Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a compassionate spiritual and community leader from the Fourth Congressional District, Bishop Sedgwick Daniels. Bishop Daniels is the pastor and spiritual leader of Holy Redeemer Institutional Church of God in Christ. His involvement in the well-being of this community, whether it is his church ministry or providing critical services, has been a lifelong pursuit. Bishop Daniels is a recognized leader at the national, regional and local level for his work.

Bishop Daniels has been recently honored with his election and elevation to the General Board for the International Church of God in Christ. The General Board oversees both the temporal and spiritual affairs of the church in the United States and in more than 50 countries. The 12-member General Board of Bishops is elected to this board from the Church of God in Christ's International Board of Bishops.

Bishop Daniels is the jurisdictional Bishop for the historic Wisconsin 1st Jurisdiction, where he oversees more than 90 congregations and includes all of Wisconsin and northern Illinois. In addition to his duties as jurisdictional Bishop, he oversees an array of resources and services to assist the community as leader of the Holy Redeemer Institutional Church including: a credit union, youth programs through the Daniels-Mardak Boys and Girls Club, educational programs and plans for the development of Bishop Creek Initiative.

Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I am honored to pay tribute to Bishop Sedgwick Daniels' contributions to the Fourth Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I regret missing rollcall vote No. 260 today on the dilatory motion offered by the Minority to change the title of H.R. 2187. I was necessarily detained in important meetings and receiving briefings on the FY 2009 supplemental to prepare for the very serious vote on that legislation scheduled for later today.

Simply looking at the motion offered by the Minority, it is clear at face value that it was not a serious legislative effort to improve the Green Schools bill's focus on helping rebuild our nation's schools but was instead a dilatory tactic and a childish effort meant simply to embarrass and delay. We are not children and this is not a game. If I had been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns raised by many about whether this bill reflects the ``perfect'' strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq.

The stakes are high in Afghanistan and the challenges are complex. As then-Senator Barrack Obama noted in July 2007, ``the Afghan-Pakistan border region is where the 9/11 attack was plotted. It is where most attacks in Europe since 9/11 originated. It is where Osama bin Laden lives and his top confederates still enjoy safe haven, planning new attacks. And it is where we must urgently shift our focus . . . using the totality of America's strength, not merely our military, incredible as it is.''

For the first time since I have been here in Washington, discussion about a supplemental has focused on where most of our efforts since 9/ 11 should be: Afghanistan.

I am encouraged that we finally have a President who is committed to a redeployment of our troops from Iraq so that we can focus on where the threats from Al-Qaeda originated on September 11 and which unfortunately we have seen the threat to our country, to Afghanistan, and to Pakistan grow in the past few years. The Supplemental is consistent with the President's plan to begin winding down the number of combat troops in Iraq over the next several months.

While I wish we did not need to have military forces in Afghanistan, the deteriorating security situation will necessitate more U.S. troops--at least for a time--to help ``disrupt, dismantle, and destroy'' safe havens for Al-Qaeda. Creating a situation in Afghanistan that prevents the return of the Taliban and al Qaeda is clearly a priority for our national security.

It's a decision I take with a heavy heart and after much deliberation. I err on the side of peace. I never look forward to sending more of our brave young soldiers to the battlefield or for war. Yet, it is unfortunately clear to me that military forces must continue to be a part of our effort in Afghanistan to help protect innocent Afghan civilians.

This increase in forces must be accompanied by clear guidelines to minimize civilian casualties that have only inflamed public opinion in Afghanistan against the U.S. and its coalition partners.

We cannot win any war where we lose the support of the local populace.

The use of airstrikes that may have killed some terrorist leaders but also killed or injured more innocent civilians--such as the attack from earlier this week--and fanned anti-American sentiment must be reexamined at the highest levels of our defense establishment.

But if we have learned anything from the situation in Iraq, it is that military force alone is not sufficient in and by itself to achieve our nation's foreign policy objectives in combating terrorism. I remain concerned that a strategy that relies on our military alone--who have served and continue to serve with valor, honor, and dedication and done all that their country has asked of them--to address the vast range of challenges facing the Afghanistan government and people is not a viable way forward in Afghanistan.

Yet, without security, the Taliban will continue to disrupt and destroy U.S. and international efforts to boost health care, governance, and economic growth in the country, as

evidenced by the continuing attacks against innocent girls who have now been empowered to go to school and get an education.

I am also concerned about the growing influence of the Taliban on Afghanistan's government and what that would mean for the respect for human rights, including the rights of women and the future of women and girls if we allow Afghanistan to become a failed state.

Development in Afghanistan cannot occur if we do not protect and empower the 50 percent of the population that are women. However, the prospects for women and girls in Afghanistan under the Taliban or a government heavily influenced by the Taliban are chilling.

We saw this growing influence I believe with the March 2009 approval by Afghan's parliament of a law that would, according to news reports, legalize marital rape, strip mothers of custodial rights in the event of a divorce, and prohibit a woman from leaving her home unless her husband gives his approval.

This law violates the basic human rights of women under several international treaties and convention and appears to contravene Afghanistan's own constitution.

This law has been rightly condemned by President Obama and others around the world and I urge President Karzai to officially reject it as well.

Its passage is a troubling omen of what the future holds for many of the committed women and girls who have courageously stepped out of the shadows since the fall of Taliban rule in Afghanistan in 2001.

I have advocated for a comprehensive strategy in Afghanistan and a comprehensive strategy will include the appropriate and judicious use of our military forces--otherwise it would not be comprehensive. It is clear that the Afghan security forces are overwhelmed and under- resourced to combat Al-Qaeda. In Afghanistan--a country that has both a larger population and a larger geography than Iraq--current U.S. forces are one-fifth the size of the forces in Iraq.

We must support efforts by the Afghanistan government to improve security for the millions of innocent Afghans whose future is threatened by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

An important piece of a comprehensive strategy is an exit plan. That is an unfortunate gap in the bill before us, but nothing prevents the House or Congress from addressing that issue in the days or weeks ahead.

I am an original cosponsor of legislation by Congressman James McGovern that asks the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress with a plan for an exit strategy for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan by the end of the year. I look forward to helping move it through the House as soon as possible.

Additionally, the increase in fighting forces in Afghanistan undertaken by this Administration must be matched by concomitant increases in diplomatic, development, and other nonmilitary aid.

The FY 2009 supplemental remains the most immediate avenue available at this point to secure the $7 billion in foreign aid requested by the President to support his boost for such efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere. In fact, this bill would add $3 billion to the President's request.

The $5.1 billion in the bill for Afghanistan is a significant step in the right direction. The $3.6 billion for training Afghan security forces and police; $980 million for economic development and expanding the rule of law and combating corruption; and $536 million for increased U.S. civilian and diplomatic staff are key parts of the Administration's new strategy for the region and will hopefully pave the way for the Afghan government to take the lead in securing its territory and meeting the needs of its people. On that point, today, 17 members of the Wisconsin National Guard--most of them based in Milwaukee--will return home after 10 months in Afghanistan training and advising the Afghan National Police.

I don't need to mention the critical need for the Pakistan assistance as troubling media reports surface by the hour that graphically illustrate the challenge facing that country and its government in its battle against Al-Qaeda and insurgent groups. The House bill would provide over $2 billion for Pakistan, almost $600 million more than requested by the President to boost State Department and civilian staffing, to strengthen governance and economic development efforts.

While I wish the mix between military aid and development and other aid in the bill were different, I also realize that this bill is taking an important step to better balance that mix while acknowledging a difficult reality for there are hundreds of thousands of troops still in war zones and at the same time, there is a lack of staffing at USAID and State that will need to be addressed to properly support a more forceful role for those agencies going forward.

The bill also addresses a number of other priorities including compensating all members of our military who were subject to the DoD's stop loss policy after September 11, boosting funding for MRAP's to protect our troops from IED's, and providing over $1 billion for medical care to servicemembers and their family members, including research and treatment of PTSD and TBI.

The supplemental would also provide millions in funding for new wounded warrior facilities to help soldiers wounded in combat to recover and to support their families through that process. It would speed up the construction of new military hospitals in Bethesda and at Fort Belvoir and provide over $1 billion for family support programs including improving access for families to child psychologists, child care, child development centers, financial counseling and other support.

Important funding is also included to facilitate the Middle East Peace process including economic aid and security assistance for Israel, Egypt, West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, and Lebanon.

The bill also makes investments in efforts to combat pandemic flu, to aid developing countries negatively affected by the global financial crisis, and to extend the compassion and aid of the American people though the provision of food aid, refugee assistance, and support of peacekeeping operations.

While I am disappointed by the fact that there are no deadlines or timelines in the bill before the end of Fiscal Year 2009 which is covered by the funding in this bill, Congress will certainly have the opportunity to examine whether or not these new policies are working and how to make effective changes both for the sake of our national security and for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This bill is not ``perfect'' and can be improved. I hope it will get better and stronger when it goes to conference including the addition of more funding for the State Department to conduct diplomacy, build schools, hospitals and roads, and promote economic growth. Any efforts to reduce funding for these goals and funding for some of the important programs I have outlined below the levels in this bill will be of concern to me.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Danny Gokey, who over the past several months has captured the hearts and minds of the entire country--especially the people of the Fourth Congressional District of Wisconsin.

Danny's quest to be the next ``American Idol'' is a love story. In a sense, it is even magical. His wife, Sophia, encouraged him to audition for Idol. Ironically, shortly after his audition he suffered the tragic loss of his beautiful wife, Sophia, at the age of 27. In memory of his wife, he established Sophia's Heart Foundation, whose mission is to make a positive impact on students' lives through a Music and Arts Program. Musical instruments will be donated to students that otherwise would be unable to afford them. The Sophia L. Gokey Scholarship Fund will donate $1,000 scholarships to high school students who face challenges in pursuing their dreams. In spite of Danny's loss, he has continued to perform courageously and professionally each week while confronting both physical and mental challenges presented by this competition.

Danny has been singing since childhood. Prior to ``American Idol'', he served as Praise and Worship Director for Faith Builders International Ministries, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I have been told that Danny's favorite quote is ``unshakeable faith is faith that has been shaken''. He has overcome obstacles, personal tragedies and still continues to work toward his dream. His love for the church, family, music and life are an inspiration to all of us. His musical gifts along with his desire to find new hope, after experiencing such loss, is inspiring.

Madam Speaker, in Milwaukee, there is an enormous amount of enthusiasm and support for our 28-year-old ``hometown hero''. I am honored to pay tribute to this very impressive young man who Milwaukee views as their very own ``idol''. Go, Danny go!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the upcoming celebration of Mother's Day this weekend, Sunday, May 10. Mother's Day is a joyous occasion. And one of the reasons that Mother's Day is just such a celebration is that we all recognize the important role that mothers play not only in the lives of their biological children, but in the life of the entire community. It has been astutely observed that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

However, for too many women in our world, the journey to motherhood, pregnancy and childbirth is a death sentence rather than a reason for celebration. For every woman who dies, another 20 survive but must suffer from the illnesses or injuries incurred during pregnancy or childbirth. Maternal mortality is the highest health inequity on the planet Earth, with more than 99 percent of deaths in pregnancy and childbirth occurring in the developing world. And we don't really have to look that far to find those inequities right here in our own hemisphere. Haiti has the highest maternal mortality rate in the Western Hemisphere.

Women in the world's least developed countries are 300 times more likely to die in childbirth or from pregnancy-related complications than women in the developed world. And this is a tragedy that is compounded by the fact that these maternal deaths are preventable. When a woman dies after giving birth, the mortality rate for the now motherless newborns can be as high as 90 percent in poor countries.

Fortunately, there are known interventions, proven interventions that can be implemented to reduce maternal mortality. However, we need to invest more in the programs to fund these interventions. By one estimate, the U.S. would need to increase its investment in global maternal health efforts up to $1.3 billion a year in order to help achieve the Millennium Development Goal of reducing global maternal mortality by three-quarters by 2015. And out of eight Millennium Development Goals--eight--the goal to reduce maternal deaths has had the least progress being made on it.

Additional funds would help increase access to prenatal care, neonatal care and postpartum periods. It would provide up to 4 million health professionals who are needed in developing countries. Six of the seven countries with the highest levels of maternal mortality have less than one doctor for every 10,000 people. The severe shortage of health care workers and the poor quality of care must be addressed to achieve reductions in maternal mortality.

This week, President Obama unveiled a new global health initiative that will call for increased U.S. investment in global health programs. And I am thrilled that one of the identified goals for this new initiative is to reduce the mortality of mothers and children under 5 to save millions of lives. As a mother, I know that being a mother is one of the greatest joys and blessings ever enjoyed on this planet.

Again, I wish all of you, all my colleagues and their constituents, a happy Mother's Day. And I would hope that we would spend a moment thinking about all the mothers-to-be, a half-million women a year in the world, who never, ever, ever enjoy motherhood because they die in pregnancy needlessly.

Thank you, Mr. Ellison.

I would start out by acknowledging all of the tremendous work that the 9 to 5 Organization, founded in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has done around the issue of the importance of providing sick pay to workers.

People may not realize it, but workers nationwide have no sick pay. That is particularly relevant right now when you consider the beginning of this global pandemic, the swine flu. We had school closings all across the country. Parents were forced to take off work to take care of their children because of the quarantine conditions that were ordered by health departments. Not only did they do it because they were responding to a potential health crisis, but families living on a budget now have to deal with the decreased wages they are experiencing.

And, of course, when children become ill, parents can't afford to miss work so they go to work anyway and infect other people at work. They send their kids to day-care and infect other children. And, of course, employers suffer, many of them who are small businesses because they find that there is a loss of productivity.

One of the greatest losses of productivity for an employer are employees who are sick. And they become sick because other workers are unwilling to lose a day's pay because of a little cold that turns out to be either the swine flu or maybe even worse, the regular flu that is quite deadly and quite contagious.

This drives up medical costs, and God forbid that a spouse or a child falls gravely ill or is seriously injured because that worker then has no choice but to immediately seek medical help and take the loved ones to a doctor or hospital, and more absenteeism occurs and they maybe end up losing their jobs because small businesses cannot really afford to have their businesses shuttered while people are ill.

In my district, 51 percent of the African American male population is jobless, and it is the largest racial disparity in unemployment and poverty in the country. Forty-three percent of the city's workers earn less than $20,000 a year, and many are among the 122,230 Milwaukeeans, which make up 47 percent of the private workforce, who do not have sick days.

Last year in my district, the city of Milwaukee approved a binding referendum on the 2008 ballot that called for private employers in the city to provide paid sick leave for all workers, and this was due in part to the diligent effort of the unions and the community groups led by the National Association of Working Women, 9 to 5. And so now, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is one of only three cities in the country to require private employers to provide paid sick days.

It is smart economically because the lack of paid sick days is hurting Milwaukee's economic development.

Thank you for yielding.

This is a very important piece of legislation offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). I am so proud to be an original cosponsor. This makes so much sense.

Let me tell you what happens. The reality is when people don't have paid sick time, they cheat. They lie. When they are really sick, they don't come to work anyway. And worse, they neglect basic health care needs. They don't get their kids vaccinated. They don't take care of their teeth. They don't catch diseases and get basic health care like mammograms. They don't get them and catch these diseases early when they don't have built-in sick days. There is no employer on this planet that would wittingly deny someone basic health care knowing that an early detection of cancer would have saved their lives but for the fact that they didn't have paid sick days.

Absolutely. There is also a class issue here. Seventy-nine percent of low-income workers, nearly half of our private sector workers, have no paid work sick leave. I think it is something that we take for granted as we move up the hierarchy that we can go to the dentist or we can have good prenatal care when we expand our families.

A University of Chicago survey in 2008 found that one in six workers were fired for taking personal time off for illness for themselves or a sick relative. That is absolutely egregious. Like you said, it is penny wise and pound foolish. Say you own a small business, a small dry cleaners and someone has the flu and they come to work and infect everyone, then you have to shutter the business because you can't run a business like that yourself, instead of allowing that person to stay home during that infectious period of time. You are absolutely correct.

Well, you know, gentleman from Minnesota-- thank you for yielding--it's human nature: people make economic decisions and they prioritize, unfortunately, those economic decisions over health decisions.

I think people feel lucky, that maybe they won't spread disease, that maybe if they give their kid a couple of aspirin they will feel better and they can just send them on to school anyway, because the consequences of taking off work are very imminent, that they won't be able to make this month's rent. Remember, I said 79 percent of those folks who have no paid sick time are low-wage workers, they can't risk losing that money, that $80 that day, that $65 that day, they can't afford to do it. They don't have a relative or a neighbor or a friend who can stay home with their children while they are sick so they can go to work. And so they just roll the dice, they roll the dice. And again, that lump that just didn't feel quite right in their breast, you know, they ignore it.

And it shows up in so many other data in statistics. You find poor people who succumb to illnesses and die of diseases that could be cured, not because they are more susceptible to diseases, but because they don't catch them early enough. And of course that raises the cost of health care.

We heard our colleagues talking about the high cost of health care earlier. Well, of course health care costs more once your kidneys fail and you end up on dialysis because you didn't have a simple high blood pressure pill that could have been diagnosed earlier. Of course it costs more when you don't catch cancer at its earlier stages. Of course it costs more when diseases are allowed to fester to a point that you wind up in a very expensive ambulance and an emergency room instead of a sensible doctor's visit.

We have had children in this country who have died from what started out to be an abscessed tooth, something that could have been prevented with regular visits to the dentist. We have so much proof that when you increase copayments, when there are any economic consequences of seeking health care--and not having paid sick days is an economic consequence--when there are economic consequences, people delay health care until it becomes a fire.

I will yield.

All right. Thank you for yielding, gentleman.

Senator Edward Kennedy and Rosa DeLauro have worked collaboratively on this bill, and they have actually calculated, through their studies, the cost of what they call ``presentee-ism''--I guess that's the opposite of absenteeism--at work.

I will yield.

Presentee-ism is the opposite of absenteeism: when you show up to work sick, knowing you're sick--because of your own self-interests of not losing a day's pay--infecting everyone at work. This costs our national economy $180 billion annually. Showing up sick costs $180 billion annually. And so for employers, this cost averages $255 per employee

per year and exceeds the cost of absenteeism and medical and disability benefits.

I yield back.

Thank you for yielding.

Those are very compelling stories, and I have some here, too. But before I talk about individuals' testimonies from Wisconsin, I just want to make a point that this legislation recognizes the importance of not hamstringing small businesses. All businesses with under 15 employees would be exempt. So perhaps my example of the dry cleaners wasn't appropriate, but certainly when you have under 15 employees, those employers are exempt from providing the 7 days of sick leave.

Yes.

Well, actually, data is conclusive that our national economy would experience a net savings of $8.1 billion a year with just providing employees with these 7 days of sick time. Because as you pointed out, gentleman, productivity is extremely important. I can remember at the time when my mother died, I was showing up at work and just staring at the wall. I was not well because of the extreme grief I was experiencing, and I was at work. And my bosses told me to get up and go home, please. And so when I came back, I was much more focused on my job. You know, that loss of productivity is not good.

The other thing is that we are human beings. And employers experience a lot of turnover because they don't have employee loyalty because they don't have a basic sense of empathy in humanity. There is no way in the world that I would want to work for an employer who couldn't empathize with my grief over having lost my mother and wouldn't give me a day or two to pull myself together. So productivity is what is lost when we don't provide sick days.

I yield back to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I can tell you, gentleman from Minnesota, I have to wonder what the legal ramifications are of folks coming to work knowingly, knowing that they are sick. I mean, there's a chorus of public officials who give directives to people, saying that if you have symptoms of a pandemic, for example, the H1N1 flu virus, that you should stay at home. We hear the Centers for Disease Control say that if you're sick, if you have symptoms, stay home. We hear Dr. Richard Besser, the Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control elaborate that you don't go to school, you shouldn't get on airplanes or other large public transportation systems if you're ill. We hear

from the White House, the Press Secretary's saying clearly we all have individual responsibility for dealing with this situation, and we should all be practicing good hygiene practices and stay at home. We hear the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, telling us, again, the government can't solve this alone. We need everybody in the United States to take some responsibility. If you are sick, stay at home. We hear President Barack Obama in his 100 Days press conference saying that the key now is to make sure that we maintain good vigilance and that everybody responds appropriately and stays at home. If your child is sick, keep them out of school. We hear this over and over and over again.

So in my final words here, I would just ask you, as an attorney, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, what are the implications of knowing that you're ill and showing up at work because you don't have a paid sick day?

Well, thank you so much, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Minnesota. I'm very happy to participate in this Special Order tonight.

I think that, while we're talking tonight, it's really important to raise some really uncomfortable issues. I have heard many people on the other side of the aisle talking about CRA--the Community Reinvestment Act--and about Freddie and Fannie as causal of our current meltdown of the financial market. Let's get real about this. CRA and Freddie and Fannie are all proxies for a discussion of race, so I want to talk about race and about the whole history of the Community Reinvestment Act.

You know, I was out there, demanding as a community organizer that banks reinvest in communities in which they took deposits. I was one of the people demanding that they do it. Through extensive research, I was inspired, quite frankly, by a professor--now a professor at Georgetown University--who was a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Greg Squires, who found that minorities and particularly African Americans were being discriminated against in terms of getting prime loans.

What Professor Squires found is that, even when you controlled for income and when you controlled for other indices of creditworthiness, African Americans were less likely to get a prime loan and that redlining was the rule of the day and that, if you lived in a minority community, especially in the black community, no matter what your income, no matter what your credit score, no matter what your creditworthiness, being black--being an African American--would either not get you a loan at all or it would get you a subprime loan.

So the Community Reinvestment Act encouraged federally insured banks and thrifts to meet the credit needs of the entire communities that they served, including low- and moderate-income areas, that were consistent with safe and sound banking practices. The law was enacted in response to those of us who were out there who were concerned about disinvestment, and we produced evidence that lenders were

systematically denying credit to certain communities, particularly to minority and low-income communities. They were actually practicing redlining.

As you indicated, the gentleman from Massachusetts, you were incorrect to say it was 84 percent of the high-cost loans that were made. It was 84.3 percent of these high-cost loans that were made in the 15 largest metropolitan areas. So what happened?

We went from CRA, which was a very good law, and Freddie and Fannie-- these government-sponsored enterprises. We found that, in 2004, our former President, George W. Bush, demanded that Freddie and Fannie take on more of these mortgage-backed securities that were being produced by these subprime lenders, the 84.3 percent who were non-CRA lenders, and required them to buy more of these mortgage-backed securities. Now, mind you, Freddie and Fannie didn't write one single subprime loan, but they also became prey to the predators.

Now, why was there such a change of heart with respect to providing loans to minority communities? Because they found that there was a whole lot of money that could be made from these products, that there was a lot of money--a lot of moola--that could be made from these subprime loans. Low-income communities--minority communities--were targeted for these subprime loans.

So they went from not lending them money at all to providing loans to then forcing Freddie and Fannie, without getting regulation or with no one watching, to buy these mortgage-backed securities.

So I just want to get it straight here that, indeed, there were many, many, many loans made to African Americans and to Hispanics--people who were creditworthy, people who deserved prime loans. They didn't deserve these ARMs. Research and data are conclusive that African Americans, in particular, were given subprime loans even though they were worthy of prime loans. So I just don't want to hear it anymore.

When you hear CRA, the gentleman from Colorado; when you hear Fannie, the gentleman from Minnesota; and when you hear Freddie, that's a proxy for ``we loaned to all of those black people, and that's why we're having this worldwide crisis.'' No. The reason we're having this worldwide crisis is because of greed, because of fraud, because of lax regulators, because of fraudulent appraisers, because of the 84.3 non- CRA--non-Community Reinvestment Act--financial institutions in the marketplace, and because of race.

Race was the single factor in determining over the course of the past 30 years, first of all, who would not get a loan, who would be redlined against, and now currently who would, in fact, get a subprime loan.

I would yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts in response to this. I know that race is extremely uncomfortable for people to talk about, but I think it's important to keep it real.

Okay.

Thank you.

I really agree with your sentiments, the gentleman from Colorado, that it's time to move forward. I only arrived here in the 109th Congress, and I was here for one session in the minority. But what I experienced then was Barney Frank consistently working to try to reduce the systemic risk even before Paulson and Bush came and said, we're having a problem.

I remember the Federal Housing Financial Reform Act, to try to provide a good regulator for Freddie and Fannie, something that hadn't happened under Republican control. And, of course, no action was taken in the Senate. So thank God we've got maybe 60 votes now so that that won't be stalled out.

I saw Barney trying to provide what we did today, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007. He tried to do it before today. Of course, that stalled in the Senate. So thank God we have 60 votes now. Maybe some of his initiatives can go forward.

I remember taking a codel with Barney Frank to London and Brussels where we talked about systemic risk, worldwide, long before anyone was owning up to the financial meltdown.

So Barney Frank has really been on point, and hopefully with a Democratic majority and someone in the White House, his continued efforts to rein in systemic risk will not be stalled out as they have in the past.

I want to thank Chairman Gordon for yielding time to me and for including my amendment in his manager's amendment, and I thank his staff for working with me to make sure that all interested stakeholders, including public-private collaborations such as the Milwaukee Water Council in my district, will be able to interact with and follow the interagency committee's work.

This Federal water research initiative will certainly impact a host of affected stakeholders, not just Federal agencies, including those in my district. The Milwaukee area, which I represent, is blessed to sit on Lake Michigan, and, of course, Lake Michigan is one of the most tremendous resources that makes up the Great Lakes and is one of the largest freshwater sources on the planet.

The Milwaukee area also has a concentration of companies in the business of water and academic prowess in the water research field. An effort is underway, spearheaded by the Milwaukee Water Council, to better align these companies and the academic research strength in the area to create a hub for freshwater science, research, and water technology development. This is why I offer an amendment today to enhance the ability of these key stakeholders like the Milwaukee Water Council to participate in the agenda-setting process created by the bill.

Importantly, the amendment clarifies that public-private collaborations formed around water research and technology development at the State and local levels are important parts of the stakeholder community. This is key. But just don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. The 2004 National Academies of Science report made clear that we must prioritize making the Federal agenda-setting process transparent to the various stakeholders who have a stake in the outcomes of this initiative. The report also noted that one of the weaknesses of the coordination role played by the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality, SWAQ, administered by the Office of Science and Technology Policy is that the SWAQ lacks connections, formal or informal, to States, stakeholders, and other users. The SWAQ is invisible to the public at large as well as the research community outside of the Federal agency leadership.

It's so important that in authorizing this office we address this potential pitfall. My amendment that has been included in the manager's package would supplement the great work already done by Chairman Gordon and the Science Committee on this front. It will call for the creation of a public Web site to display important information on the range of reports and activities by this committee, including the posting of notices about opportunities for stakeholders to comment on the Federal water research plan. It's certainly my hope that these steps boost and strengthen the link and interaction between non-Federal stakeholders including the Milwaukee Water Council and the Federal water research initiative.

Again, I thank the chairman and the staff for working with me to make sure that the stakeholders will have one more tool available.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It would urge the Federal Water Research Interagency Committee established under the bill to examine and assess the impact of Federal water research funding on helping to develop the next generation of water scientist engineers.

Quite simply, I call this amendment the Talent Amendment. If we want to develop the best technology, and I believe we will, we need a cadre of prepared scientists and engineers at our Federal agencies and in the commercial-user community.

Without the trained scientists and engineers to do the work, it is really difficult to envision how this important work will get done.

My district is located on Lake Michigan, the only Great Lake contained entirely within the United States of America. And my district is also home to the largest academic freshwater research facility on the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes Wisconsin Aquatic Technology and Environmental Research (WATER) Institute. There is no doubt in my mind that the decisions made under this Federal Water Research Initiative, including funding decisions, will play a role, whether directly or indirectly, in developing water researchers, scientists, and engineers not only in the Milwaukee area, but across the Nation.

I think it is only common sense that we, as a Nation, take a look at how those funds are being used, not only to develop the new technology and tools, but how it is helping or can work to better help train and develop the next generation of water scientists and engineers. That is what this amendment does.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would now yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

Mr. Chairman, I would now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Colorado (Ms. Markey).

I have spent the last couple of Earth Days with high school students touring the Water Research Institute in my district, and just spending time with these young people, hoping that they will become our next generation of water scientists and engineers.

I want to just end by thanking Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for working with me on this amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about Earth Day which as you know is being celebrated in communities throughout our country and around the world today.

I can't begin any conversation about Earth Day without talking about Wisconsin's former governor and U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson, who was the driving force behind this important event.

I don't mean to boast but I don't think its coincidental that Wisconsin has been the birthplace of many prominent figures in the environmental movement and who helped shaped the environmental laws that have helped to create.

Wisconsinites have long recognized the need to be stewards of the environment. It's common sense when you grow up next to one of the largest sources of freshwater on the planet.

Gaylord Nelson is certainly one of those environmental champions of whom our state is proud and whose record of advocacy and accomplishment around the environment has not only impacted our nations, but the world. Earth Day is but one example of that.

He is rightly noted and celebrated for his role in the first ``Earth Day'' event which took place some 39 years ago.

But that is not where his involvement in the environmental movement began and not where it ended either. Before it was popular to be an environmentalist, Senator Nelson was working to make sure our nation's air, water, and natural resources were protected.

Senator Nelson was a mover and shaker not just in creating Earth Day but in starting the movement to bring the protection of our air, water, and public lands to the center of national attention and policy, not just an afterthought.

According to Senator Nelson, his efforts to create what is now Earth Day began in the early 1960s when he became troubled ``that the state of our environment was simply a non-issue in the politics of the country.''

In 1962, he approached the Kennedy Administration with an idea about how to shift the political spotlight to the need for better and pro- environment laws and policies.

He helped convince President Kennedy to undertake a national conservation tour to draw attention to the issue. While the President did the tour, according to Senator Nelson, ``For many reasons the tour did not succeed in putting the issue onto the national political agenda. However, it was the germ of the idea that ultimately flowered into Earth Day.''

This has probably been one of the most successful grassroots movements ever as today millions of Americans and millions more around the world are organizing in their communities at river and park cleanup events, planting trees and gardens, and other actions to promote environmental awareness, with the simple message: We ignore the damage being done to our environment at our own peril.

Over 3,000 people were out in force in my district on Saturday to clean rivers and streams throughout the area.

Since the First Earth Day, we have seen the passage of legislation strengthening the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, the passage of the Endangered Species Act, and other steps.

Yet, the battle continues. Our environment continues to face threats from pollution. Rising greenhouse gas emissions and climate change will present their own challenge.

Water shortages and droughts not only in our own country but around the world are of great concern. Just today, another report was released showing that rivers in some of the world's most populated regions are losing water, many because of climate change according to researchers.

We could all continue to live without oil, but we can't live without clean water.

The battle to keep invasive species out of our nation's waters will also continue. In the Great Lakes alone, it is estimated that over 180 non-native species have taken hold in the Great Lakes and on average, a new species is discovered every nine months or so.

I was pleased to be at an event yesterday in celebration of Earth Day where I had the chance to address high school students from my district about the importance of the environment and clean water.

It is future generations that stand to lose the most if we do not continue to make the protection and preservation of our environment a priority. This is what Senator Nelson and others understood so well back then. It is what is incumbent on us all, including policymakers, to understand today.

This Congress has a number of efforts underway to ensure that we continue environmental protection remains a prominent place in federal policy.

Senator Nelson was one of the authors of the Wilderness Act of 1964 which authorized the federal government to protect forever areas of our forests with unspoiled and untrammeled wilderness qualities.

Earlier this year, Congress passed by strong bipartisan margins the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2008 (H.R. 146) which would provide wilderness protection to over 2 million acres of federal lands. Senator Nelson would be proud.

The House has also passed legislation--Water Quality Investment Act-- reauthorizing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program which is critical to clean water efforts because it helps pay for building and improving wastewater treatment facilities in our nation's communities.

A number of other important pieces of legislation including a bill to address climate change and another to restore protections to our waterways granted by the Clean Water Act that have been undermined by various court rulings are pending.

Our nation owes Senator Nelson a great deal of appreciation. As we celebrate Earth Day, let us renew our commitment as individuals and as a Congress to continuing to pursue policies that will ensure that our nation's air, water, and natural resources remain a priority and remain protected for future generations to come.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise in favor of the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget. The CBC budget builds on the essential investments made by the President and the Democratic resolution. Both of these budgets represent the same important priorities--investing in education, health care, energy independence, and veterans.

In order to build on these investments, the CBC budget unashamedly immediately repeals the 2001 and 2003 trickle-down, ownership society, on-your-own tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest Americans, and puts those savings towards strategic investments in ordinary Americans.

In times of recession, the most fortunate must do more to contribute to the common good and to reduce the raging deficit.

The CBC budget supports increased funding for international affairs, which pays for critical life-saving foreign assistance such as HIV/ AIDS, TB, malaria, and child survival. Indeed, as Secretary Clinton has said, hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos are our greatest enemies abroad.

The CBC budget increases funding for veterans' benefits, weatherization assistance, energy efficiency, renewable energy programs, and invests in clean energy technology. The CBC budget increases funding for education which will go towards key programs like title I, Head Start, TRIO, GEAR UP, STEM programs, and early education programs. It is important that we give our young people an opportunity to succeed, and the CBC budget does this.

Last night on the floor, I emphasized that the spread of inequality is astounding, which means more people are forced to take minimum wage jobs, more people receiving government assistance, and even more people falling into poverty. Just this week, over 600,000 people filed for unemployment compensation, and the CBC budget does not ignore this.

The WIC program and Low-Income Energy Assistance Program all recognize this.

I just want to end, Madam Chair, with a quote from Plato.

``The form of law which I propose would be as follows: In a state which is desirous of being saved from the greatest of all plagues, not faction, but rather distraction, there should exist among the citizens neither extreme poverty nor, again, excessive wealth, for both are productive of great evil. Now the legislator should determine what is to be the limit of poverty or of wealth.''

Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership.

Education is certainly the key to unlock the door to freedom, George Washington Carver once said. This horticulturist, inventor, chemist, educator, and, yes, former slave, was lifted through educational opportunity in America. His destiny was changed because of education, and America's gross domestic product was changed because of him.

Unfortunately, however, the last decade of divesting in American educational opportunity, in preference for short-term tax breaks, has reversed the course of the United States global dominance, particularly in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and math.

Year after year after year, the former President's education budget gutted and underfunded vital educational programs. Innovation and health research have been shackled under ideological and budgetary bondage. Happily, President Barack Obama begins the reinvestment in education with $100 billion dollars invested in our future, invested in our children, and, yes, invested in our economic growth.

Since only 40 percent of our youths age 25-34 have a college degree, I am particularly pleased that the chairman's mark will enable us to focus on college affordability through increasing Pell Grants and on college retention efforts provided through programs such as Upward Bound and Trio. Indeed, that golden door to freedom will only open with an appropriately educated workforce where we lift our young people to their rightful place in a global economy.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Milwaukee Area Labor Council. The Milwaukee Area Labor Council is the largest central labor council in Wisconsin. On April 1, 2009, the Milwaukee Area Labor Council will celebrate its 50th anniversary as it continues to work for the betterment of the workers in their three county jurisdiction.

The MALC is not only comprised of AFL-CIO member unions but includes dues paying unions in federations such as Change to Win. Further, MALC has strived to include other unions outside these federations as active supporters, encouraging the membership of federal unions. The MALC works closely with community, retiree, and religious groups in collaboration with such AFL-CIO initiatives as Working America.

The primary mission of the MALC is to support and energize their AFL- CIO affiliated unions in their efforts to organize. Organizing is one of the most important duties they perform and is the engine through which they build strength through membership. However, organizing is not the only function of the MALC. They are politically active in federal, state, city and county initiatives to promote both strong communities and social justice. They research, monitor, meet and support candidates that support working families. The MALC informs and mobilizes their members and strives to support candidates and elected officials who truly help working families. Finally, the MALC publishes the Milwaukee Labor Press, providing important news and motivating labor perspectives to working families.

MALC participates in issues that are important to our community such as working cooperatively with the United Way. The MALC is deeply involved in the annual campaign contributing both strategies and legwork to elevate workplace giving and volunteerism. Union councils and their locals also provide direct help through treasury gifts, volunteer efforts and special charitable support.

MALC also initiates charitable campaigns like the Spring Health and Hygiene Drive. The drive has been so successful in providing health and hygiene products for Milwaukee's homeless shelters that the shelters could reallocate funds for this purpose to other clients needs.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to say the Milwaukee Area Labor Council provides a critical service to the people in the 4th Congressional District. The MALC takes a leading role in charities, legislative work, and social action. The breadth of their membership recognizes the importance of solidarity for all workers and is reflected by the diversity and reach of MALC.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to John W. Daniels, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a practicing attorney for over 35 years. Mr. Daniels is the Chairman of Quarles & Brady LLP, located in the 4th Congressional District of Wisconsin.

Mr. Daniels has extensive experience in serving national, regional, local and governmental owners and investors in real estate. He has significant involvement and experience in complex real estate redevelopment, including representing the largest property owner in connection with the redevelopment of both the Bradley Sports Center and the Midwest Airlines Center. He serves as national real estate counsel for Philip Morris Capital Corporation and has represented a number of major corporations on their real estate developments, including General Electric Capital Corporation, Xerox Corporation and Kraft Foods. Finally, he has worked on major public/private ventures with higher education, including serving as a lead advisor to the University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee in connection with a redevelopment of a several hundred thousand square foot project.

Mr. Daniels is very involved in the community and serves on the Board of Directors for the following corporations or agencies; Aurora Health Care, M&I Bank, Zilber Corporation, and the Greater Milwaukee Committee Foundation. The most recent honor to be conferred upon Daniels was his induction into the National Black Lawyers Student's Association Hall of Fame on March 21, 2009. In the following publications, Mr. Daniels was recognized one of the 100 Managing Partners You Need to Know by ``Lawdragon'' and one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America by the ``National Law Journal.'' Additionally, in 2008, Mr. Daniels received the National Bar Association's Leadership Award and he and his wife, Irma, were honored with the St. Francis Children's Center's Humanitarian Award.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate Mr. John W. Daniels on his well deserved recognition. I am pleased that he continues to lend his expertise and knowledge to the people of my district and the greater Milwaukee area. I salute him for his numerous achievements.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Legal Action of Wisconsin. Legal Action of Wisconsin is the largest staff- based provider of civil legal services for low income persons in Wisconsin. In April, 2009, Legal Action of Wisconsin will celebrate its 40th anniversary.

In 1968, Milwaukee Legal Services and Freedom Through Equality merged to become Legal Action of Wisconsin. Legal Action staff and volunteer attorneys providing pro bono services have represented and served over 400,000 clients since its inception. The agency has gained public benefits on behalf of clients, helped clients gain custody of their children, and assisted clients in relief from evictions. Further, Legal Action has always sought to go beyond individual representation for low income people by seeking systemic change for problems in order to provide relief to as many clients possible. Legal Action's intervention on behalf of low-income clients has resulted in many achievements including rule changes and modifications, improved procedures from agencies and greater income for clients. They have also positively impacted school systems, health care systems, prison systems and the agribusiness industry to benefit and provide fundamental justice for clients.

The sole mission of Legal Action of Wisconsin has been to achieve fundamental justice for its clients through creative and effective legal representation. To that end, Legal Action of Wisconsin's lawyers, paralegals and support staff have always upheld the basic democratic principle that all people are entitled to equal justice under law. Legal Action continues to act in cooperation with clients, the private bar, and community organizations to ensure that they remain a community oriented law firm.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and admiration that I pay tribute to Legal Action of Wisconsin for their 40 years of service. Its dedicated staff, board of directors, and volunteers continue to adhere to the principle that all people are entitled to equal justice under the law in the 4th Congressional District and the entire State of Wisconsin.

Well, thank you so much, Congresswoman Fudge, for sponsoring this hour. I think it is extremely important to educate our constituencies to a greater extent than we are somehow able to do in 1 minute or even in the heat of a debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am so delighted again to join these distinguished colleagues, the Chair of this special hour, Congresswoman Fudge, as well as our Dean, I guess, of foreign affairs in the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressman Payne. And certainly, I would like to associate myself with the comments of our dear Representative from Maryland. I would like to associate myself with her remarks because I also want to talk about Liberia, but I want to talk about it from the perspective of protecting the investments that we have made in Liberia.

Liberia's relationship to the United States is certainly longstanding. Liberia was settled in the early 1800s by freeborn Blacks and former slaves from the United States of America. These settlers used the Constitution of the United States as the model for their new government. They designed a flag with red and white stripes with a single white star. And, of course, in 1824, the settlement was named Monrovia, after the American President James Monroe, and Monrovia remains the capital of the modern-day Liberia.

I can tell you that, unfortunately, because of arbitrary rule, economic collapse, corrupt governments, Liberia fell into two devastating civil wars in the span of a little more than a decade, as well as a legacy of a ruthless and reckless leader in Charles Taylor, who nearly destroyed the country, created regional instability, drawing in Sierra Leone, another country, and really creating an insecure situation. The most egregious of those things, in my mind, Congresswoman Fudge, was the engagement of child warriors, children warriors in this fight.

During that fighting, Liberians suffered immensely. Over a quarter of a

million lives were lost, and more than half of all of Liberia's 3.5 million people were driven from their homes, including those who found safe haven in our country to escape the violence.

I have visited Liberia a couple of times and heard some of the stories of people, women who were crossing the roads, pregnant and found themselves killed on the road right there for their food. I saw, looked into the vacant eyes of some of the child combatants that they are trying to rehabilitate in the country.

And so I was really pleased when late, late last week, our President, Barack Obama, given all of the challenges that he has, stopped to allow Liberians, who took refuge in our country from the civil war in their home nation to receive deferred enforced departure protection for 12 more months. The President's recent order is so important because Liberians who have been granted either this temporary protected status, TPS, or deferred enforcement departure, DED, are allowed to remain in the U.S. rather than be forced to return to a country in the midst of war.

And let us not think for one moment, Congresswoman Fudge, that this country is not still at war. And they are still at war because, despite the sage leadership of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, she is taking tremendous steps to overcome the ravages of war. She is basically having to start from scratch from the destruction that was caused by these two wars. She is been busy trying to rebuild the nation's education and health care system, oversee the de-activization and reintegration of the old security forces and ex-combatants. I mean, they need a new police service. Who do you trust and who don't you trust?

And this is a very excruciating process which the United States, of course, thank God, is helping them to do.

They have got to decommission these ex-combatants and help restore its shattered economy in the midst of the worst global recession in decades. Because of the extensive damage done by Charles Taylor and the conflict, things that we take for granted, such as roads, police to protect residents, courts to convict criminals, a basic economy, and confidence people have in its government have all got to be rebuilt. This is not a time to send President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf another whole slew of people to provide educational opportunities for jobs. It is shocking to go to Liberia. It is the poorest day I have ever had in my life, Congresswoman Fudge. I have never lived in a community that did not have a library, and I went to Liberia, a place where they do not even have a library in major parts of Liberia.

The challenges are many. Again, they lack health care, education; they suffer from an unemployment rate of 80 percent--yes, eight-zero-- 80 percent, lingering cultural and social effects from the legacy of war, and again, the haunting eyes of those child soldiers who have got to be reintegrated into society after experiencing or committing serious crimes. Seventy-six percent of Liberians in 2006 lived on less than $1 per day. Fifty-two percent live on less than 50 cents per day. One hundred fifty-seven infants per 1,000 die before their first birthdays. Over 1,000 mothers die per 100,000 live births.

Most Liberians do not have access to safe drinking water. I was there in Liberia, and I had a bottle of water. Kids came up to me, fighting over the bottle of water, and I was very reluctant to give these children a bottle of water that I had drank from. Someone said to me, ``Ma'am, that is the cleanest water that they will ever have, perhaps, in their entire lives that is in that bottle.'' These are the conditions that they are living under. Electricity is sporadically available. The list goes on and on and on, and this is only an hour that we have here, Madam Chair.

One tool that the President does have, though, is the economic support flowing into her country from Liberians here in our country, some because of the special protections granted to them by TPS and DED. With the Liberian economy struggling and a global economic recession not making things any easier, money being sent to a country from relatives living in the U.S. is a veritable lifeline.

According to the Liberian government, remittances from the U.S. totaled $60 million in 2007, providing essential support. According to the International Monetary Fund, Liberia's two civil wars have reduced Liberia's real gross domestic product to about 40 percent of its prewar level between 1989 and 2003. There is no magic wand available to President Johnson-Sirleaf to restore 60 percent of GDP overnight. Again, it would be extremely egregious for us to return citizens to that country without the prerequisite infrastructure. She has also, I hope, the steadfast support of this Congress and of this administration to Liberia and its people.

A couple of years ago, she was right here in this Chamber, and addressed a joint session of Congress, an honor thrust upon this inspiring leader because of the historic connection and special relationship between our two countries. In that address, she said, ``The Liberian people are counting on me and my administration to create the conditions that will guarantee the realization of their dreams. We must not betray their trust. All the children I meet, when I ask what they want most, say, `I want to learn.' `I want to go to school.' `I want an education.' We must not betray their trust.''

The transition from conflict to peace is never quick nor easy. Madam Chair, I am afraid for the future of Liberia if we do not provide them with adequate support. I am going to amend my remarks and submit them for the Record.

In closing, I just want to commend President Obama for his welcomed step. He shares the strong belief that there is a beautiful democracy budding in Liberia, and I congratulate President Obama for his strong expression of support for our Liberia. The good thing about it is that this Nation is just rich with natural resources and that we now have a leader with credibility in President Johnson-Sirleaf. She is so decent as well as being brilliant. This can help create tremendous wealth for its people. It now has this capable leader for its vision, and the diamonds and minerals and its port can all lead to great prosperity, and we should be proud to be their great friend.

With that, I yield back my time to you. Thank you again for your stewardship over this hour.