Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today this body will have an opportunity to show the American people that we get it. We will be asked to vote on an extension of unemployment insurance for 13 weeks for every State in the country.

Normally, this would be a no-brainer, given the fact that a couple weeks ago we had the largest percentage increase in the number of unemployed. There are almost 4 million Americans without a job who can't find one, and we have had millions of Americans lose their homes through mortgage foreclosures. All of our constituents are paying over $4 a gallon for gas, almost three times what they were paying before the Bush administration came to office.

But it is not a no-brainer, because many of our Republican colleagues have consistently opposed extending unemployment insurance. A number of times, President Bush said he would veto the bill if we tried to extend unemployment insurance.

Madam Speaker, this is a failed economy. Let's not fail the American people today. Let's extend unemployment insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act. The legislation will provide a necessary update to the current statute and takes an important step forward for workers rights and benefits. As one of the original cosponsors of this legislation during the past several sessions of Congress, I am pleased that the leadership is moving the bill for consideration before the full House of Representatives.

Since its first passage in 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act has provided Federal employees with unpaid leave to care for families, allowing for time off at the birth, adoption, or foster placement of a child. Upon the completion of this leave, Federal employees can return to their position without penalty. Now, 15 years later, the law needs to be updated to reflect the changing needs of families.

The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008 does just that. This new act guarantees at a minimum 4 weeks of paid leave to Federal employees--both fathers and mothers--to care for new children in their families.

This additional benefit is vital because of the need for the Federal Government to compete with the private sector for quality recruits and retaining experienced employees. At one time, the Federal Government provided the best benefits, but it is falling sorely behind in this area. Currently, 75 percent of Fortune 100 Companies provide paid leave to new mothers. Further, the United States is the only industrialized country that does not provide benefits to its employees with new children.

As the Federal workforce ages and begins to experience anticipated shortages in critical skills, we must rely on our benefits rather than pay to attract and retain new employees. Studies show that new parents who have access to leave when their first child is born are more likely to stay with their employer than those who do not. Moreover, retention of these employees easily compensates for the extra leave this legislation provides. The average cost of turnover in a position is about 20 percent of an employee's annual salary. On the other hand, 4 weeks of paid leave costs less than 8 percent of an employee's salary.

Finally, this legislation recognizes key changes to the American economy. Most families no longer have a stay-at-home parent, and with the average middle class family spending nearly $11,000 on infant expenses, they cannot afford any amount of unpaid leave. With the current economic downturn, working families simply cannot afford to take any time off while paying childcare expenses along with increased food and fuel prices. Something in the system has to provide some relief to these new parents, and with this legislation, we can provide some help.

Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Federal Employees Paid Leave Act of 2008.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Colonel Brian W. Lauritzen, the Installation Commander at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. As a Member of Congress who represents Fort Belvoir, I know firsthand that Colonel Lauritzen has served with great competence, tireless determination and constant communication with the community during a time of great transition for his installation.

Colonel Lauritzen took command of Fort Belvoir, one of our Nation's largest and most diverse military installations, in July 2005 with major challenges awaiting him and even more on the horizon. Fort Belvoir was already engaged in master planning for redevelopment to expand the number of Department of Defense tenants and stretch the functions of the already busy installation. Then, just a few months into his tenure, the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission's final recommendations doubled the size of Fort Belvoir's incoming workforce by 2011.

The BRAC changes at Fort Belvoir, among the most substantial of BRAC 2005's mandates, will transform the installation into the major support center for the Nation's most senior military leadership. Ensuring a successful transition has brought with it the great challenges of working with both the Department of Defense and the local community. These challenges include timely and transparent planning, assessing the environmental and societal impacts of absorbing more than 19,000 new employees, managing the transportation infrastructure in an area already burdened by traffic, and ensuring that all of Fort Belvoir's defense tenants can still perform their vital national security missions.

Colonel Lauritzen has ably met these daunting challenges with the superb attitude that, in order to be successful, Fort Belvoir must continue to be receptive and responsive to the concerns of all of the surrounding communities. His early promise to the community that there would be ``no daylight between us'' has held true. Colonel Lauritzen established the BRAC Board of Advisors, a first-in-the-Nation group bringing together members of the Army, incoming agencies, and the region's elected officials and local civic activists to identify development issues and keep open the lines of communication.

I have always found Colonel Lauritzen to be the consummate consensus builder. He personally has made more than 150 appearances and presentations before community groups to keep them apprised of the BRAC expansion, Fort Belvoir's other missions, and their impact on the community. Similarly, he built strong communication coalitions with and between the major commands headquartered at Fort Belvoir in support of their people and their global missions through the Installation Senior Leadership Council.

More than just communication, Colonel Lauritzen continues to facilitate progress, even when progress is difficult. He worked directly with Fairfax and Prince William Counties, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the

Army Corps of Engineers to address some of the many transportation challenges facing the region. Especially noteworthy is his personal involvement to secure an agreement to complete the extension of the Fairfax County Parkway, a vital connection across the Fort's Engineer Proving Ground, something that had festered unresolved for more than 10 years.

Inside the perimeter of his base, Colonel Lauritzen has steadfastly insisted that our nation's Soldiers and their families deserve the highest quality of life. Fort Belvoir has one of the Army's most successful Residential Community Initiative programs that have revitalized the approach to military housing and neighborhood centers, creating first-class communities for those who serve our Nation in uniform.

On a more personal note, Colonel Lauritzen and his staff have eagerly addressed questions or constituent concerns that my office has brought to their attention. Regardless of how complicated or involved these requests may have been, I have always found his door to be open to discuss the issues and, more often than not, find compromise to difficult situations.

Madam Speaker, at Fort Belvoir's Change of Command Ceremony on Tuesday, July 2, Colonel Lauritzen--West Point graduate, Soldier, and extraordinary officer--will retire from the Army and enter a new chapter in his life. I have truly enjoyed working with him, and wish him all the best as he pursues new endeavors. He has truly served Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and our Nation with the highest standards of leadership expected from the very best of our military commanders.

I thank my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, the rail system that this amendment funds serves the capital of the free world. Yet, along with Los Angeles, we have the very worst congestion in the country.

In fact, when you look at lost productivity, it is the most expensive loss of productivity, congestion in the country and those who are wasting so much of their time in traffic are our government workers. The reason for this deficiency is that we are the only public transit system that doesn't have a dedicated source of revenue.

Now, what we are suggesting here, when gas is at $4 a gallon, when it costs over $60 to fill up your tank, we have got to have more public transit throughout the country. But shouldn't we lead the way? Shouldn't we show by example that at least the Washington metropolitan area has a decent transit system?

That's what Mr. Davis's amendment does. It does what should have been done years ago. It creates a dedicated source of funding for Washington's transit system.

I very strongly support Mr. Davis's amendment, and I thank all of my friends and colleagues who have contributed to it. It belongs on the Amtrak bill. It's all about finding more intelligent, more efficient ways of transportation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to General William E. Odom, a man of unquestionable character and undeniable devotion to our Nation. He served with distinction, provided experienced insight about our Nation's foreign policy decisions, and expressed a rare candor that made him an invaluable resource to everyone that worked with him, including the United States Congress.

On Friday, May 30, 2008, General Odom passed away at the age of 75. The course of his career traces the evolution of our military and intelligence communities over the past 25 years. He served as a senior military intelligence official for President Jimmy Carter, and then joined President Ronald Reagan as the director of the National Security Agency during the administration's second term. Following his retirement from the Army in 1988, after 34 years of active duty, General Odom continued his service by teaching at Yale University, working for the Hudson Institute, and writing scholarly works.

Chief among his laudable qualities, it was General Odom's candor that proved most refreshing and invaluable. A self-described military hawk, he was among the first military persons to speak out against the invasion of Iraq and he openly advocated a withdrawal. General Odom warned that military action in Iraq would be foolhardy and futile well before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. In hindsight, his concerns were well founded and have since been validated, but before the invasion he was among the few willing to speak out loudly in opposition to the drumbeat to war. His background and depth gave intellectual credence to the growing opposition to the war, and he demonstrated that there were differences of opinion within our military and intelligence communities on the merits of the invasion.

To me and other members of the Defense Appropriations Committee, General Odom was a great source of experience and a wealth of knowledge. I came to rely upon his judgment and took counsel with him privately on issues related to our national defense. He was a thoughtful, steady guide on the most complex matters that face us today, and we are at a loss without him. More importantly, the Nation has lost a true and valued patriot.

Madam Speaker, we are saddened by General Odom's passing, and we extend our heartfelt condolences to his family. May others learn from his example and may his memory stay with us forever.

I thank my good friend, the chairman of our Financial Services Committee, for the words that he said about Ed Brooke. He would be one to know, another great leader in the area of opening up housing for all. And I thank my good friend from the District of Columbia.

Ed Brooke, as Ms. Norton has made clear, grew up in D.C., graduated from Dunbar, Harvard University, and then, of course, went on to be the editor of the Law Review at Boston University and got a Bronze Medal for his service in the military.

But I got to know Ed Brooke from a different perspective. In fact, Terry Lierman, who is now the chief of staff to our majority leader, and I were on the Appropriations staff when Ed Brooke was the ranking Republican. And what he did is incalculable in terms of school busing, in terms of women's reproductive rights, in the area of opening up federally-subsidized housing particularly, but housing throughout the Nation to all.

Ed Brooke was a temple of justice. His intellect was unparalleled. But what he exuded was a certain class, a dignity that just transcended partisanship. He was able to work with some of the, frankly, most narrow-minded Members of the Senate to get them to take votes that were the right thing to do. And he took very little credit for it. That is why this is so appropriate, to give him credit now, because he made a profound difference in the course our country took 30 years ago.

He would sit there in his calm, measured tone. He would explain why it is right to open up all of society and all of our economy to everyone who was willing to work hard and obey the law.

Ed Brooke was a model that all of us should look to for leadership. He was an extraordinary person. This is an extraordinary action we are taking today, but it is for someone who fully deserves it.

Again, I thank my colleagues here, and I thank the Congress for making this happen today.

I will yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Frank.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Shays and I are pleased to introduce today the Farm Animals Anti-Cruelty Act.

This bill would make it a Federal offense to, without justification, kill, mutilate, disfigure, torture or intentionally inflict pain or suffering upon an animal raised for food, or to fail to provide food, water and shelter.

By making these acts a Federal offense, this bill provides a powerful disincentive and punishment for unjustified or intentional cruelty. The ability to bring a Federal prosecution is a strong deterrent. Finally, this bill articulates a powerful message in expressing the national importance we place on the treatment of farm animals.

The Farm Animals Anti-Cruelty Act is a commonsense approach to combating animal cruelty on farms. It complements State anti-cruelty statutes and provides a national anti-cruelty standard in those States that do not currently provide standards.

This bill is just one step, but an important step, in addressing how our society treats

farm animals raised for food, and it reflects our core values of compassion, decency and mercy.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of dedicated individuals who volunteer their time to support CrisisLink's efforts to save lives and prevent tragedies in the 8th Congressional District and throughout the National Capital Region. Their efforts to prevent suicide are worthy of recognition.

Since 1969, CrisisLink volunteers have provided invaluable, free, confidential crisis intervention services to anyone who calls their hotline. CrisisLink has played a major role in educating the community on how to recognize signs of depression and respond to the threats of suicide. Last year, CrisisLink volunteers donated a total of 17,000 hours of their time, answered 30,000 calls, and saved the National Capital Region approximately 4 million dollars in ambulance, police, emergency room, and treatment costs for attempted suicides.

In addition to CrisisLink's regional hotline, volunteers also service the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, NSPL--1-800-273-TALK--and 1- 800-SUICIDE. For NSPL, the help of Crisis Link volunteers is crucial. Answering calls to prevent tragedies are performed by volunteers and staff at CrisisLink as well as other independent crisis centers across the country.

It is a sad fact that 56 percent of all deaths in the U.S. are due to suicide. In comparison, homicides make up only 30 percent of all deaths. While distressing, these numbers would surely be higher if not for CrisisLink's volunteers who help individuals in a time of crisis, promote stabilization, and provide resources to empower people to help themselves. With 20 percent of suicides attributed to veterans and active duty military, crisis centers are working closely with the Department of Veteran's Affairs through the NSPL to answer calls from our service members in order to save lives and prevent tragedies.

I am very grateful to CrisisLink's current and former volunteers for all they do to serve the residents of Virginia's 8th District and our region. They are available 7 days a week, 365 days a year to help people when it is most desperately needed and there is nowhere else to turn. These volunteers give their time so that others may have the gift of time--time to survive a crisis, time to heal, time to live. I laud the efforts of these dedicated volunteers and thank CrisisLink for providing such a vital service to our community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will amend the Federal charter of the Gold Star Wives of America to allow their officers to fully participate in the legislative process. This is a change that is long overdue and releases these advocates from the unnecessary and likely unconstitutional restraints in their charter.

The Gold Star Wives have a long and storied history of advocacy on behalf of the families of our Nation's fallen heroes. From World War II through today's current conflicts, these military widows and widowers have shaped the perception we have about families' struggle after the death of a loved one in military service. In doing so, they have risen from humble beginnings to become a force on Capitol Hill. Today there are more than 60 chapters nationwide that count more than 10,000 widows and widowers as their members.

The Gold Star Wives are hardly an idle group, winning key legislative victories to reinstate benefits for those whose second spouses have died, and improve medical and education benefits for survivors. They have consistently fought for and won increases in dependency and indemnity compensation affecting over 300,000 survivors who depend on that benefit.

It is toward the aim of helping the Gold Star Wives maintain their voice in Congress that I am introducing new legislation today that will allow all of the Gold Star Wives to freely advocate for the legislative matters that are most important to them.

When the Federal charter for the Gold Star Wives was drafted in 1980, it included a broad prohibition that none of the officers of the organization could influence any legislation in any manner. Since the Gold Star Wives rely on the volunteer work of its board and officers, the prohibition particularly hurts their advocacy on behalf of military families.

Other patriotic and national organizations--such as AMVETS, the VFW, the American Legion, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart--do not share this unusual restriction. I believe that this provision in the Gold Star Wives Federal charter is punitive, not practically enforceable and potentially an unconstitutional infringement upon the freedom to petition the Government. My legislation solution is simple-- it will strike this single restriction from the Gold Star Wives Federal charter.

Madam Speaker, the Gold Star Wives is a top-notch organization that effectively advocates on behalf of military families. It is my intention that Congress pass this commonsense change to their charter and relieve the Gold Star Wives from this unnecessary and unconstitutional burden.

I thank my colleague from North Carolina, and I particularly thank him for introducing this legislation.

I appreciate the views of the gentleman from Texas, but this is a commonsense amendment and there have been abuses. And the people that have abused the law, who acted illegally, whether it be at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay or some of the black sites that the CIA have operated, some of them have been contract employees.

Now, if we have people who are the best interrogators, we need to hire them. This is an inherently governmental function. I think you could ask any American, even contractors, if this is work that should be contracted out and they would say no. But in fact there are job openings posted for five major defense contractors for interrogators.

I represent any number of defense contractors, but I can tell you, this is not a function that they should be performing. This Congress should support Mr. Price's amendment and recognize this as inherently governmental and stop this abuse.

Will the gentleman yield for just a second?

It seems if she is that good, we ought to make an attempt at hiring her and not contracting out, if she is that good. Make her an offer she can't refuse, if she is that good.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend. And I do regret that he's leaving because we appreciate your point of view.

And I asked you to yield, Mr. Ranking Member, because in the article that was in the New York Times they talked about a point where news articles started revealing----

I thank my friend and very distinguished gentleman from California.

When articles came out that troops were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues, and that letter was made available to the Times, ``I think our analysts, properly armed, can push back in that arena.''

Now, I suspect you are going to be asked to comment on military things, and we are going to listen very intently. But if the Pentagon asked you to say something that you knew not to necessarily be the truth, you wouldn't do it. The problem is, we have quotes from senior military officers saying they were concerned that their employer, their military contract employers would lose access if they didn't do what the Pentagon asked. That's what we're trying to get at.

Mr. Speaker, a report released today by the nonprofit research organization Media Matters has found that military analysts secretly cultivated by the Pentagon's communications apparatus appeared over 4,500 times on major TV and radio networks since 2002 in segments covering the Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and other foreign policy and national security issues.

The New York Times exposed this extensive, coordinated campaign by the Pentagon and the Bush administration to influence the commentary of what viewers rightfully believed were independent television military analysts. It is an unethical, possibly illegal propaganda machine, a media Trojan horse designed to shape war coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

It was also apparent that the motivation on the part of many was the extraordinary access they were granted to the Pentagon for their defense contractor employers.

One particularly disturbing example is when troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues, ``I think our analysts . . . can push back in that arena.'' The analysts, of course, were 75 retired military officers.

This is conduct unbefitting of our military officers and our Nation, Mr. Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the passing of a great lady and civil rights icon, Mildred Loving.

I did not know Mrs. Loving personally, but I do know of her accomplishments for which she deserves our praise and gratitude.

At a time of Jim Crow and powerful forces of racial hatred and segregation, Mildred Delores Jeter and Richard Perry Loving proved that the power of love and the simple act of living true to their beliefs was stronger and more enduring than base bigotry.

When Mildred and Richard married, they were breaking the law. As an interracial couple, it was illegal for them to be married in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Instead, they obtained a marriage certificate from the District of Columbia but returned to live in Virginia, their home. A short time later, they were arrested, literally in their bedroom, and hauled off to jail. Under a plea bargain, they agreed to a 1-year suspended sentence under the condition that they not return together or at the same time to Virginia.

Inspired by the civil rights movement, the couple challenged Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, taking Loving v. Virginia all the way to the Supreme Court--and winning. As the Washington Post reported today, Richard Loving counseled the couple's ACLU attorneys that the real issue was actually very simple. ``Tell the court,'' he said, ``I love my wife, and it is just unfair that I can't live with her in Virginia.''

In my efforts to grant federal recognition to Virginia's Native American people, I have come across similar stories of courage, determination and love fighting to overcome Virginia's legacy of racial division and subjugation.

Today we recognize Mrs. Loving, her life, her courage, and her determination for equality under the law. She was an American hero and we mourn her passing.

[From the New York Times, May 6, 2008]

Mildred Loving, Who Fought Ban on Mixed Marriage, Dies at 68

(By Douglas Martin)

Mildred Loving, a black woman whose anger over being

banished from Virginia for marrying a white man led to a

landmark Supreme Court ruling overturning state miscegenation

laws, died on May 2 at her home in Central Point, Va. She was

68.

Peggy Fortune, her daughter, said the cause was pneumonia.

The Supreme Court ruling, in 1967, struck down the last

group of segregation laws to remain on the books--those

requiring separation of the races in marriage. The ruling was

unanimous, its opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren,

who in 1954 wrote the court's opinion in Brown v. Board of

Education, declaring segregated public schools

unconstitutional.

In Loving v. Virginia, Warren wrote that miscegenation laws

violated the Constitution's equal protection clause. ``We

have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures

which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race,''

he said.

By their own widely reported accounts, Mrs. Loving and her

husband, Richard, were in bed in their modest house in

Central Point in the early morning of July 11, 1958, five

weeks after their wedding, when the county sheriff and two

deputies, acting on an anonymous tip, burst into their

bedroom and shined flashlights in their eyes. A threatening

voice demanded, ``Who is this woman you're sleeping with?''

Mrs. Loving answered, ``I'm his wife.''

Mr. Loving pointed to the couple's marriage certificate

hung on the bedroom wall. The sheriff responded, ``That's no

good here.''

The certificate was from Washington, D.C., and under

Virginia law, a marriage between people of different races

performed outside Virginia was as invalid as one done in

Virginia. At the time, it was one of 16 states that barred

marriages between races.

After Mr. Loving spent a night in jail and his wife several

more, the couple pleaded guilty to violating the Virginia

law, the Racial Integrity Act. Under a plea bargain, their

one-year prison sentences were suspended on the condition

that they leave Virginia and not return together or at the

same time for 25 years.

Judge Leon M. Bazile, in language Chief Justice Warren

would recall, said that if God had meant for whites and

blacks to mix, he would have not placed them on different

continents. Judge Bazile reminded the defendants that ``as

long as you live you will be known as a felon.''

They paid court fees of $36.29 each, moved to Washington

and had three children. They returned home occasionally,

never together. But times were tough financially, and the

Lovings missed family, friends and their easy country

lifestyle in the rolling Virginia hills.

By 1963, Mrs. Loving could stand the ostracism no longer.

Inspired by the civil rights movement and its march on

Washington, she wrote Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and

asked for help. He wrote her back, and referred her to the

American Civil Liberties Union.

The A.C.L.U. took the case. Its lawyers, Bernard S. Cohen

and Philip J. Hirschkop, faced an immediate problem: the

Lovings had pleaded guilty and had no right to appeal. So

they asked Judge Bazile to set aside his original verdict.

When he refused, they appealed. The Virginia Supreme Court of

Appeals upheld the lower court, and the case went to the

United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Cohen recounted telling Mr. Loving about various legal

theories applying to the case. Mr. Loving replied, ``Mr.

Cohen, tell the court I love my wife, and it is just unfair

that I can't live with her in Virginia.''

Mildred Delores Jeter's family had lived in Caroline

County, Va., for generations, as had the family of Richard

Perry Loving. The area was known for friendly relations

between races, even though marriages were forbidden. Many

people were visibly of mixed race, with Ebony magazine

reporting in 1967 that black ``youngsters easily passed for

white in neighboring towns.''

Mildred's mother was part Rappahannock Indian, and her

father was part Cherokee. She preferred to think of herself

as Indian rather than black.

Mildred and Richard began spending time together when he

was a rugged- looking 17 and she was a skinny 11-year-old

known as Bean. He attended an all-white high school for a

year, and she reached 11th grade at an all-black school.

When Mildred became pregnant at 18, they decided to do what

was elsewhere deemed the right thing and get married. They

both said their initial motive was not to challenge Virginia

law.

``We have thought about other people,'' Mr. Loving said in

an interview with Life magazine in 1966, ``but we are not

doing it just because somebody had to do it and we wanted to

be the ones. We are doing it for us.''

In his classic study of segregation, ``An American

Dilemma,'' Gunnar Myrdal wrote that ``the whole system of

segregation and discrimination is designed to prevent

eventual inbreeding of the races.''

But miscegenation laws struck deeper than other segregation

acts, and the theory behind them leads to chaos in other

facets of law. This is because they make any affected

marriage void from its inception. Thus, all children are

illegitimate; spouses have no inheritance rights; and heirs

cannot receive death benefits.

``When any society says that I cannot marry a certain

person, that society has cut off a segment of my freedom,''

the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1958.

Virginia's law had been on the books since 1662, adopted a

year after Maryland enacted the first such statute. At one

time or another, 38 states had miscegenation laws. State and

federal courts consistently upheld the prohibitions, until

1948, when the California Supreme Court overturned

California's law.

Though the Supreme Court's 1967 decision in the Loving case

struck down miscegenation laws, Southern states were

sometimes slow to change their constitutions; Alabama became

the last state to do so, in 2000.

Mr. Loving died in a car accident in 1975, and the Lovings'

son Donald died in 2000. In addition to her daughter, Peggy

Fortune, who lives in Milford, Va., Mrs. Loving is survived

by her son, Sidney, of Tappahannock, Va.; eight

grandchildren; and 11 great-grandchildren.

Mrs. Loving stopped giving interviews, but last year issued

a statement on the 40th anniversary of the announcement of

the Supreme Court ruling, urging that gay men and lesbians be

allowed to marry.

Madam Speaker, we have a situation today where Americans are paying almost $4 a gallon for gasoline. This morning, Goldman Sachs announced that oil is going to go up to $150 to $200 a barrel, which means that it is not going to stop at $4. It will be about $5 or $6.

Now, think about this: This is a tremendous boom to Iran and Iraq. Iran will gain enormous wealth and political influence. Iraq will get even more revenue than the $72 billion they're anticipating this year. They got $100 billion over the last couple of years, much of it our money.

And yet Americans have already contributed over half a trillion dollars to Iraq's economy. Within the next couple of weeks, we'll appropriate another $170 billion. Iraqis are getting a surplus of oil revenue from us and yet we are paying to pick up their garbage and train their security forces when they've got surpluses they don't even know what to do with.

Who's the chump in this picture, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Darrell R. Green, an NFL Hall of Famer, seven-time All-Pro defensive back for the Washington Redskins and founder of the Darrell Green Youth Life Foundation, upon his receiving the Commonwealth Academy Recognition for Educators, CARE, Award.

Mr. Green is being honored for his visionary leadership in establishing the Darrell Green Youth Life Foundation, which provides support services to young people facing challenging life circumstances. Through his foundation, Mr. Green has opened the Youth Life Learning Center in the District of Columbia and affiliate centers in Richmond, Virginia, and Nashville, Tennessee. These centers provide comprehensive after-school and summer programs for at-risk teens and pre-teens. They offer academic enrichment and remedial education in the areas of reading, language arts, mathematics, supplemental services, mentoring and character development. In addition to providing these services, Mr. Green's foundation

has created a National Training Institute where community leaders can learn how to launch similar programs in their own neighborhoods.

A native of Houston, Texas, Darrell Green had an illustrious career with the Washington Redskins. He was a seven-time All-Pro defensive back, played in three Super Bowls and retired in 2002 after a heralded 20-year career. A top draft choice out of Texas A&I University, Darrell understood the power of an education, going back to school to complete his undergraduate degree which he earned in 1998 from St. Paul's College in Lawrenceville, Virginia. In 1999, Marymount University recognized Green for his extraordinary humanitarian work and conferred upon him the honorary degree of doctor of humane letters.

Mr. Green has been breaking ground his entire life. At an early age he faced some very challenging circumstances. But, with the support of his high school coach and faith community, Darrell was able to overcome those obstacles, rising to become a celebrated pro athlete. This personal experience is what prompted him to create the foundation, so that at-risk young people can receive the support they also need to succeed.

I am delighted to be presenting the prestigious CARE award to Darrell Green, an outstanding community leader who has worked tirelessly to enhance the lives of young people. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Darrell on this award and for his ongoing commitment to improving the lives of others.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Banking Committee under the leadership of Chairman Barney Frank who, this week, will take us in the direction that this Congress needs to lead the country. They will mark up a bill that will establish a substantial pool of funds that will enable local governments to be able to purchase foreclosed properties and turn them into affordable housing for families desperately in need of housing they can afford in this economy. They will also help families that are on the cusp of losing their homes to be able to keep their homes. This is so important.

Mr. Speaker, as many as 7 million families will lose their homes by the end of this year. In fact, mortgage defaults are up by 72 percent. Local governments will lose $7 billion in property tax revenue that they desperately need for public safety and roads and all of the other municipal services that are so important.

We are on the cusp of a recession. We need to act quickly and comprehensively to do the right thing. Chairman Frank's committee is doing the right thing. We need to support them.