleased that the bill takes steps to ease the discrimination against low-income students with drug convictions. There are multiple problems with a one-size-fits-all penalty based on financial aid. It inappropriately uses the financial aid application process to apply a mandatory minimum sentence above and beyond what the judicial system has imposed for a restricted group of students. Also, given that the penalty applies only to students receiving Federal aid who must maintain a C average or higher, the current provision unfairly denies aid only to low-income, high-performing students. The Conference report makes it easier for students who lose aid to re-qualify for Federal aid after it is removed. The report also requires an important study of who is denied Federal aid so that lawmakers can better understand whether this policy penalizes particular categories of students compared to others. As the Committee on Education and Labor's Report indicated, the study will examine the demographic background of the students excluded from Federal aid by the drug prohibition as well as the nature of the offenses underlying the exclusion. The variables for study are clearly enumerated in the Committee Report.

In closing, there are many elements of this Conference report that will help many low-income students to access and succeed in higher education. I am proud to serve in the Congress that is making such a considerable investment in our students so that all youth--especially low-income, minority students--have access to quality postsecondary education.

Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act, sponsored by Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT). H.R. 1338 amends the Equal Pay Act, one of the primary laws addressing pay discrimination. Since becoming law, loopholes and weak remedies have made the Equal Pay Act less effective in combating wage discrimination. The Paycheck Fairness Act, strengthens and improves the effectiveness of the Equal Pay Act.

There should be little doubt that such improvements are necessary. More than four decades after the enactment of the Equal Pay Act, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar made by their male counterparts, a wage disparity that cannot be explained by differences in qualifications, education, skills, training, responsibility, or life choices. Rather, in many cases, the pay differential has resulted from unlawful sex discrimination.

The consequences of this discrimination are severe and predictable. The pay disparity forces single-mother households and families dependent on two wage earners to live on less than they rightfully deserve, while simultaneously reducing women's retirement earnings. In short, unfair pay disparities perpetuate women's economic dependence and deprive them of economic opportunity and equal protection of the laws.

The Paycheck Fairness Act provides for compensatory and punitive damages only ``as appropriate,'' with no further limitation or arbitrary cap being necessary. The modest provisions for compensatory and punitive damages in the Paycheck Fairness Act bring remedies for victims of sex-based wage discrimination in line with those available for victims of wage discrimination based on race and national origin.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Miller, and Subcommittee Chairwoman Woolsey and Congresswoman DeLauro for championing this important wage discrimination legislation.