Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the United States Commission on an Open Society and Security Act; expressing an idea I began working on when the first signs of the closing of parts of our open society appeared after the Oklahoma City bombing tragedy, well before 9/11. I introduce this bill on the sixth anniversary of 9/11 because the bill grows more urgent as increasing varieties of security throughout the country proliferate without any thought about their effect on common freedoms and ordinary access, and without any guidance from the government or elsewhere. The bill I introduce today would begin a systematic investigation that takes full account of the importance of maintaining our democratic traditions while responding adequately to the real and substantial threats terrorism poses.

To be useful in accomplishing its difficult mission, the Commission would be composed not only of military and security experts, but for the first time, they would be at the same table with experts from such fields as business, architecture, technology, law, city planning, art, engineering, philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology. To date, questions of security most often have been left almost exclusively to security and military experts. They

are indispensable participants, but these experts cannot alone resolve all the new and unprecedented issues raised by terrorism in an open society. In order to strike the balance required by our democratic traditions, a cross-cutting group needs to be working together at the same table.

For years before our eyes, parts of our open society have gradually been closed down because of terrorism and fear of terrorism--whether checkpoints on streets near the Capitol even when there were no alerts, or applications of technology without regard to their effects on privacy. We have also seen heightened controversy, litigation, hearings, legislation and court decisions because of the use of technology that intercepts terrorist communications but also covers communications among Americans.

Following the unprecedented terrorist attack on our country, Americans expected additional and increased security adequate to protect citizens against this frightening threat. However, in our country, people also expect government to be committed and smart enough to undertake this awesome new responsibility without depriving them of their personal liberty. These years in our history will long be remembered by the rise of terrorism in the world and in this country and the unprecedented challenges it has brought. We must provide ever- higher levels of security for our people and public spaces while maintaining a free and open democratic society for as long as is necessary. Yet, this is no ordinary war that we expect to be over in a matter of years. The end point could be generations from now. The indeterminate nature of the threat adds to the necessity of putting aside ad hoc approaches to security developed in isolation from the goal of maintaining an open society.

When we have faced unprecedented and perplexing issues in the past, we have had the good sense to investigate them deeply and to move to resolve them. Examples include the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as the Silberman-Robb Commission) and the Kerner Commission that investigate the riotous uprisings that swept American cities in the 1960s and 1970s. The important difference in the Commission proposed in this bill is that it seeks to act before a crisis-level erosion of basic freedoms takes hold and becomes entrenched. Because global terrorism is likely to be long lasting, we cannot afford to allow the proliferation of security that neither requires nor is subject to advance civilian oversight or analysis of alternatives or repercussions on freedom and commerce.

With no vehicles for leadership on issues of security and openness, we have been left to muddle through, using blunt 19th century approaches, such as crude blockades, unsightly barriers around beautiful monuments and other signals that the society is closing down, or anti-privacy applications, without appropriate exploration of possible alternatives. The threat of terrorism to an open society is too serious to be left to ad hoc problem-solving. Such approaches are often as inadequate as they are menacing.

We can do better, but only if we recognize and then come to grips with the complexities associated with maintaining a society of free and open access in a world characterized by unprecedented terrorism. The place to begin is with a high-level presidential commission of experts in a broad spectrum of disciplines who can help chart the new course that will be required to protect our people and our precious democratic institutions and traditions.

Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Lifelong Improvements in Food and Exercise Act (LIFE), a national initiative to attack growing problems of overweight and obesity now found in Americans of every age, race, and major demographic group. The LIFE bill would provide $15 million in funding to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for a major effort to reverse increasingly sedentary lifestyles and diets that are high in fat and sugar.

I introduce the bill today because of the startling and steadily increasing rates of obesity among adults and children in the United States. Currently, 64.5 percent of adults, aged 20 years and older, are overweight and 32.2 percent of adults (over 66 million) are obese. According to the National Women's Health Information Center, 50 percent of women aged 20 to 74 are overweight or obese. Young people are no better off--the percentage of children who are overweight has more than doubled, and among adolescents the rates have tripled since 1980 increasing from 5 percent to 17.1 percent. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that Type 2 diabetes, considered an adult disease, is now widespread in children. The health care system is already paying the price, and the consequences to kids will follow them throughout their lives. These kids, ages 10 to 15, have a 80 percent chance of being overweight adults, with the health conditions that follow, such as high blood pressure, heart disease and cancer.

The LIFE bill directs the CDC to pursue obesity and sedentary lifestyles in three ways: train health professionals to recognize the signs of obesity early and educate people concerning healthful alternatives, such as proper nutrition and regular exercise; conduct public education campaigns to teach the public about how to recognize and address overweight and obesity; and develop intervention strategies to be used in everyday life in worksites and community settings. This important legislation is the minimum necessary to address this major health care crisis. Already, chronic diseases, many of which are caused or exacerbated by overweight or obesity, account for 70 percent of all deaths in the U.S., which is 1.7 million each year and 60 percent of U.S. medical care expenses yearly. According to the Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity, the cost of obesity in the United States in 2000 was more than $117 billion.

A focused national health initiative is necessary because unhealthy lifestyles have become a normal part of everyday life. Participation in high school physical education classes has dropped from 42 percent in 1991 to 33 percent in 2005, accounting at least for part of the reason that one-third of young people in grades 9-12 do not regularly engage in physical activities. National data show an increase in unhealthy eating habits for adults and no change in physical activity. Changes in nutrition are equally critical because 60 percent of young people consume too much fat, a factor in the doubling in the percentage of overweight youth.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of this important legislation to mobilize the country now before entirely preventable health conditions that begin in children overwhelm the nation's health care system.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commemorate the fruitful life of Richard Rausch, who served on the staff here in the House in past years. After Richard Rausch's funeral in June, his friends repaired to the American Legion watering hole on Capitol Hill to celebrate his life in his style. Here in Congress, Richard is remembered for serving on the legislative staff of Rep. Neal Smith of Richard's home state of Iowa and Rep. Phil Burton. Richard's position as national director of the Young Democrats brought him to D.C. and he remained expert in national politics, but local politics became second nature to him. He came to the District from his beloved Iowa, and fell in love with this city and never left. In his home Capitol Hill community, Richard was revered both for his wit, wisdom, and his acumen as a behind the scenes political advisor and serious politician with the good humor not to take himself too seriously. He gave his life to the Democratic Party, attending every Democratic convention for the past 50 years.

A gay activist before most gays dared to come out, Rausch was a founding member and one of only three honorary life members of the Gertrude Stein Club. He was D.C.'s first openly gay member of the Democratic National Committee.

Richard was a quintessentially social animal and volunteer who knew who he was, where he stood and why. At bottom, people and politics were the loves of Richard's delightful and

fully lived life. Although most Americans have yet to commit to a presidential candidate, Richard was making calls for Sen. Barack Obama from his hospital bed during his last days. No doubt, Richard died a happy man, but he left many friends like me, who feel the void of his passing. Long live Richard.

Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public

Buildings and Emergency Management of the Transportation Committee has jurisdiction over General Service Administration, GSA, activities and programs as the property manager for the Federal Government. GSA itself owns over 1,500 Federal buildings comprising over 175 million square feet of space. The agency leases another 7,100 buildings with a total rentable area of over 176 million square feet of space. Because GSA is a lease holder for the vast majority of office space controlled by the Federal Government, the agency can also have a pivotal role in energy conservation in the private sector as well.

According to a September 2006 Department of Energy report, the public and private building sector together account for an amazing 39 percent of total U.S. energy consumption, more than both the transportation and industry sectors. Even more surprising public and private sector buildings, like those under our jurisdiction, are responsible for 71 percent of U.S. electricity consumption. These buildings in the United States alone account for 9.8 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. U.S. buildings are responsible for nearly the same amount of carbon emissions as all sectors of the economies of Japan, France, and the United Kingdom combined.

The Federal Government is the world's single largest energy consumer and the most prolific in wasting energy in the world today. Yet, for years our Government has pursued and achieved energy savings that demonstrate that we are capable of moving with far greater results. Primary energy use by the Federal Government, for example, fell 13 percent during the past 20 years, with a 25 percent decrease in energy costs in real terms, despite a 27 percent increase in fuel prices in the U.S. in 2005. In this bill, we begin to build on these results.

Subtitle A of Title VI offers simple yet very effective measures to immediately effect energy consumption in Federal buildings. The title includes a provision to direct the Administrator of General Services to install in newly constructed or newly renovated Federal buildings energy efficient lighting fixtures and light bulbs. Further, it also directs the Administrator of General Services, in the course of routine maintenance of Federal buildings, to replace existing bulbs and fixtures with more energy efficient fixtures and bulbs.

Title VI also requires that GSA include in the prospectuses for construction or alteration, submitted to Congress for approval, information about building energy performance and renewable energy systems. This provision will enable the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to examine anticipated energy consumption in new Federal buildings to make sure the buildings meet the highest standards possible.

Further Title VI authorizes the Administrator of GSA to sign utility contracts for not more than 30 years. This one provision will allow the GSA a longer time frame to hedge against increasing electricity prices in the market. The longstanding trend in electricity pricing is ever- increasing inflationary pressure as time advances. Thus a longer power purchase agreement, PPA, secures a fixed rate for a longer period and provides greater insulation against inflationary trends.

As a final provision, Title VI contains the language to authorize the installation of the photovoltaic wall at the Department of Energy headquarters building here on Independence Ave. and provides funding for this historic project from the Federal building fund at the General Services.

Subtitle C of Title VI deals with the Architect of the Capitol and authorizes the Architect of the Capitol to perform a feasibility study regarding the installation of a photovoltaic roof on the Rayburn House Office Building. Further Subtitle C authorizes the Architect to construct a fuel tank and pumping stations for E-85 fuel at or within close proximity of the Capitol grounds. The Architect is directed to include energy efficient measures and renewable energy in the Capitol Complex Master Plan and transmit a report to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on the energy efficient measures, climate mitigation measures, and other environmental measures included in the Master Plan.

Madam Speaker, I am introducing today the Universal Pre- kindergarten and Early Childhood Education Act of 2007 (Universal Pre- K) to begin the process of providing universal, public school pre- kindergarten education for every child, regardless of income.

The bill is meant to fill the gaping hole in the President's No Child Left Behind law, which requires elementary and secondary school children to meet more rigorous standards while ignoring the preschool years which can best prepare them to do so. My bill would provide a breakthrough in elementary school education by taking a step at the Federal level to provide initial funding, and using such funding to encourage school districts themselves to add a grade to elementary schooling at ages three and four as an option for every child.

We cannot afford to continue to blithely let the most fertile years for reading go by while we wonder why we can't teach Johnny to read. As the President presses No Child Left Behind into high schools, my bill asks him to begin at the beginning when children should begin their education.

The Universal Pre-K Act responds both to the huge and growing needs of parents for educational childcare and to the new science showing that a child's brain development, which sets the stage for lifelong learning, begins much earlier than previously believed. However, parents who need childcare for their pre-K aged children are rarely able to afford the stimulating educational environment necessary to ensure optimal brain development. Universal pre-K education would be a part of school systems, adding a new grade for three-and four-year-olds similar to five-year-old kindergarten programs now routinely available in the United States. The bill would eliminate some of the major shortcomings of the uneven commercial daycare now available and would assure the qualified teachers and safe facilities of public schools.

This bill's introduction is particularly timely here in the District of Columbia, where more extensive integration of early childhood education is planned as part of a larger effort to improve D.C. public schools. A recent report highlighted the economic benefits of early childhood education, generating $221 million each year in the District while starting early to expand job, career, income, and academic prospects of children, decreasing the amount spent on social programs to address teen pregnancy, crime, and the like.

Compare the cost of daycare, most of it offered today with an inadequate educational emphasis, at an average cost of $6,171 per year, to the cost of in-state tuition at the University of Virginia, which costs $6,785 per year. Yet, more than 60 percent of mothers with children under age six work. That proportion is rapidly increasing as more mothers enter the labor force, including mothers leaving welfare, who also have no long term access to child care.

Because of decades of refusal by Congress to approve the large sums necessary for universal health coverage, the Universal Pre-K Act encourages school districts across the United States to apply to the Department of Education for grants to establish three and four-year-old kindergartens. Grants funded under Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, would be available to school systems which agree in turn to use the experience acquired with the Federal funding provided by my bill to then move forward, where possible, to phase in three and four-year-old kindergartens for all children in the school district in regular classrooms with teachers equivalent to those in other grades as part of their annual school district budgets.

The success of high quality Head Start and other pre-kindergarten programs combined with new scientific evidence concerning the importance of brain development in the early years virtually mandate the expansion of early childhood education to all of our children. Traditionally, early learning programs have been available only to the affluent and to lower income families in programs such as Head Start. My bill provides a practiced way to gradually move to universal pre- school education. The goal of the Universal Pre-K Act is to bring the benefits of educational pre-K within reach of the great majority of American working poor, lower middle class, and middle class families, most of whom have been left out.

Considering the staggering cost of daycare, the inaccessibility of early education, and the opportunity earlier education offers to improve a child's chances in life, three and four-year-old kindergarten is overdue. The absence of viable options for working families demands our immediate attention.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for moving so quickly to fix this bill because we really can't wait. Fixing this bill, and thank you for taking us back to 1964, because that is about what happens here. The bill as it was intended, and this is not a hypertechnical statute of limitations bill. In fact, interestingly, the statute of limitations is not involved at all. It is the same 180 days as it always was.

The bill before us reinstates the law as it was consistently applied and interpreted by the courts, including the United States Supreme Court before, during and after I administered this law as the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and administered this very section. Once before the Supreme Court misread this, and Congress rushed to change it. And here we are back to a Supreme Court really reaching very hard away from what we had already fixed in the 1991 Civil Rights Act.

I want to remind my colleagues that the first pay cases under this act were not brought by women at all. They were brought by black men who were working in Southern factories in a segregated part of those factories, paid less than white men. Imagine if we said, Look, you fellas, go and see if you can find out what the white men, who won't even let you work in the same part of the factory, are earning. Of course we didn't. And of course nobody can require that of women or African Americans, who are just as affected by what we do today as women are.

Imagine, the most secretive information a person has, besides your medical information, is how much money you earn. How many in this Congress, before your earnings were a matter of public record, knew how much the person sitting beside you earned? And particularly, if you are a minority, a woman or a minority, you are not going to go up, and if you are, you are not going to find out.

We have got to fix this. The American people have demanded it. We have to fix it for women. And remind you, we have to fix this for black people, for people of color who bring the majority of pay cases in our country today.

Madam Speaker, today I introduce a bill to allow treatment using Medicaid funds for men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer. This bill mirrors the measure that Congress enacted in 1999 to help low-income women who would otherwise not qualify for Medicaid, despite being diagnosed with

breast cancer or cervical cancer. Congress found that women responded in large numbers to efforts by government and others to encourage early diagnosis using mammography after the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act was enacted in 1990. However, in 1999 Congress recognized that because the screening did not provide coverage of treatment for women above the poverty level, the screening legislation had the tragic but unintended consequence of informing these women of a serious disease that demanded immediate treatment but leaving them without the means to seek that treatment. Later, Congress amended Title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide medical assistance for the women screened and found to have breast or cervical cancer under a Federally funded screening program.

In today's bill, I have endeavored to provide the same relief for men. This bill allows men, earning up to 250 percent of the poverty level, who are diagnosed with prostate cancer through a Federal screening program for prostate cancer, to qualify for treatment using Medicaid funds. The program would target men who are low-income, uninsured or underinsured men who, nevertheless, do not qualify for Medicaid and do not have private Insurance.

Prostate cancer outranks breast cancer as the second most common occurring cancer in the U.S. and the second leading cause of cancer- related deaths. However, diagnosing this cancer is often less expensive, and unlike breast cancer, often does not require immediate treatment. Prostate cancer treatment does not require invasive surgery in many instances. Many prostate cases can be diagnosed with a simple Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Test unlike the high technology mammography machines used to detect breast cancer. Many men are advised to wait and watch for the development of the disease before seeking treatment.

However the rate of cancer deaths coupled with available treatment is strong evidence that many lives could be saved at considerably less expense if early detection and treatment were more available. Although race is a factor, every man over the age of 50 is at risk of developing prostate cancer and should be screened. Veterans that have been exposed to Agent Orange also have a higher risk of developing prostate cancer. Many doctors recommend yearly screening for men over age 50, and some advise men who are at a higher risk for prostate cancer to begin screening at age 40 or 45. Many black men are at the highest risk of prostate cancer--it tends to start at younger ages and grows faster than in men of other races. Currently, Medicare provides coverage for an annual PSA test for all men age 50 and older but men still do not fall within existing requirements to receive Medicaid.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in establishing this program guaranteeing treatment for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. It will meet an immediate and pressing need in communities across the country, and across racial and class lines.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Farm Bill, with great appreciation for the many challenges it presented to Chairman Collin Peterson, and respect for the Chairman's skill in meeting a multitude of complicated and often competing demands. I want to say a word about a small change in the bill that nevertheless rises to historic dimensions. I thank Chairman Peterson and his staff for providing equal treatment in the bill for the University of the District of Columbia, UDC, the only all urban 1862 Land Grant Institution in the United States. The University performs valuable urban agricultural research and extension services. The fact that the provisions the Chairman has included were in the Congressional Black Caucus farm bill package underscores the UDC changes as necessary to afford the University equality under the law. The changes end the disparate treatment of UDC by removing obligations not required of other land grant institutions, particularly mandatory local matching funds.

By statute, UDC has been left out of funding opportunities granted to other land grant institutions. For example, the University is required to provide 100 percent matching funds for its Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Programs, EFNEP, the only 1862 Land Grant Institution required to do so. Under the bill, this inequitable requirement will be removed, putting UDC on par with all other 1862 institutions, and like other small land grant institutions, UDC will qualify to have matching requirements for Hatch Act programs and extension programs reduced or waived. We particularly appreciate access to grants to significantly enhance the University's teaching and research capacity building and its ability to upgrade its research, teaching and extension facilities.

We still require clarification on one issue related to Smith-Lever Act funds. We will seek to clarify this issue during conference. However, the substance of the changes we requested is in this bill. We are grateful for the historic breakthroughs in the equal treatment for the country's only all urban land grant institution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, but above all, I thank him for a bill of historic dimensions.

Mr. Speaker, if this bill did no more than H.R. 1, enact a 9/11 Commission report, it would be that, and it does a great deal more. It's what we have been trying to do ever since you and I have been on this commission.

Let me point out a couple of things. One of the most criticized parts of homeland security has been what is called the revenue sharing or pork barrel spending we did in just distributing this money all over the country. Your task was to somehow make sure everybody got enough money, while pointing the money to where al Qaeda is pointing the threat. That is exactly what you have done with the base Federal funding for emergency preparedness now going, finally, on the basis of risk and vulnerabilities.

Of course, that means New York City and Washington D.C. are getting more attention than before. But those are not the only jurisdictions. Would anyone not want those two jurisdictions to get most of the attention where al Qaeda is giving most of the attention.

I share with Chairman Oberstar the concern that what we put in our bill for the distribution of the transportation security funds was not agreed to by the Senate. So we have another bureaucracy distributing the funds, as we would not have preferred.

But it must be said that you and I sponsored the bill for rail security. Public transportation security could get nowhere. Look what you have in this bill. Where the people are, we have got $4 billion for the first time. We got it for rail, we have got it for public transportation, we got it for buses. Finally, there is a collective sigh of relief.

There is $20 million, I must say, for Union Station. I just want to point that out, because Union Station is 2 seconds away from the Senate of the United States. It's the hub for Amtrak, and it's typical of where your bill looks for where the vulnerability is, where the holes are and shores them up. Your bill will be remembered by history.

Madam Speaker, I recognize Pastor Wanda McNeill for her 17 years of tireless work as Executive Director of Washington, DC's Southeast Ministry, which she helped create in 1990. Pastor McNeill, on the surface, was not an obvious candidate to take on such work in an inner city neighborhood, having been born and raised in Sioux City, Iowa. But Pastor McNeill has touched the lives of thousands in Washington, DC, and this city will be forever grateful for her dedication to those in need. We wish her well and Godspeed as she leaves our Nation's Capital to accept a call to lead a parish in Lake Preston, South Dakota.

Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill is a spiritual leader who, through her faith in God, has answered His call by dedicating her life's work to serving those in need;

Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill was born on February 21, 1944 in Sioux City, Iowa, and was raised on a family farm along with her sister Stella by William and Louise Edwards;

Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill in her earlier life was a foster parent with her late husband Frank McNeill to 12 children;

Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill earned a Diploma in Nursing at Iowa Lutheran Hospital, Des Moines, Iowa in 1965 and has been a licensed Registered Nurse in Iowa, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC;

Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill served the citizens of North Carolina as a Vista Volunteer

working with low-income families from 1966 to 1968, and then as a public health nurse until 1984, and during that time, founded the Yancey County Hospice Agency in Burnsville, North Carolina in 1982;

Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill earned a B.S. in professional arts, psychology emphasis, from St. Joseph's College, North Windham, Massachusetts in 1984, graduated from Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in 1988, was ordained in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in 1989, and earned a doctorate of ministry from Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 2005;

Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill has held the positions of Assistant Pastor, Associate Pastor, and Pastor at the Lutheran Church of Reformation in Washington, DC, since 1990 and has served our Capitol Hill neighborhood faithfully for 17 years;

Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill co-founded a non-profit social justice ministry named Southeast Ministry in the Anacostia neighborhood of southeast Washington, DC, in 1990 in response to expressed community needs for educational, cultural, and employment programs that lead those in need to self-sufficiency;

Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill through Southeast Ministry has reached thousands of men and women with education and job-related information services, increased their basic education skills and assisted them in passing the GED, prepared them to secure jobs through a curriculum of African-American culture, history, parenting, health and vocational assessment and in placement in training, employment and education;

Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill's personal decorations include the Community Service Award from Anacostia-Congress Heights Partnership in 1991, Women of Achievement Award from the Zonta Club of Washington, DC, in 2000, and the Bob Woodson Award for special accomplishments from the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise in 2005;

Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives recognizes Pastor Wanda McNeill for her commitment to a life of service to the citizens of the United States, especially the poor and underprivileged who society has passed by, for her continued dedication to this life- long calling, and for touching the lives of thousands with her work in the poorest neighborhoods of the District of Columbia, our Nation's Capitol.

Madam Speaker, today I introduce a bill that I believe Congress must pass forthwith to assure that Federal Protective Service, FPS, guard contractors are capable, responsible, and ethical as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulations. It was clear to me that this bill was necessary when a vital security contractor issue emerged from our Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management hearing on June 21, 2007. A security guard contractor had failed to pay its guards from FPS funds. At the hearing we learned that Weldon Waites, who had served five years in prison for money laundering and fraud, was the de facto owner, with his wife, of STARTECH, despite federal law barring felons from owning companies that do business with the federal government. In fact, it was Waites, not his wife, who came forward to defend the company after it failed to pay its 600 D.C.- based guards despite receipt of funds from FPS for payment. Mr. Waites' testimony concerning his operational control of the company was nothing short of a case study in evasion of existing law by merely taking advantage of obvious loopholes. Today I am filing the Federal Protective Service Guard Contracting Reform Act to prohibit FPS from contracting with any security guard service that is ``owned, controlled or operated by an individual who has been convicted of a felony.'' My bill would eliminate proxy ownership of vital FPS contracting operations by relatives or spouses. The bill would be effective immediately upon passage and therefore would mean that FPS would be required to dismiss any felon exercising control over any FPS contracting operation now, not merely future contractors.

My bill 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, and in the case of Jenkins Security, two secure federal power plants here. The STARTECH example of unpaid contract guards and apparent misuse of federal funds directed to pay guards demonstrated why federal law requires these businesses have a ``satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.''

Contract security officers are a critical component of federal strategies to protect the safety and security of federal employees and vital federal facilities. In the federal sector, security guards, many of whom carry guns, are as essential to protecting federal employees and sites as members of FPS. Although not a replacement for public law enforcement officers, whether local police officers, or FPS law enforcement officers, private security guards, like peace officers, are engaged in counter-terrorism activities in the post 9/11 environment. It was 9/11 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security that led to the transfer of the FPS from the General Services Administration to the new Department of Homeland Security. Since the transfer, however, FPS has become even more dependant on contract guards, who have grown rapidly to 15,000, while the number FPS guards is down from an authorized 1,450 to about 1,000. In passing appropriations for FPS this year, the Appropriations Committee indicated that the administration is seeking to totally eliminate FPS, the official police force for federal government work sites and facilities. The Appropriation Committee took action that assures that FPS officer levels as of 2006 will remain in place unless certain strong conditions are met. Today's legislation concerning the vitality and integrity of contracting operations assume even greater importance in light of FPS downsizing.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, today I recognize the achievements of one of my constituents, Richard ``Dick'' Smith, who has generously contributed to the preservation and continuance of jazz music and culture. With deepest honor, I am proud to present this tribute to Mr. Smith, a contributor of our American culture.

For the past 8 years, Mr. Smith has diligently worked as music coordinator for Jazz Night located at a Southwest Washington church. The mission of Jazz Night is to present, preserve, document, and perpetuate the original art form of jazz as it has been practiced for over 75 years. Jazz Night provides a venue for local jazz legends and contemporary musicians throughout the D.C. Metropolitan area to perform for people of all ages, experiences and backgrounds.

Mr. Smith dedicates his life to jazz, and his involvement and participation in such programs as Jazz Night reflects his sincerity and devotion to his cause. In collaboration with Jazz Night Mr. Smith works to provide outreach by presenting jazz musicians and hosting jazz performances in community centers, senior citizen facilities and nursing homes. Music education is also provided for young people through a program designed to develop and nurture emerging musicians. This program serves often neglected sectors of our community by supporting and developing the youth. By doing this Mr. Smith hopes to erase as much of the negativity and violence that threatens many communities.

Furthermore, Mr. Smith wishes to bridge the gap between the youth and the jazz tradition by recognizing the youth as a vital part of our jazz community, and by exposing them to music other than hip hop which often saturates their environment.

Mr. Smith has tirelessly and unselfishly devoted his life to the conservation of jazz. He is one of the founding members of Lettum Play, an organization formed in the 1950s that gave musicians a venue to perform. Mr. Smith serves as a mentor to many emerging musicians in the Washington area. Without the incessant efforts of Mr. Smith, D.C. jazz as we know it would cease to exist.

In addition to being a vocalist, the former Washington Redskin is truly a legend in the D.C. area. His mission, to ensure that the history of jazz in Washington, DC is preserved for generations to come, is commendable. As a performer, Mr. Smith has had the privilege to perform with such greats as Shirley Murdock, and notable jazz musicians like the late Keter Betts, Buck Hill and the late Ronnie Wells. For more than 5 years, Mr. Smith was a featured male vocalist for the East Coast Jazz Festival.

Mr. Smith has spent years enriching the cultural and musical life of District residents. I am pleased to join the Washington area in recognizing Mr. Smith's service and contributions to our community as he celebrates his recent birthday.

Madam Speaker, I introduce the District of Columbia Medicaid Reimbursement Act of 2007 today to raise the Federal medical assistance percentage, FMAP, the Federal contribution from the Federal Government from 70 percent to 75 percent, and to reduce the District's unique role as the only city that pays the full local cost of Medicaid, a program that is carried by States and counties in our country. New York City, the jurisdiction that powers the economy of New York State, contributes a 25 percent local share to Medicaid while the State pays 25 percent, less than the District's statutorily mandated 30 percent contribution. I introduce this bill because the District's continuing responsibility for most Medicaid costs that are typically borne by entire states is a major component of the District's structural deficit and threatens the stability of the city itself, according to the District's Chief Financial Officer, CFO.

The District's CFO reports that rapidly increasing Medicaid costs put the city at risk. In FY2005, these costs accounted for $1.4 billion, or 22 percent, of the city's gross funds budget. Total program costs have risen 42 percent since 1999, and are projected to increase by another $39 million this year. Yet the District, unlike other cities which have lost significant populations, has no State economy to share this burden. More than 25 percent of District children and adults are enrolled in Medicaid, compared to 12 percent in Maryland and just 9 percent in Virginia. On average, the District spends over $7,000 per enrollee, while Maryland and Virginia spend $5,509 and $5,177, respectively, reflecting serious health conditions that are concentrated among big city residents in this majority African-American city.

The D.C. Medicaid Reimbursement Act of 2007 is the seventh in the ``Free and Equal D.C.'' series. This series of bills addresses inappropriate and often unequal restrictions placed only on the District and no other U.S. jurisdiction. Although today's bill cannot address the entire structural problem that the District faces because the city is not part of a state, the bill would eliminate the greater percentage the District pays by allowing a 25 percent city contribution, rather than the current contribution that is even greater than New York City's.

In 1997, as part of the Balanced Budget Act, Congress recognized that State costs were too costly for any one city to shoulder. To alleviate the resulting financial crisis, Congress increased the Federal Medicaid contribution to the District from 50 to 70 percent, and took responsibility for a few State costs--prisons and courts--relieving the immediate burden, but the city continues to carry most State costs.

In 1997, a formulaic error in the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital, DSH, allotment reduced the 70 percent FMAP share,

and as a result, the District received only $23 million instead of the $49 million due. I was able to secure a technical correction to the Balanced Budget Act of 1999, partially increasing the annual allotment to $32 million from FY2000 forward. I appreciate that in 2005, Congress responded to my effort to get an additional annual increase of $20 million in the budget reconciliation bill, bringing D.C.'s Medicaid reimbursement payments to $57 million as intended by the Balanced Budget Act. However, this amount did not reimburse the District for the years a Federal error denied the city part of its Federal contribution, and in any case, of course, was not intended to meet the structural problem this bill partially addresses.

The District has taken important steps on its own to reduce Medicaid costs through greater efficiency, and to treat and prevent conditions that prove costly when hospitalization or expensive treatments become necessary. The District Medicaid agency won Federal recognition as one of only two Medicaid programs nationwide to exceed the Federal Government's child immunization goal for school-age children at 95 percent, and improved its fraud surveillance, recovering $15 million in fraudulently billed funds. The city's novel D.C. Health Care Alliance, for which Federal approval is pending, would allow coverage of residents and provide more early and preventative care, avoiding huge Medicaid costs when health conditions become severe and Medicaid becomes the only option.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this increase that will help my city's most needy residents.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that would put the University of the District of Columbia (UDC) on par with all of the other land grant universities around the country.

Land grant institutions play a significant role in ensuring that our nation remains the world leader in the production of food, fuel and fiber. Through a wide range of research and extension activities, U.S. citizens gain useful knowledge on the latest changes in agriculture- based technology that keeps our food supply safe while providing for critical health information on food and nutrition.

Congress authorized land grant status to the University of the District of Columbia in 1974, and since that time the University of the District of Columbia has played a major role in these efforts from an urban point of view as the only all urban land grant institution in the country.

Many are not aware that the University of the District of Columbia is an 1862 Land Grant Institution with specific legislative authority to participate in various United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) research and extension programs. More particularly, the University has specific statutory authority to participate in research funding programs under the Hatch Act, similar to the authority given to other 1862 Land Grant Institutions. This is not the case, however, for the University's extension service activities.

Extension services at the University are awkwardly authorized under Section 208(c) of the District of Columbia Higher Education and Post Secondary Act of 1974, rather than Section 3 of the Smith-Lever Act. While Section 208(c) of the District of Columbia Higher Education and Post Secondary Act of 1974 incorporates by reference the specific extension activities under Section 3 of the Smith-Lever Act, this outdated statutory scheme presents significant barriers to the University's ability to effectively carry out extension activities. The barriers resulting from this statutory scheme present themselves in form and substance while raising issues of equity and fairness. USDA's implementation ofthe Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) best highlights this inequity.

EFNEP is a formula-based nutrition education program authorized under Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act. In Fiscal Year 2006, the Congress appropriated $62 million for the EFNEP program and USDA disseminated these funds, without any nonfederal matching requirement, to the various land grant institutions in the states and territories, except for the University of the District of Columbia. Under current law, Smith-Lever EFNEP funding is made only conditionally available to the University of the District of Columbia through Section 208(c) of the D.C. Postsecondary Education Act, which requires UDC to provide 100% matching funds for its EFNEP funding. UDC is the only 1862 Land Grant Institution required to do so. The language requiring the 100% match for District of Columbia EFNEP programs is clearly a relic of the budget and political climate that existed at the time the EFNEP provision was enacted for the District of Columbia in 1974.

Moreover, as a critical threshold issue, the University does not currently have access to any EFNEP funding because UDC is not in the Smith-Lever Act that guides the appropriations process; no one looks to the D.C. Postsecondary Education Act, so UDC is overlooked in the EFNEP funding allocation.

There is no reason why the District of Columbia's children should have less access to nutrition education programs than children in the states and U.S. territories. It is long overdue to remove this inequitable financial barrier. Neither the continued exclusion of the University from the EFNEP program nor the mandatory matching requirement is supported by USDA's policy goal of ensuring that the EFNEP program reaches all predominantly minority low-income youth and families with nutrition education that leads to sustainable behavior changes.

The legislation that I introduce today corrects this problem along with other barriers to the University's participation in the agricultural research and extension programs, and provides the authority needed for the University to participate in capacity building and facilities programs now being administered at the United States Department of Agriculture. The University of the District of Columbia functions with very limited resources in comparison to the large endowments of most other land grant institutions. Accordingly, a reduction in the current matching requirements for the Hatch Act state agricultural experiment station programs and the other Smith-Lever extension programs, similar to the reduction and waiver provisions authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill for some of the smaller 1862 Land Grant Institutions would be equitable and fair. For this reason, this legislation would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce and waive the nonfederal matching requirement if the Secretary finds that the University will not be in a position to secure nonfederal funds.

Finally, this legislation would allow the University to participate in USDA's competitive capacity and facilities grant programs. Participation in these grant programs would significantly enhance the University's teaching and agricultural research capacity building resources, and its ability to upgrade its research, teaching and extension facilities, thereby recognizing the importance of the University as the only all urban land grant institution performing valuable urban agricultural research and extension services to the District of Columbia community and a predominately African American student population. It is only fair that the University of the District of Columbia is afforded the same opportunity to compete for capacity building and facilities opportunities that the other small, minority- serving institutions are eligible to pursue.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 801) to designate a United States courthouse located in Fresno, California, as the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S. 801.

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

S. 801 is a bill to designate the United States Courthouse bordered by O Street, P Street, Tulare Street and Capitol Street in Fresno, California, as the Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse.

Judge Coyle recently retired from Federal service, was appointed to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, in 1982. He has served on the bench for 25 years, including 6 years as chief judge.

Judge Coyle is a native Californian. He was born in Fresno in 1930, graduated from Fresno State College in 1953 and from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1956. Judge Coyle's career includes time as Fresno County Deputy District Attorney.

He is a member of numerous associations, including the American Bar Association, American Board of Trial Advocates, State Bar of California, and the Fresno County Legal Services. He is a trusted mentor and a highly respected member of the ninth circuit.

Judge Coyle has devoted his public career to the citizens of California's central valley and was instrumental in supporting the construction of the courthouse. It is both fitting and appropriate to honor his legacy with this designation.

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

I have no additional speakers.

I urge passage, and yield back the remainder of my time.