Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the Golf Course Preservation and Modernization Act to renovate and modernize the three National Park Service, NPS, golf courses in the District of Columbia. Several years of research, investigation and consulting on ways to improve these courses demonstrate this bill is necessary to turn around the deterioration of these unique and valuable Federal assets. Langston Golf Course, Rock Creek Golf Course, and East Potomac Golf Course are in desperate need of capital investment to maintain and preserve their historic features and to reverse decades of deterioration.

East Potomac Golf Course was built in 1920 and included three courses that accommodated all levels of play, with an 18-hole tournament level course and two nine-hole practice courses. East Potomac was initially segregated, with African Americans permitted to play only on Mondays. The course was desegregated in 1941 by the Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, following pressure from an African American women golfers club, the Wake Robin Golf Club. Rock Creek Golf Course opened in 1923 as a nine-hole golf course and an additional nine holes were added to make Rock Creek an 18-hole tournament level course in 1926. Langston Golf Course opened in 1939 as a segregated golf facility for African Americans and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Langston was the home course to the Royal Golf Club and the Wake Robin Golf Club, the Nation's first clubs for African American men and women golfers respectively. Langston was named for John Mercer Langston, the first African American Congressman from Virginia elected in 1888. Originally a nine-hole course, Langston's expansion to an 18-hole course began in 1955, but was not completed until the mid-1980s.

The courses were built and have been administered by the NPS since the early 20th century for the enjoyment of the general public. However, despite their best efforts, NPS has had a constant struggle to maintain the courses. None has been modernized and all three courses have fallen into disrepair and lack the amenities necessary to serve the public today. As a result, they are underused considering their value to the public.

NPS was created by Congress to ``. . . conserve the scenery and the natural and historical objects and the wild life therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' (16 U.S.C. 1) However, NPS's own backlog of repairs, its chronic funding limitations, and the continuing use of concession contracts that are inappropriate for the unique capital investment required for golf courses militate against appropriate maintenance, historic preservation and the NPS mission ``to leave them unimpaired for the public enjoyment.'' This bill will restore the original intent of Congress, consistent with this important NPS mission.

The three courses together constitute an undervalued public asset that, if appropriately funded, could be renovated and modernized, facilitating affordable recreation, attracting significantly more golfers, and perhaps producing new revenue for the United States Treasury. Unlike other NPS facilities, golf courses require unique and continuing significant capital investment to keep them not only maintained but operational. As a result for nearly 100

years, the courses have had problems associated with upkeep and insufficient capital investment. Without a ready source for capital investment, apart from appropriations, NPS has continuously struggled to manage and maintain each of these courses since their inception. There is no prospect that the necessary Federal funds for capital investment and improvement of golf will be available today or in the future. Moreover, the current fee to play at the golf courses, as established in the concessions contract process, must remain affordable and cannot generate sufficient revenue for NPS or the concessioners to keep the courses properly maintained, or to make the capital investment required for a golf course today. In fact, NPS owes millions of dollars to the concessioner of the golf courses for necessary improvements.

General Services Administration land and real estate professionals and other experts advise that the best option consistent with Federal law and practices is to create a long-term ground lease that bundles all three of the courses into a single contract and then to request proposals that allow for response with ideas and alternatives for modernization and maintenance consistent with anticipated use and affordability. This bill requires that historic features of the courses be preserved and that two of the three courses remain affordable to the general public.

The confines of Federal concession law inhibited NPS and the concessioner from making improvements to the courses because Federal concession laws are incompatible with golf course operations. Historically, the constrictions of NPS concessions law have been a direct cause of disrepair and capital disinvestment, reducing the quality of play and jeopardizing the historic preservation of the courses. However, the NPS is attempting to join two of the three golf courses together for the next 7 years under a proposed concession contract that was issued on October 23, 2007. The draft contract requires only that the next concessioner be able to perform routine repair and maintenance consistent with NPS practice and the limits imposed by concession law. The draft contract does not and could not impose any requirement that capital improvements be made to the courses, usually guaranteeing that these courses will stay in the same poor condition until 2015. East Potomac was excluded from the proposed concession contract because its concession contract expires next year, not for any reason associated with maintaining and improving the courses for public use. This separates East Potomac, the only financially viable golf course from Langston and Rock Creek, the two that need subsidy for their operations. The effect will leave Langston and Rock Creek worse off then they are today.

This bill would exempt these golf courses from concession law and bind the three courses into one contract. This approach applies another vehicle commonly used by the Federal Government to allow for more creative solutions consistent with the NPS mission to preserve general public access and preserve the historic qualities of the courses. The single long-term ground lease for all three courses, designed outside of the constraints of concession law, provided by this bill would encourage private investment in these courses, improve the quality of the courses, ensure affordable play, and preserve their historic nature.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the work of Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Moran, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, those who have brought forward a number of resolutions on Darfur. And there's a reason, I think, we're seeing a confluence of new concern.

This is not the kind of resolution one comes to the floor and says I'm proud to be a cosponsor. It is more in the nature, Mr. Speaker, of an emergency resolution designed to make sure we don't go to sleep on Darfur while the genocide continues.

There are so many things that the world community has done, that the President has done, that NGOs have done; and, yet, here we are with the genocide in place in Darfur. The message is, we haven't done enough, therefore.

I am among those who have been arrested in front of the embassy. Well, the whole point there was to call attention to Darfur, and that was at least more than a year ago, not to mention all that has happened all around the world.

I want to call special attention to the most defenseless victims of the genocide, and those are women who are the victims of rape as individuals, and mass sexual violence of various kinds. The mores of this society may mean that the women in society were more accustomed to being protected by the men. If those were the mores, that, of course, protection is long gone because of the genocide against the men.

So what we have often is a society of women and children defenseless against what appears to be interminable genocide. Just 2 months ago, there was yet another report of mass rapings, dozens of women. It seems to be a modus operandi. When the attacks are made, single out the women after the attacks for rape. The large attacks on the camp bespeak continuing genocide.

What is perhaps most pitiful is that the women continue to do what women in developing societies have always done, to be the wood gatherers of the society, to go out and gather the wood that is necessary to do the cooking and, indeed, to live. There are fire wood patrols that must go with these women, and still the rape continues. The lack of resources for these patrols, the lack of communication and organization for these patrols means that emergency conditions for women and children continue.

The hybrid force for Darfur is not even scheduled to be on the ground until next year. The shame of it all, that the mass rape is often committed by members of the Sudanese Armed Forces and the militias, and that we've been able to do nothing about it, means that we have an obligation to raise our voices about mass rape and abuse of women that is now well documented.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, bear in mind, these are women with no recourse except our raising our own voices. No recourse whatsoever. And consider that after the rape of such women, which is often shameful enough even in a society like ours so the women don't even want to come forward and speak about it, these women often are seen as women who've had sexual intercourse outside of marriage and are open to the crime of Xena or such an offense which would be 100 lashes in addition to the humiliation they have already suffered.

The ultimate victims, of course, are the children who result from pregnancy of these women, the janjaweed child, this often is called, and there that

child sits outside of the society, outside of what is normally done as a matter of course for children.

I hope this resolution begins to put Darfur, its genocide and especially its treatment of women and children, on the front burner once again.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3247) to improve the provision of disaster assistance for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3247, the Katrina and Rita Recovery Facilitation Act of 2007. This bill has been a top priority of our leadership and has received excellent cooperation and support from the minority and its Members as well. It was reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on August 1, 2007. On May 10, 2007, our subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management held a hearing entitled, ``Legislative Fixes for Lingering Problems that Hinder Katrina Recovery,'' where Members from Louisiana and Mississippi testified on issues that were still delaying the recovery from these extraordinarily destructive storms, particularly in the Public Assistance Program.

These were problems that, and I stress, could not have been envisioned by the Stafford Act because of the unprecedented nature of the gulf coast disaster. Therefore, it was felt that there was a need for amendments to the act since FEMA often felt it could not move without specific authority.

This bill addresses issues specifically identified by these Members who represent the gulf coast area in testimony before our committee, testimony that was evaluated by our subcommittee and found to be compatible with the mission of the Stafford Act and the unique nature of the Katrina and Rita disasters.

For example, the bill allows FEMA to apply its so-called ``simplified procedures'' for ``small projects'' from the current threshold of $55,000 to $100,000, and authorizes FEMA to use alternative dispute resolution to resolve appeals in the Public Assistance Program. There have been many appeals. These need to be handled expeditiously if recovery is to occur expeditiously.

Madam Speaker, the bill also increases the Federal contribution for large ``in-lieu'' projects, also known as alternate projects, to 90 percent for both public and private nonprofit facilities. These are examples of remedies that will bring significant results, according to our own investigation and testimony from the region.

Hurricane Katrina made landfall nearly 2 years ago and proved to be the costliest natural disaster in American history. The storms had a massive physical impact on the land, affecting 90,000 square miles, which is an area the size of Great Britain. More than 80 percent of the City of New Orleans flooded, which is an area seven times the size of Manhattan. Untold consequences to the residents of the region were visited upon individuals and families.

Our subcommittee will hold a hearing in New Orleans soon to look further into the status of recovery from these storms. We certainly did not want to go to the region without passage of this act, which is so urgent to recovery. I am pleased that we will be able to report to the citizens of the gulf that our committee and hopefully the House has taken further steps to facilitate the recovery of the entire gulf coast.

I urge the support of all Members.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) such time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, once again I want to thank the gentleman and all of the Members from the gulf coast delegation who worked so cooperatively with us, really informing us what needed to be done, looking at the Stafford Act, understanding we are amending the act for Katrina and Rita purposes only, and the least Congress could do was to recognize in all of our rhetoric about this being an unprecedented disaster, that we responded with an unprecedented remedy. We do not expect the remedies available here to be necessary elsewhere. For example, we have just had a big disaster in California. That is of a different kind and will have a different effect on the entire region; very devastating, but very different. We intend to have a hearing with respect to that disaster and comparing that disaster and the responses to that disaster with the responses to the gulf coast because we need to do all we can to learn about that disaster.

Moreover, the Katrina and Rita disasters have exposed other changes in the Stafford Act that we need. These are Rita and Katrina-specific changes, but we are learning from what happened to this extraordinary region of our country without which we cannot do. And every day you see oil prices go up, I hope you understand, we in the United States, how central this region is to the economy of this country. As a result, we will be holding hearings on the way in which the Stafford Act should be even further updated to the benefit not only of the disasters we hope never to see again, but to disasters that may occur in the future in our country.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2671) to designate the United States courthouse located at 301 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, as the ``C. Clyde Atkins United States Courthouse''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2671.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill honors C. Clyde Atkins by naming the courthouse located at 301 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, as the C. Clyde Atkins United States Courthouse. This bill has broad bipartisan support from the Florida delegation.

Judge Atkins was a Federal judge for over 30 years in south Florida and was a leader in many capacities in his community. He presided over some of the most controversial cases in south Florida and often spoke for those who had no voice. He ruled that Miami schools would no longer be racially segregated. Judge Atkins found that the City of Miami was guilty of harassment of the homeless and stopped them from arresting the homeless for eating, sleeping and bathing in public. He also ruled that Haitian and Cuban refugees should receive equal treatment.

In addition to Judge Atkins's courage from the bench, he also played a prominent leadership role in his own community. He served as president of the Dade County Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association. He was a trustee of Biscayne College and Mercy Hospital. He was also very active in the Catholic Church where he was named a knight of St. Gregory by Pope Paul VI. It is clear that Judge Atkins took the notion of being a public servant seriously and endeavored to make his service a large part of his life. In honor of Judge Atkins's public service as a Federal judge for 33 years, it is fitting to name the courthouse located at 301 North Miami Avenue in Miami, Florida, as the C. Clyde Atkins United States Courthouse, and I urge my colleagues to approve this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I am pleased to yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2728) to designate the station of the United States Border Patrol located at 25762 Madison Avenue in Murrieta, California, as the ``Theodore L. Newton, Jr. And George F. Azrak Border Patrol Station''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2728.

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

This bill honors two Border Patrol inspectors who died in the line of duty by naming a Border Patrol station in their honor. On June 17, 1967, United States Border Patrol inspectors Theodore L. Newton, Jr., and George F. Azrak were killed in the line of duty while working the late-night shift in Southern California.

Their tragic deaths were considered a turning point for the Border Patrol agency. After the deaths of these two Border Patrol inspectors, the security and procedures for intercepting border crossings changed dramatically. The Border Patrol now requires that a minimum of three to five agents work each checkpoint along with a backup unit. In addition to the increased manpower, or person power, the Border Patrol has also increased the amount of training and support that all Border Patrol agents now receive.

I support the Theodore L. Newton, Jr., and George F. Azrak Border Patrol Station naming bill and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort to honor these two law enforcement officials who died in the line of duty while serving their country in a vital role.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the National Mall Revitalization and Designation Act of 2007. The National Mall is one of Washington's best known and most treasured sites, but also is the District's most neglected and undervalued. The Mall lacks everything that a majestic natural wonder deserves, from an official identity to necessary amenities. My bill (1) authorizes the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) to officially designate and expand the boundaries of the Mall and (2) requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit a plan to enhance visitor enjoyment and cultural experiences within 180 days of passage of the bill.

I worked closely with NCPC and other agencies in framing the bill. It would give the NCPC the responsibility and the necessary flexibility to designate the Mall area for the first time since its creation and to expand the Mall area when appropriate. The bill requires the NCPC, to accommodate future commemorative works and cultural institutions, working with key federal and local agencies, and with participation from the public and recognized national leaders in culture and development.

Frustrated at continually fighting off proposals for new monuments, museums, and memorials, on the crowded Mall space, I asked the NCPC to devise a Mall preservation plan 5 years ago. In 2003, Congress amended the Commemorative Works Act to enact the NCPC's designation of a no- build zone where no new memorials can be built. This action was helpful in quelling some but by no means all of the demand from groups and individuals for placement on what they view as the Mall. The bill spells out the needed authority to preserve the no-build zone while expanding the mall to accommodate commemorative works.

The NCPC and the Commission on Fine Arts (FAC) are working on the National Capital Framework Plan and already have shown they can identify sites near the existing Mall which are suitable for new memorials, including East Potomac Park, a part of the Mall area that is seldom viewed as integral to the more familiar space between the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial; Banneker Overlook, the grounds around RFK Stadium, the Kennedy Center Plaza site and the new South Capitol gateways. Five new prestigious memorials are scheduled for such sites, including the Eisenhower Memorial and the U.S. Air Force Memorial.

I appreciate that NCPC and the FAC work closely with the District of Columbia in designating off-Mall sites for new monuments. The District welcomes the expanded Mall into appropriate neighborhoods, enhancing the work of the District of Columbia government and local organizations such as Cultural Tourism that offer historic tours of District neighborhoods in developing the tourism that is vital to the city's economy. Additional Mall sites for various monuments also complement the creation of entire new neighborhoods now underway near the Mall particularly the District's redevelopment of the Southwest waterfront and my own work on the Southeast Federal Center, now known as The Yards, that is to becoming a mixed use public-private development and waterfront park.

A second and important goal of the bill is to make the Mall a living, breathing, active place where things happen and visitors can be comfortable. The bill seeks to achieve this vibrancy by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to submit a plan, in consultation with the appropriate Federal agencies, and leaders in culture and development and the public, to ``enhance visitor enjoyment, amenities, cultural experiences in and the vitality of (the National Mall).'' Bordered by world class cultural institutions, the Mall itself has been reduced to a lawn with a only a few--too few ordinary benches and a couple of fast food restaurants. The Mall lacks the most basic amenities appropriate to such an area including restrooms, shelter and informal places to gather and interesting places to eat. When it rains, there are no places to stay dry on the Mall and when the humidity reaches sky high, there are few places to rest and have a cold drink. Nevertheless, in writing this bill I was compelled to recognize today's reality that funds to make the Mall the 21st century destination it deserves to become are simply not available, and will not become available in the near future until the deficit and other priorities make room. Yet, the Mall needs a total makeover for the 21st century to be worthy of L'Enfant's vision for the city he planned and the MacMillan Plan that is largely responsible for the space between the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial that is known today as the Mall. However, we must move now to begin to do all we can to rescue this space from its present dull and uninviting condition, damaged by heavy use and often used as no more than a pass-through, despite its magnificent potential. With the necessary imagination, a plan to make Mall a welcoming place with cultural and other amenities envisioned by the bill is achievable now.

The Mall Designation and Revitalization Act is the first step in an effort to begin to give the Mall its due after decades of neglect and indifference. The bill begins at the beginning, defining for the first time what we mean by the Mall, allowing for expansion of its natural contours, and taking the first steps to breathe life into a space that is meant for people to enjoy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, not only for yielding, but his extraordinarily hard work in preparing this bill, along with my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida, who together have crafted a bill, working with Mr. Mica and Mr. Shuster, so that what we have before us is a classic bipartisan bill and one that is urgently needed.

This is a public transportation bill, and it looks to a part of our economy upon which we are disproportionately dependent. It also happens to be a mode of transportation that is relatively clean. I got to thinking about the importance of this bill, Mr. Chairman, and I could only think about where we have spent much more time, and that is on air travel. Yet, we have limited the time that pilots, and, for that matter, other air personnel can be on duty and certainly in the air.

Rail employees for decades have simply absorbed the burden of extraordinary numbers of hours away from home, on duty. How have we escaped some catastrophic accidents that would linger in our minds? I think it is only because of the courage and the perseverance of rail personnel, who obviously have worked through fatigue and who have simply taken on their shoulders most of the hardships. I don't even want to think about what the cost of family life has been with regards to children, the cost of being away when there has been an emergency or death in the family or someone is lingering. I just don't want to think about that, because when I do, I am reminded about how late this bill is and how urgent it is.

So I want to thank the chairman, and I want to commend the courage of rail workers, and especially I want to do so as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, which is deeply affected as well.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kindness in yielding to me, the chairman of our subcommittee who has strongly supported the bill before us, H.R. 1124, and has expeditiously on every occasion moved this bill forward. We especially appreciate it, as the bill is at the end point of its authorization.

I want to also thank Ranking Member Marchant for his help and support of this bill; Chairman Waxman, who, as ranking member and now as Chair, has strongly supported this bill; Ranking Member Tom Davis, who, as Chair of the full committee, now as ranking member, has co-sponsored the bill from the beginning with me and was instrumental in its passage initially.

I want to thank in the Senate Senators Voinovich and Susan Collins, and of course the Chair of the full committee, Chairman Lieberman. These have been the chief advocates in the Senate, and they would have passed the bill exactly as it came to them.

I think I need only say to the House, which has overwhelmingly supported this bill, that that support has been vindicated; that the President of the United States has increased the budget by $2 million, that he doesn't do lightly, and I think it's because of the payoff, payback of the investment. The increase in college attendance over 5 years, massive increase; the 646 universities and colleges in 47 States and the District of Columbia where these students are now going, many of them would have not attended college at all. I want to thank Don Graham, the publisher of The Washington Post, for his work in encouraging millions in private dollars as a complementary program to this program, his is the College Access Program, which is essential to the success of this program because its guidance of students seeking to go to college, and indeed financial aid, have been important to the success of this bill.

This is here because of a Senate amendment which we reluctantly accepted simply to get the bill through. The Senate defeated another amendment that would have destroyed the bill because it would have allowed money to go to private as well as public college. Our only point is to give residents the same access to the State university system as everybody else who graduates from high school has.

We appreciate that the Senate has passed the bill now unanimously. And we ask the House to repeat its overwhelming support of the bill when the bill was here only a few months ago.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 1124, the bill that will reauthorize the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 and extend the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant Program, DCTAG, for an additional 5 years, and to thank the House for a bill that has afforded higher education to many students who would otherwise not have received it. I especially thank Chairman Henry Waxman and Chairman Danny K. Davis for facilitating early consideration of this non-controversial bill on suspension. A very special thanks is particularly due to committee Ranking Member and co-author Tom Davis for his strong and indispensable leadership on this legislation when he was chair of the full Committee and for his continued strong support of

Madam Speaker, I was first encouraged to introduce the Nationwide Gun Buyback Act, NGBA, in 2003 after actions taken by the District of Columbia residents on Father's Day. On that day, citizens who had lost relatives and representatives of 20 advocacy and victim- support groups gathering at Freedom Plaza, a stone's throw from the White House, to declare a moratorium on murder for the Father's Day weekend. Not only did their moratorium have important symbolic value; in fact there was only one murder that weekend. Of primary importance was the fact that the moratorium was entirely citizen initiated. Residents themselves, around the country, must take responsibility for crime and not regard criminal activity as a matter for the police alone. In 2006 we had the fewest murders on record for the District of Columbia in 20 years, however, 2007 is on pace for an increase in the murder rate for the first time in 5 years, a trend reflected in many metropolitan cities, and nearly all of these killings were committed by handguns.

This bill would provide Federal funds to local jurisdictions to engage in gun buyback programs like the successful programs that have been conducted by the District of Columbia. Under the bill, funds would be distributed through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD. After evaluation of proposals, added weight would be given to jurisdictions with the greatest incidence of gun violence. The NGBA would require that a jurisdiction certify that it is capable of destroying the guns within 30 days, that it can conduct the program safely, and that an amnesty appropriate for the jurisdiction will be offered. Not only individuals, but groups such as gangs and crews could take advantage of the buyback provisions to encourage them to disarm themselves.

This bill is necessary because, despite the extraordinary demonstrated success of the gun buyback program in the District, local jurisdictions have no readily available funds for similar programs. The District was forced to find money on an ad hoc basis and ran out of funds despite many residents who still desired to turn in guns. Initially, the District conducted a pilot program using funds from HUD. Confronted with long lines of residents, the Police Department then took the program citywide, using drug asset forfeiture funds. Even so, after using $290,000, the city ran out of funds, but not out of guns that could have been collected. The guns were a ``good buy,'' but hard- pressed jurisdictions, especially big cities, should not have to rob Peter to pay Paul when it comes to public safety. The federal government can play a unique and non-controversial role in reducing gun violence by providing the small amount authorized by my bill, $50 million, to encourage buybacks efforts where a local jurisdiction believes they can be helpful.

This bill is also a timely reminder as the District's handgun ban goes before the Supreme Court of the United States, the first time since 1939 that a Second Amendment case has been brought before the Supreme Court. Handguns and their impact on inner cities are indisputable. This legislation offers a common sense attempt to help local jurisdictions reduce killings. All jurisdictions, regardless of local views or laws, want to eliminate the special menace of illegal guns.

Importantly, the bill does not conflict with most stances on the controversial issue of gun control. The bill would simply allow people who desire to remove guns from their homes to do so without incurring criminal penalties for possession. Families, and especially mothers, have feared guns in their homes, but often do not know how to get rid of them. In most jurisdictions, a grandmother, petrified that there is a gun in the house for example, or her grandson, who may possess the illegal weapon, cannot turn it in without subjecting themselves to prosecution. This is reason enough for gun buyback efforts.

Like tax amnesty, gun amnesty, puts a premium on the ultimate goal. When the goal is taxes, the government puts a premium on getting payment for the amount owed. When the goal is guns, the premium is on getting deadly weapons off the streets and out of peoples' homes. This bill is entirely voluntary and does not compel anyone to give up her handgun, even one that is illegally held, it simply offers those who do not want guns in their homes an opportunity to safely dispose of them.

I encourage colleagues to support this very important legislation.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I understand the gentleman from Maine, who is a major sponsor of this bill, has a hearing. In deference to him, I will wait until after he finishes and yield my time at this time to him, if it is all right with the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I echo the comments of our chairman, especially as regards our ranking member, Mr. Graves, who worked closely with me on this bill to ensure its profoundly bipartisan nature as counties, regardless of part of the country, regardless of who represents them, were selected based on very objective and competitive criteria. I appreciate the bipartisan support that he helped round up and the bipartisan support of so many Members of Congress.

I'm going to ask that my full statement be in the Record, and say only a few words, first about the chairman. It needs to be mentioned where this all started. It started with the extraordinary chairman of the full committee decades ago, when he created the notion of a bill to address the most impoverished sections of the country, beginning with, of course, the classic one that everyone knows, Appalachia. All we're doing here is expanding on Mr. Oberstar's work.

I must say, so much that has happened in our committee is emblematic of his career. It will be hard to say what his signature bill is; but knowing him, I think he would probably want this bill to rise up among them because of who benefits, those who have least benefited from the most prosperous economy the world has ever known.

This bill is back here by popular demand, and I use that in the technical sense of the word. The subcommittee

was besieged by Members saying, We want commissions, How come we don't have a commission, and then coming forward with statistics to show that, under the definition of persistent poverty, they now qualified. It wasn't easy to get a commission or to get in this bill, with one of the counties included in this bill. We held hearings, and we used very objective criteria that you had to fit in order for us, after the hearings, after full study to say, yes, that county, among many in the United States that are suffering today, should have the special attention of a regional commission.

And we think, Mr. Speaker, that as the global economy has expanded throughout our country because of all the pressures, the natural pressures that come from that and from international trade, many came forward and wanted to be included as part of these commissions. But we held to the criteria set when the Oberstar bill was first passed: there had to be systemic poverty. And the region or the county, in order to be included, had to be clearly underdeveloped relative to what was possible. And so you had only two commissions, and then you have three added now.

When it comes to poverty, there is always controversy about what works. And this time we really know what works because this bill is patterned on the very successful, indeed the acclaimed, Appalachian Regional Commission. And the bill itself simply wants to make sure that administrative procedures and methods for distributing the economic development funds are uniform. When you consider that most of the funds that will flow to these regions far and away are private funds, one has to really look at this bill as a small public investment for enormous returns in private attraction and investment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a word to extricate ourselves from the stereotypes about certain regions, like the northern border region which stretches from Maine to New York. We're talking about a region that some might consider in light of large cities in the region; but if you look as the commission methodology looks at counties in the region, you will understand why the northern border qualifies: few basic industries, overdependence in today's economy on agriculture, and 12.5 percent of the population living in poverty.

Or take the southeastern region of the United States, the Sunbelt, which everyone associates with economic growth, and well you might. But these are also the States which have historically most lagged behind the national economy.

And so we have regions in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. And the reason we have them, of course, is that on top of industrial and technological underdevelopment, this is the region in the United States that has natural disasters at a rate of two or three times the rest of the country.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, of all of the aspects of this bill, I think that which has been embraced most by our committee is the record of private investment in the region once we designate a commission and once it begins to operate.

It really does tell us much about the ``blessing of the Federal Government'' and the methodology used by this commission. It tells us much about the reputation of what these commissions have done.

I have been in Congress 16 years. I have seldom sat in hearings where people came forward not with criticisms but with glowing examples of how a specific approach to poverty in our country works. I therefore strongly recommend the bill. I commend all of those, of whom there are dozens, who had a hand in its design.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3246 amends title 40, United States Code, to provide a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severly economically distressed regions in the Nation.

H.R. 3246 the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007, authorizes two existing comissions and three new regional economic development commissions under a common framework of administration and management, and further provides a framework for good decision making and planning. These Commissions are designed to address problems of systemic poverty and underdevelopment in their respective regions. The five commissions are: the Delta Regional Commission, the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission, the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, the Southwest Border Regional Commission, and the Northern Border Regional Commission.

This bill models the administrative and management procedures for these five Comissions after the highly successful Appalachian Regional Commission. The bill provides for a voting structure, provisions regarding staffing, conflicts of interest, local development districts, and other matters designed to produce a standard administrative framework. By providing a uniform set of procedures, this bill provides a consistent method for distributing economic development funds throughout the regions most in need of such assistance and ensures a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severely distressed regions in the country.

The Northern Border Regional Commission, the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, and the Southwest Border Regional Commission have been proposed in legislation introduced in this and previous Congresses and are designed to address problems of systemic poverty and underdevelopment in those regions. Additional, the Delta Regional Commission and the Northern Great Plains Commission would be reauthorized through this legislation.

H.R. 3246 authorizes funds for each commission to provide vital assistance for the development of our Nation's most chronically poor and distressed regions.

I would like to say of few words about the uniqueness of each of the new commissions being authorized by this bill. The Southwest border region includes all counties within 150 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. This region contains 11 counties in New Mexico, 65 counties in Texas, 10 counties in Arizona, and 7 counties in California for a combined population of approximately 29 million. According to research compiled by the Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Southwest Border: 20 percent of the residents in this region of the nation live below the poverty level, unemployment rates often reach as high as five times the national unemployment rate, and a lack of adequate access to capital has created economic disparities and made it difficult for businesses to start up in the region.

The Northern border region stretching from Maine to New York, while abundant in natural resources and rich in potential, lags behind much of the Nation in its economic growth, and its people have not shared properly in the Nation's prosperity. The region's historic reliance on a few basic industries and agriculture has failed to provide a diverse enough economic base for vigorous, self-sustaining growth. In the belt of counties along the Northern border from Maine through New York, 12.5 percent of the population lives in poverty, median household income is more than $6,500 below the national average, unemployment through layoffs in traditional manufacturing industries is persistent, and the population only grew by 0.6 percent between 1990 and 2000, while the U.S. population rose by 13.2 percent, showing significant out migration and loss of young people.

The southeastern portion of the United States, encompassing the states of Virgina, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, is an area which has seen poverty rates well above the national average coupled with record unemployment. The region has also experienced natural disasters at a rate of two to three times greater than any other region of the U.S. The SouthEast Crescent Authority (SECA) authorizes a local-state-federal partnership to lift citizens in this geographic area out of poverty and create jobs. With the federal allocation of funding, SECA seeks to funnel monies to programs which address one or more of the following criteria for community betterment: (1) infrastructure, (2) education and job training, (3) health care, (4) entrepreneurship, and (5) leadership development. Those communities with the greatest need will be targeted, and grants will be made according to the degree of distress.

This bill has broad bi-partisan support, and the Committee has held a series of hearings regarding the need for these economic development commissions.

I support the bill and urge the passage of H.R. 3246.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri, and particularly thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania in my absence for assuming the responsibility because I was at a hearing on Blackwater.

H.R. 3068, as amended, the Federal Protective Service Guard Contracting Reform Act of 2007, ensures that Federal Protective Service guard contractors are ``capable, responsible, and ethical,'' and those are the words of the regulation. I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for facilitating early consideration of this bill, and for the leadership on both sides, including the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Ranking Member Graves for understanding its importance and for their efforts in support of the bill.

The Federal Protective Service Guard Contracting Reform Act prohibits the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security from contracting with any security guard service that is owned, controlled or operated by an individual who has been convicted of a felony. The bill would eliminate proxy operation by felons who are relatives, spouses or others.

H.R. 3068, as amended, is a result of two oversight hearings Mr. Graves and I held that examined the role of the Federal Protective Service in providing security for the Nation's public buildings. There was evidence of serious allegations of wrongdoing, chaos and irregularities in the contracting and employment of private security guards whose mission it is to protect Federal employees and facilities.

Our subcommittee worked closely with appropriate Department of Homeland Security officials to eliminate the backlog in payments to guards and to correct FPS mismanagement that risked the security of Federal employees and visitors. FPS guards, like guards employed by the Federal Government, these security guards are used on our most sensitive buildings, including here in the Nation's Capital and the National Capital region where your most secure facilities are located.

Therefore, it was surprising to learn that an individual with a felony conviction would hold a contract for security services in a Federal building, especially here, but frankly anywhere in the United States in the post-9/11 climate.

It was clear that this bill was necessary when our subcommittee learned at a hearing in June that an FPS security guard contractor had failed to pay 600 D.C. area Federal security officers and to make other important benefit payments to pensions, health benefits and the like. Our subcommittee intervened when an action by the FPS and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a division of DHS where FPS is placed, was reported to us.

The effects on the security of employees, visitors and the Federal agencies alike could not be ignored in today's post-9/11 climate.

We are indebted to the contract security officers who continue to work to protect Federal workers, the visiting public and the work sites, as well as to their unions. As a result of the subcommittee's June hearing, we learned that an individual who had served 5 years in prison for money laundering and fraud was a de facto owner of a private security business despite Federal law barring felons from owning companies that do business with the Federal Government. In fact, it was the felon, not his wife, who came forward to defend the company after it failed to pay the 600 D.C.-based guards despite receipt of funds for payment from the FPS. His testimony concerning his operational control of the company was nothing short of a case study in evasion of existing law by taking advantage of obvious loopholes.

His company has, of course, since been dismissed. H.R. 3068, as amended, strengthens existing requirements and prohibits all proxy ownerships by felons, including control or operation by an individual who has been convicted of a felony.

H.R. 3068, as amended, reminds us that we must not lose sight of the mission of private contract guards who serve the Federal Government to guard Federal employees and sites as vital as nuclear plants and military posts against terrorism and crime. The example of unpaid contract guards and apparent misuse of Federal funds that had been directed to pay them demonstrated why these contractors must be required to have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. H.R. 3068, as amended, codifies this important requirement.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words to me and for his work with me on the committee.

I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the gentlelady for her very gracious remarks and kind words. To the gentlelady who remarked that I first knew her when I was Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I must say to her that it gave me special personal pride to see her elected to the Congress, much more to see her become the first African American woman on the Ways and Means Committee, and she just did us proud again.

The gentlelady from Ohio has applied her distinguished career in the law to reminding the prosecutor what his first obligation is, and that is to do justice. That's why the prosecutor is given such discretion. He often doesn't prosecute, or he thinks of other things that should be done. The onus is on him.

And I found your remarks especially important in light of the fact that after what we've seen in Jena has left us to just get to one side or the other, and that's not solving the problem either.

I want to thank the gentlelady from Michigan, who is the Chair of our caucus, for delegating to you this responsibility and for her great leadership, especially in this week of the Congressional Black Caucus events where we will be discussing public policy and trying, as a group of African Americans, to contribute not only to the Congress, but to our Nation.

If the lady will, I would like to comment on both issues. I decided that the issue, the consciousness on the issue, had been raised and no words that I could say could further raise them.

But my consciousness was raised when 50,000 people went to Jena, led by young people. Now understand, yes, there were civil rights leaders here, but not since I was a kid in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee did I see a demonstration that was generally led by young people. The organized Civil Rights Movement played its part. But nobody who looked at those television pictures can have any doubt about who organized this extraordinary demonstration. And look what it was. It was a peaceful protest in the tradition of the peaceful nonviolent protests of the 1960s and '70s.

These kids, mostly college and high school youngsters, who identified clearly with the Jena Six of their age, came to Louisiana essentially to say that adults had lost control of their town and of their society. I went and looked for what has happened, and I want to say a few words about what has happened that makes me say that adults lost control.

This event that we all know about under the tree began almost a year ago. Well, in August. Well, August 2006, as a matter of fact. Now we're already in, so that's more than a year ago. Where, interestingly, these students went and asked permission to sit under a tree. Everything thereafter, it seems to me, falls squarely on the shoulders of the adults. Here the children are asking for permission. What do kids usually do when they see a shady spot? And that's what it was, apparently, one of the few shady spots close to the school has been preempted by people of a certain color. Well, you know, the way in which children go to school and college today, tragically, in separate groups, instead of going over and simply starting a fight or simply sitting under the tree, they asked permission.

Mr. Speaker, the noose, one can argue about whether the three nooses should have resulted in expulsion or not. For myself, particularly if there's only one high school, I'm not for expelling anybody. I'm for using the good offices of the adults to try to keep from doing that. And I doubt if there was more than one high school in Jena.

But the fact is that, whether or not the kids knew what the three nooses meant, once that word reached adults, white and black, they knew for sure. And without recounting all of the events, it appears that many opportunities to try to solve this issue were lost because those in charge of the town refused to listen.

How could a prosecutor, the prosecutor of which the gentlelady spoke, have essentially used the threatening language about the stroke of a pen and making your lives disappear after a school assembly? The school assembly was the right thing to do.

But I say to the Chair of tonight's event, where is the civil rights unit of the Justice Department?

After more than a year with this thing heating up, they still have, so far as I know, this unit that does not engage in law enforcement but does help troubled communities. This is a small town. They perhaps don't have the resources or the expertise to know what to do. But this school has gone through four lockdowns over this event; the local newspaper suggesting that the parents who tried to raise the issue at a school board meeting soon thereafter and were denied were the cause of the unrest. And there has been unrest.

The expulsion hearing for hanging the nooses becomes an issue not simply because that was not considered enough of a punishment. That's arguable. I don't want to stand here and say what was the proper punishment. It's because people look at the fact that that was mitigated to a few days and compare it to the almost instant expulsion of the black kids following a fight.

I don't regard these two things as the same. But I say to you that the reason that this appearance of unequal justice heated up is because after the expulsion was overturned to a few days' suspension, the adults did not, in fact, react to the mounting tension in the school, and it has mounted for over a year.

When the parents of the black students weren't allowed to speak at the school board meeting, they apparently went a second time and were allowed to speak, but, quote, not about the noose issue. There's nobody in Jena, and I can forgive them that, they're small-town folks, who understood that this was mounting, and if you don't get to talk it out, if you don't have small groups, if you don't have somebody helping you, it's just going to continue to mount.

Disciplinary issues continue all around this separate incident. We have incidents of young blacks being attacked by whites in the town, all around this incident without anybody, months later, heating up, incident after incident, all going back to the nooses; gun pulled on some black kids, not because they were involved with the whites who pulled the gun, but in retaliation for a prior incident. So here you have retaliation going and people going after whoever is not of their color.

And the teachers begging for somebody to do something over and over again. The recounting of what happened for a full year says the teachers are saying, for goodness sakes, help us out. We see mounting tension in this school. We had, a few months ago, a dozen teachers threatening a ``sick out'' if discipline was not restored in the school. And that's when the prosecutor comes forward and ups the charges of the six boys to attempted second-degree murder. That was his response to mounting racial tension in a school.

The prosecutor, I want to suggest to the gentlelady from Ohio, I believe, is in violation of Louisiana rules of professional conduct, just as the prosecutor was in violation of the North Carolina rules in the infamous case involving the woman who accused the Duke players of rape. This prosecutor has done the very same thing. He has gone before the press and spoken in

such a way that I believe he should be investigated by his own under Louisiana rules of professional conduct. And I believe and call upon the Louisiana Bar Association to do so.

But above all, I'm calling this evening on the Justice Department to lend its mediation resources to this poor little town where both the blacks and the whites are greatly in need of outside assistance. This kind of racial tension has built up over time, not only in this community, but I think young people around the country see Jena as emblematic of the abuses, overcharging in the criminal justice system.

Just as this young man who's being held in jail without bail may have been, and indeed did, if, in fact, he is found guilty now, and I do not know if he has yet been found guilty as a juvenile. The matter was thrown out when they wanted to prosecute him as adult.

If he has engaged in that violence, you will not find anybody in the Congressional Black Caucus or in this Congress saying violence was the appropriate response, given the fact that you have not been appropriately responded to on the three nooses. That, you won't find us saying.

What you'll find us saying is that every adult knew what maybe kids do not know, what three nooses have to have meant to these kids' parents and to these kids. And, Mr. Speaker, the adults in Jena allowed this to build up; beyond the adults, the Justice Department, who would have been in touch with these incidents.

They are charged to be in touch with these incidents over the last year. They did not move in and I call upon them to do so now.

Just to respond to that and just say a few words about SCHIP, what you say is so important. Also, the power of the prosecutor, we have seen him send Members of Congress to jail. You don't need to tell him much. But above all, what the prosecutor needs to know is this is not decades ago when a prosecutor approaching black people got them to fear and trembling. These are kids. This is 2007. That was seen as a threat, and it didn't do the job. In fact, it upped the ante, and it was irresponsible conduct because he should have been aware of how his words would have been perceived. And if anything, he needed to cool it down, perhaps to say the law is here to do his job if you don't do yours, but certainly that kind of threat had the opposite effect on teens.

Maybe on you and me, we might have said, well, wait a minute, we had better stop here. But these are kids who had spent a full year fighting each other anyway. And, again, where is it going to come to an end? The youngster who remains in jail remains there. We don't know what is going to happen to him. It seems to me the only way to bring it to an end is to bring in outside forces to try to mediate this situation.

I want to say a word about SCHIP in light of the allegation that many of us simply want to give high earners access to this bill to provide health benefits for children above the normal poverty line. And the figure has been cited in some jurisdictions you can make $60,000 or $80,000 a year. This needs to be explained to the American people. Yes, there may be some of us who see it as a way to get universal health care, but I will tell you most of us don't see it that way. The reason we have gone to children is because we have failed utterly and know we will continue to fail in the foreseeable future to get universal child care. And so the whole point of the State health bill was to say at least let's do it for children. And the notion of doing it for people with high income needs to be explained.

Poverty benefits are not adjusted for the cost of living in particular places. That has enormous hardship. But its hardship when it comes to health costs cannot be overemphasized because of differences in the cost of living and inflationary rise of health care in particular. Health care inflation is far greater than any other kind of inflation in the society. So you are faced in large cities, for example, with people who can't possibly afford even health care provided by their employer because the cost of living in the high-cost place where they live is such that they can barely afford to live there. So what is $61,000 in one place is not nearly what it is in a small town someplace else.

I want to point that out because these high-cost-of-living regions are faced with a terrible dilemma, that those children who will be without health care are in a large number and the salaries as seen nationwide do not explain why.

I looked at what were these places. These places in order of highest, the top three, to lowest are Hawaii, number one; California, number two; and the District of Columbia region, the national capital region, number three.

Is anybody surprised? People can't even afford to live in the District of Columbia anymore because of the cost of living.

New York must be here coming up. I am just looking down the list.

But essentially when you consider, yes, there is some enhanced benefit from the Federal Government, but what these jurisdictions have said is that the situation has become so bad after our investigations for certain people who are, yes, above the Federal limit that we believe that hundreds of thousands of children will, in fact, be without health care unless we move. And I am astounded by the number of States that believe this, and I am chagrinned that we see a preemptive strike by the Bush administration to, in fact, despite what we have passed, keep States from bringing in, up to a certain limit, certain families who have been priced out of health care in their communities.

So I call upon Americans, as they read about what we are trying to do here, to understand what we are really trying to do here, to make sure that when we say we are covering all children who need health care and could not otherwise get it, we mean that and no more.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the Nation's aviation system is in crisis. Delays have reached the highest levels in 13 years and the air traffic control system is groaning under the weight of a system based on 1950s technologies. The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2007 takes the first steps towards reducing these delays, improving airport infrastructure and creating a satellite-based air traffic control system. I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairman Costello for their leadership in bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor.

In 1986 Congress granted ``full power and dominion over, and complete discretion in, operation and development of the Airports'' to a regional authority. In return the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia agreed to take operational control and have raised more than $3 billion to modernize National and Dulles airports. All agree that the regional authority, the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, has done an excellent job. However, FAA Reauthorization legislation is almost always dogged by attempts, usually in the Senate, to increase flights outside the perimeter and inside the perimeter for Reagan Washington National Airport. MWAA has balanced concerns of safety, security and efficiency at these airports. National has avoided some of the delays that plague other airports and served the region in a comprehensive way, while Dulles has thrived as an international and national hub. We must allow professionals to do what only professionals are equipped to do.

As the only regional member of the Aviation Subcommittee I have argued to maintain the current perimeter and slot system and thank both Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairman Costello for supporting me and the region. Regional members and I have been successful in keeping amendments from being brought today and now it is time for Members to cease interfering for their own convenience.

The current reauthorization legislation shifts some outside-the- perimeter slots to better times and offers the slots to new entrants at National. This reordering of slots could increase competition and entice low-cost carriers to National, an airport where current airlines command a premium disadvantaging residents of the region. I hope that new entrants will help this region obtain quality low-fare carriers at National Airport for residents of the District of Columbia and the region who use National but are priced out of the major destinations inside the perimeter such as New York, Miami and Boston.

Other unfinished business of the Transportation and Security Administration that affects the FAA at National Airport still remains at National. Before 9/11 National averaged 600 general aviation/charter operations a week. However, since the new security program initiated in October 2005 only 200 general aviation aircraft have flown into National. The requirements of this security program have been unduly burdensome, while at other New York airports, general aviation has returned to its previous levels.

The Aviation Subcommittee will hold hearings on this issue so we can continue to work with MWAA on a balanced approach that will benefit the region and the country.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 3246 to amend title 40, United States Code, to provide a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severely economically distressed regions in the Nation, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3246.

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

H.R. 3246, as amended, in fact does amend title 40, United States Code, to provide a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severely and economically distressed regions of the Nation.

H.R. 3246, the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007, authorizes two existing commissions and three new regional economic development commissions under a common framework of administration and management, and further provides a framework for good decisionmaking and planning. These commissions are designed to address problems of systemic poverty and underdevelopment in their respective regions.

The five commissions are: the Delta Regional Commission, the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission, the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, the Southwest Border Regional Commission, and the Northern Border Regional Commission.

The bill models the administrative and management procedures for these five commissions after the highly successful Appalachian Regional Commission. The bill provides for a voting structure, provisions regarding staffing, conflicts of interest, local development districts, and other matters designed to produce a standard administrative framework.

By providing a uniform set of procedures, this bill provides a consistent method for distributing economic development funds throughout the regions most in need of such assistance and ensures a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development where it is most needed in our country.

The Northern Border Regional Commission, the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, and the Southwest Border Regional Commission have been proposed in legislation introduced in this and in previous Congresses and are designed to address problems of systemic poverty and underdevelopment in those regions. In addition, the Delta Regional Commission and the Northern Great Plains Commission would be authorized through this legislation.

H.R. 3246 authorizes funds for each commission to provide vital assistance for the development of our Nation's most chronically poor and distressed regions.

I would like to say a few words about the uniqueness of each of the new commissions being authorized by this bill. The Southwest Border Region includes all counties within 150 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. This region contains 11 counties in New Mexico, 65 counties in Texas, 10 counties in Arizona, and seven counties in California, for a combined population of approximately 29 million residents.

According to research compiled by the Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Southwest Border, 20 percent of the residents of this region of the Nation live below the poverty level. Unemployment rates are often as high as five times the national unemployment rate, and a lack of adequate access to capital has created economic disparities and made it difficult for businesses to start up in the region.

The Northern Border Region, stretching from Maine to New York, while abundant in natural resources and rich in potential, lags behind much of the Nation in its economic growth, and its people have not shared properly in the Nation's prosperity. The region's historic reliance on a few basic industries and on agriculture has failed to provide a diverse enough economic base for a vigorous self-sustained growth. In the belt of counties along the northern border from Maine through New York, 12.5 percent of the population lives in poverty; median household incomes is about $6,500 below the national average; unemployment through layoffs in traditional manufacturing industries is persistent; and the population grew only by 0.6 percent between 1990 and 2000 while the U.S. population rose by 13.2 percent, showing significant out- migration and loss of young people in the northern border region.

The southeastern portion of the United States, encompassing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, is an area which has seen poverty rates well above the national average, coupled with record unemployment. The region has also experienced natural disasters at a rate two to three times greater than any other region in the United States. The Southeast Crescent Authority authorizes a local-State-Federal partnership to lift citizens in this geographic area out of poverty and create jobs.

With the Federal allocation of funding, SECA seeks to funnel monies to programs which address one or more of the following criteria for the community betterment: infrastructure, education and job training, health care, entrepreneurship, and leadership development. Those communities with the greatest need will be targeted, and grants will be made according to the degree of distress.

This bill has very broad and very bipartisan support, Mr. Speaker; and the committee has held a series of hearings that has documented the needs that these economic development commissions would address.

I strongly support the bill, and urge passage of H.R. 3246.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the bipartisan nature of this bill. I also want to stress the hearings we've held on this bill. As you might imagine, when people hear the word ``economic development,'' everybody wants in. This has been a very rigorous process. We have bent over backwards, frontwards and sideways to be completely objective and to be open to Members on both sides of the aisles.

It's worth noting that all of the amendments that were added were requested by minority Members, our Republican colleagues. We're pleased to

do so. They were able to show the need in their respective districts.

This bill, it seems to me, in light of the strong support it has had in our subcommittee and our committee, from Members from all parts of the country, and of all backgrounds and parties, in light of that fact, I urge passage of the bill, and I urge all Members to support this bipartisan bill for economic development for the underdeveloped regions of our country

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a conflict making it impossible for me to remain for the very important hour that the Congressional Black Caucus has taken on Iraq. I am about to go to the Senate floor tomorrow, though, as there is a test on whether there will be a filibuster on the D.C. voting rights bill even as D.C. residents are on the ground in Iraq fighting, even as I have gone to funerals at Arlington Cemetery because of this war.

We have a President who has announced a token drawdown at the same time he is Koreanizing the war, making sure we remain there at least as permanently as we have been in some parts of the world, like Korea and Germany already. He wants to make a piggy bank of the Congress of the United States, and the test is whether we are willing to go along with these now-clear goals of the President.

I want to devote my 5 minutes to asking a question that really needs to be asked. We are looking at the battle. I want to ask, is there really still an Iraq? Three million refugees have left the country since 2003. Another 3 million have been internally displaced. Some have called it ethnic cleansing. I believe it is involuntary ethnic cleansing, because in a civil war you want to win, not chase the other people out. We

didn't want the Southerners to go; we just wanted to win the Civil War.

There is a kind of ethnic cleansing going on in Iraq, and let me show it and urge Members to focus on it. Thousands leave every month, and 95 percent remain in the Middle East. What kind of a cauldron are we making in the Middle East?

Syria has been best in taking them, and they are full up. Iraqis are the leading nationality seeking asylum in industrialized countries. Three hundred Iraqis returned after the fall of Saddam Hussein. So encouraged were they that they came back to their land, many of them from Iran.

By 2006, hundreds of thousands of new refugees were fleeing the country, and last week we heard there is less violence? Sure, those people that are leaving. They are being driven out of their own country as a result of a civil war.

What is most shameful as I looked at the data was to find who was taking the refugees. We know who is responsible for them leaving. We know who invaded their country. Well, the U.K. has taken 22,300, a much smaller country than we. Australia has taken 11,000, and the United States has taken 6,000. And they say if we leave, there will be a major fratricide. So why aren't we taking some of these people? Why are our allies willing to take them, even though they had less to do with the fleeing in the first place.

The number of people displaced internally is shocking. It has risen in 2006 alone by 50 percent. Let me show you how we are failing in our duties. In 1992, 1993 and 1994, we were taking over 4,000 Iraqi refugees and settling them. Now in 2005, we report settling 200. This is a moral failing when you invade somebody else's country and you won't take their refugees and you insist upon staying there and fomenting violence when 80 percent say they want you out of the country.

Let me read from an independent journalist. I don't think you can say Iraq exists any more. There has been very effective systemic ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Baghdad, of Shias from areas that are now mostly Shia, but the Sunnis especially have been a target, as have mixed families. With a name like ``Omar,'' a person is distinctly Sunni. It is a very Sunni name. You can be executed for having the name ``Omar'' alone, and Baghdad is now firmly in the hands of sectarian Shiite militias, and they are never going to let it go.

The refugee story alone is reason enough to begin the exodus from Iraq tomorrow. That is what they want. That is what the majority of the American people want. That's what we must see happen before we leave this Congress this year