Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of section 10404 of the 2007 Farm Bill, which would provide $35 million in funding over the next five years for farmers' markets through the Farmer Marketing Assistance Program. This provision also designates that 10 percent of the funding will be used to support the use of Electronic Benefits Transfer, EBT, technology at farmers' markets. I want to thank Representative Kagen for his leadership and his amendment to the bill that strengthens our nation's farmers' markets and provides much needed resources for food stamp recipients to use their benefits at farmers' markets. I also appreciate his working with me on this issue.

As someone who regularly shops at a farmers' market in my hometown of Evanston, IL, I have seen first hand that farmers' markets are a positive force wherever they crop up, providing consumers with fresh food options, preserving family farms, increasing health and nutrition and connecting urban and rural Americans. Direct marketing of farm products has ballooned in recent years from 1,755 farmers markets in 1994 to over 4,385 in 2006. These markets average $245,000 per year in revenue, with the typical farmer netting about $7,108. Even though farmers' markets are highly seasonal, 25 percent of vendors rely on them as their sole source of farm-based income.

Even as farmers' markets are expanding to unprecedented numbers, the 2006 USDA Farmers' Market Survey found that only 6 percent of these markets have implemented EBT technology. In my home city of Chicago, we only have one farmers' market that can accept EBT cards: the Logan Square market became the first farmers' market in Illinois just last month. However, at a time when obesity, food insecurity and chronic illnesses impact millions of low-income Americans, most still cannot use their food stamp benefits to purchase nutritious food at farmers' markets.

This past May, I participated in the Food Stamp Challenge and lived on the national average food stamp benefit for one week. Even though the $3 per day allotment was inadequate, I had the good fortune of access to nearby grocery stores. Millions of Americans, however, have no grocery stores near their homes and live in what are known as ``food deserts.'' In fact, a 2004 study by Mississippi State University found that in the midwest, 34 percent of Americans live in food deserts, with this percentage approaching 50 percent in western States. Investments in farmers' markets are a low-cost solution to the crisis of food deserts and provide new options for Americans who currently have limited access to healthy food.

In 2006, USDA received over $15 million in grant applications from farmers' markets across the country under the Farmer Marketing Assistance Program and with only $1 million in available funds, it was only able to meet a fraction of the need. That represents a tremendous missed opportunity to improve the health of Americans. Today's raising of funding of the Farmer Marketing Assistance Program to $35 million over 5 years will help us get closer to meeting the need we know is out there. I urge my colleagues to pass the 2007 Farm Bill, which includes the Kagen Amendment, and to retain this important measure in Conference.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, the Congress named the humanitarian crisis in Darfur as genocide. Naming is really important, because once we've acknowledged the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives that have been lost there, we have a responsibility to act. And yet the disastrous crisis continues on today.

I visited Darfur. I've seen the situation on the ground. And now the high-tech GPS satellites and mass media allow everyone to bear witness to the tragedies in Darfur; the burnt holes where villages used to be, the mass migrations of internally displaced, starving children, victims of rape.

I want to thank the student groups, the faith organizations and the Americans around the country who have worked to raise this issue's profile and to keep Darfur on the agenda.

Last month, the Sudanese Government allowed a combined U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force. The Democratic majority approved $949 million in humanitarian aid, but we have to go further. Let this be the last time we mark the anniversary of genocide.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support H.R. 2929, a bill to prohibit permanent bases in Iraq, and I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for their persistent leadership on this important issue.

The House passed the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq this month to get our troops out of Iraq by April. The question now is not whether we will redeploy our troops, but when and how.

This resolution makes it emphatically clear to the Iraqi people and to President Bush that we do not intend to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely.

The United States must not be seen as an occupier. Otherwise, our presence there will be used to recruit insurgents, to keep Iraq entrenched in violence and to create an even more dangerous environment for our troops.

This House, too, has already expressed its opposition to permanent bases, but today, we do it clearly with bipartisan support and send a very clear statement. I urge all of our colleagues to listen to the will of the American people, of the Iraqi people, and to support H.R. 2929.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Let me just give you a few numbers here: 30 million, that's the number of people who depend on the Great Lakes for our drinking water; 20 percent, that's the percent of fresh surface water on the entire planet that is represented by the Great Lakes; $6 billion, that's the amount of money that BP earned in the last quarter. BP is one of the most profitable companies on the entire planet, and a company that has spent a considerable amount of money promoting its green image.

I want to quote to you from a Chicago Tribune Voice of the People article that was written by a BP Whiting Refinery individual, and he talks about, he minimizes the problem. He says: ``Of the 23 substances regulated in the permit, ammonia and total suspended solids are the only two limits that will increase when compared to the current permit.'' No problem, only two out of 23.

And later, consistent with BP's bragging about its environmental excellence says about itself: ``This is just one of the ways we have demonstrated our focus on continual improvement in environmental performance. Our commitment to continuous improvement will carry on as we modernize the refinery.'' Meantime, increasing the amount of ammonia and the amount of total suspended solid waste.

What's the consequence of those emissions? The health consequences can't be understated. Dumping ammonia represents a direct threat to the health of millions of Americans living in the Great Lakes region. For example, ammonia in the water promotes algae blooms that can kill fish and trigger beach closings. So here is another number: 1,585 pounds of ammonia, a 54-percent increase every day, every day into our precious Lake Michigan. And 4,925 pounds of liquid waste consisting of suspended particulate matter, a 35-percent increase every day into Lake Michigan.

In addition to putting our health at risk, the decision to allow BP to increase their dumpage also puts the lake ecosystem in jeopardy. Increasing the amount of liquid waste consisting of suspended particulate matter dumped into the lake each day endangers the marine life by making the water cloudy, thereby making it more difficult for fish to find ample amounts of oxygen.

This is a big deal. This is a serious problem, and it is incredible that the Environmental Protection Agency and BP and the State of Indiana would allow it. It is an outrage. We can stop it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents who continue to receive inadequate health coverage in our broken health care system. With the recent release of Michael Moore's documentary, ``Sicko,'' attention is being brought to the many problems perpetuated by our health care system, especially those that result from a desire on the part of insurers to maximize their profits. The movie strikes a chord with my constituents who know that, in a Nation in which over 45 million citizens are uninsured, even those with health insurance are at risk for not getting the health care they need. Although those who support the status quo have been quick to criticize the movie, its popularity in my district underscores its resonance with my constituents who are dissatisfied with a system that has failed them over and over again and who are demanding comprehensive change.

I am deeply troubled by recent comments from health insurance companies and their defenders arguing that wait times under universal health care systems are disproportionately longer than those in our private health system. Such comments gloss over the realities faced by my constituents, who continue to call and write my office frustrated that pre-existing conditions, pre-approval, and prohibitive costs have made long wait-times commonplace for them. Recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement reveal that Americans nationwide are waiting an average of 70 days to see a provider. In many circumstances, people who are initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month. Is this the best we can do for our citizens in the richest, most prosperous nation in the world?

When we compare ourselves to nations with national health care, the statistics paint a much different picture than the critics would like us to believe. According to a recent article in Business Week (``The Doctor Will See You--In Three Months''--July 9, 2007), ``both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems.'' In addition, a Commonwealth Fund study that compared the U.S. health-care system to five industrialized countries with national health coverage showed that waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all of the other countries but one. Only 47 percent of U.S. patients can get a same or next-day appointment for a basic medical problem, and 26 percent of U.S. adults have gone to an emergency room in the past 2 years because they couldn't get in to see their regular doctor when needed.

As long as Congress ignores this issue, our constituents will continue to wait for medical care that should be provided to them expeditiously. It is disappointing that this problem has been left on the backbumer for so long, and I hope that this reinvigorated health- care discussion will allow us as Members to seize the opportunity to do what is right for our constituents. I strongly urge Members to read the attached Business Week article and a recent column by Paul Krugman that describe the health-care waiting game that so many of our constituents face on a regular basis.

[From Business Week, July 9, 2007]

The Doctor Will See You--In Three Months

(By Catherine Arnst)

The health-care reform debate is in full roar with the

arrival of Michael Moore's documentary Sicko, which compares

the U.S. system unfavorably with single-payer systems around

the world. Critics of the film are quick to trot out a common

defense of the American way: For all its problems, they say,

U.S. patients at least don't have to endure the endless waits

for medical care endemic to government-run systems. The

lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans spells it out

in a rebuttal to Sicko: ``The American people do not support

a government takeover of the entire health-care system

because they know that means long waits for rationed care.''

In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American

people are already waiting as long or longer than patients

living with universal health-care systems. Take Susan M., a

54-year-old human resources executive in New York City. She

faithfully makes an appointment for a mammogram every April,

knowing the wait will be at least six weeks. She went in for

her routine screening at the end of May, then had another

because the first wasn't clear. That second X-ray showed an

abnormality, and the doctor wanted to perform a needle

biopsy, an outpatient procedure. His first available date:

mid-August. ``I completely freaked out,'' Susan says. ``I

couldn't imagine spending the summer with this hanging over

my head.'' After many calls to five different facilities, she

found a clinic that agreed to read her existing mammograms on

June 25 and promised to schedule a follow-up MRI and biopsy

if needed within 10 days. A full month had passed since the

first suspicious X-rays. Ultimately, she was told the

abnormality was nothing to worry about, but she should have

another mammogram in six months. Taking no chances, she made

an appointment on the spot. ``The system is clearly broken,''

she laments.

It's not just broken for breast exams. If you find a

suspicious-looking mole and want to see a dermatologist, you

can expect an average wait of 38 days in the U.S., and up to

73 days if you live in Boston, according to researchers at

the University of California at San Francisco who studied the

matter. Got a knee injury? A 2004 survey by medical

recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates found the

average time needed to see an orthopedic surgeon ranges from

8 days in Atlanta to 43 days in Los Angeles. Nationwide, the

average is 17 days. ``Waiting is definitely a problem in the

U.S., especially for basic care,'' says Karen Davis,

president of the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which studies

health-care policy.

All this time spent ``queuing,'' as other nations call it,

stems from too much demand and too little supply. Only one-

third of U.S. doctors are general practitioners, compared

with half in most European countries. On top of that, only

40% of U.S. doctors have arrangements for after-hours care,

vs. 75% in the rest of the industrialized world.

Consequently, some 26% of U.S. adults in one survey went to

an emergency room in the past two years because they couldn't

get in to see their regular doctor, a significantly higher

rate than in other countries.

There is no systemized collection of data on wait times in

the U.S. That makes it difficult to draw comparisons with

countries that have national health systems, where wait times

are not only tracked but made public. However, a 2005 survey

by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found

that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day

appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other

country except Canada.

The Commonwealth survey did find that U.S. patients had the

second-shortest wait times if they wished to see a specialist

or have nonemergency surgery, such as a hip replacement or

cataract operation (Germany, which has national health care,

came in first on both measures). But Gerard F. Anderson, a

health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, says

doctors in countries where there are lengthy queues for

elective surgeries put at-risk patients on the list long

before their need is critical. ``Their wait might be

uncomfortable, but it makes very little clinical

difference,'' he says.

The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was

first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did

not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription

within the past two years because of cost. No other country

came close.

Few solutions have been proposed for lengthy waits in the

U.S., in part, say policy experts, because the problem is

rarely acknowledged. But the market is beginning to address

the issue with the rise of walk-in medical clinics. Hundreds

have sprung up in CVS, Wal-Mart, Pathmark, and other stores--

so many that the American Medical Assn. just adopted a

resolution urging state and federal agencies to investigate

such clinics as a conflict of interest if housed in stores

with pharmacies. These retail clinics promise rapid care for

minor medical problems, usually getting patients in and out

in 30 minutes. The slogan for CVS's Minute Clinics says it

all: ``You're sick. We're quick.''

How the U.S. Stacks Up: Able To Get Appointment Same or Next Day for

Medical Problem

Percent New Zealand..........................................................81 Germany..............................................................63 Britain..............................................................61 Australia............................................................56

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 294, which commends the Kingdom of Lesotho for the enactment of a law to improve the status of married women and ensure the access of married women to property rights. Lesotho has made incredible progress towards gender equality, and I hope this Congress will recognize these steps forward.

This landlocked country of about 12,000 square miles has achieved a significant milestone towards gender equality by legally eliminating any deprivation of property rights for women. It gives me great pride to recognize not only the Kingdom of Lesotho, but also the idea that gender equality can be achieved in developing countries. Through the diligent efforts of many women's rights organizations, as well as the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the women of Lesotho now can turn to their court to protect their rights.

I am especially proud that this resolution includes continued support for International Women's Day, which we celebrate annually on March 8. Earlier this year the House passed House Resolution 149, legislation I introduced that supports the goals of International Women's Day. International Women's Day recognizes and honors the women around the world who have fought and continue to struggle for equality in the face of adversity. What is happening in Lesotho is a manifestation of the actions of those persistent women.

I want to again congratulate the Kingdom of Lesotho for enacting this crucial legislation and proving again that gender discrimination is simply unacceptable. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the achievements of Lesotho.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call for the immediate and unconditional release of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, Israeli soldiers held captive by Hezbollah for the past year. On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah terrorists crossed into Israel and attacked two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) armored jeeps as they were patrolling Israel's northern border. One year ago today, those terrorists killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped Eldad and Ehud, as mentioned above.

We mourn the passing of the three Israeli soldiers who were killed a year ago, and to honor their legacies, we must continue in our work to secure the release of Eldan Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. As their families pray for their swift return, the United States must continue to forge ahead in our efforts to bring about their release.

Madam Speaker, Hezbollah has tried to make Eldad and Ehud into bargaining chips. But they are not political chess pieces, things that can be swapped for political gain. They are human beings with names, lives, and families who miss them. They have families who wait every day for news of their circumstances, who have waited every day for a year now without receiving word that Eldad and Ehud are safe.

Unfortunately, Eldad and Ehud are not alone among Israel's missing soldiers. Three weeks before their capture, Hamas kidnapped IDF soldier, Gilad Shalit. The Shalit family has met with many communities across the United States, urging people to remember their son and speak out on his behalf.

To honor those who died a year ago, and the soldiers held captive, we must let the perpetrators of these terrible acts know that we have not forgotten what they have done. In March we passed H. Res. 107, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah, and now we continue to express our deepest sympathies to the families of the missing soldiers, and we must pledge to continue the fight to bring them home.

I join with those across Israel and the United States to call for the immediate and unconditional release of Eldad, Ehud and Gilad. As the leader of the democratic world, America stands with Israel in its refusal to let these soldiers be forgotten.

Madam speaker, I would like to submit this insightful editorial from the Chicago Sun-Times for the record. The Sun-Times has accurately and incisively captured the frustrations of the residents of the Chicagoland area, and of Americans around the country. They are tired of this ill-planned and ill-executed war, and they believe that it is time to ``set a date to bring our troops home.''

[From the Chicago Sun-Times, July 16, 2007]

Deadline in Iraq: It's Time To Set a Date To Bring Our Troops Home

Americans of all political leanings want to understand when

our involvement in Iraq will end. We have waited patiently

for the positive results the president has repeatedly

promised. We have looked for improvements following shifts in

military strategy, the approval of benchmarks, the last-ditch

surge.

No matter how much wishful thinking President Bush indulged

in last week in finding ``a cause for optimism'' in the White

House report on progress in Iraq, Americans heard little to

give them confidence that things are improving. The president

should face reality and put before the American people a plan

to conclude our direct involvement in Iraq. We need to

understand the end game.

Are Iraq's political leaders any closer to resolving their

deep, divisive differences? Are they any closer to providing

security and basic services for the people? No, on both

counts. There has been no real progress toward meeting eight

of 18 crucial benchmarks.

There is, however, progress in Congress toward forcing

Bush's hand. The Democratic controlled House voted to require

the United States to withdraw most combat troops from Iraq by

April 1. Then two leading Republican senators, John Warner of

Virginia and Richard Lugar of Indiana, called for Bush to

present a contingency plan for Iraq to Congress by Oct. 16.

Threatened with opposition from more Republicans, the

president is pulling out all political stops to keep ahead of

that trend. At his worst, he has resorted to recycling cheap

scare tactics--warning that the terrorist threat to

Americans, on American soil, will increase dramatically the

minute we pull soldiers from Iraq.

In lashing Congress for trying to ``run the war,'' Bush

might have been lashing Americans who expressed their ardent

opposition to the war at the polls last November. He wants us

to wait until Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker

release their progress report on Iraq in September before

reaching any conclusions. Our concern is if their findings

don't jibe with his policy, the president will come up with

more reasons for Americans to withhold judgment. To wait some

more.

Some have argued that setting a deadline will give the

enemy a target date, allowing the enemy to lie in wait. But

not having a plan risks further inciting Americans against

the war. It could lead an exasperated Congress to make rash

ultimatums that would put soldiers more at risk than if the

president initiated a rational plan now.

The president has had more than enough time to develop and

articulate an exit strategy in Iraq. Everyone wants to

minimize the mess we'll leave behind. If April 1 doesn't work

for the president, what date will? How long does he envision

that we'll have to stay? The answer can no longer be

``indefinitely.'' The American people need a plan, and they

need it now.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the 1.5 million families who are living with autism in this country today. The Waters family, from my district is one of those families. They know firsthand about the difficulties of raising a child with autism. They have risen to the challenge, however, raising a beautiful, 6-year-old daughter, Candace. They have also dedicated their work to raising awareness about their daughter's condition and building a support network for other families around the country living with autism.

Robert and Sandy Waters have created a radio show on Autism One Radio, a nonprofit, charity organization that was created by a small group of parents of children with autism. The Waters' radio show, ``The Candy Store,'' provides music, art, inspiration, and information to inspire, educate, and help parents guide their children. They have written a song titled ``Faith, Love, and Hope'' for their daughter. The song has inspired and influenced parents, organizations, and politicians around the world.

People like Robert and Sandy Waters play an increasingly important role, as autism is one of the fastest-growing developmental disabilities in the world, and affects 1 in every 150 children born today. With proper education, training, and community living options, however, individuals with autism can lead productive lives, contribute to their communities, and reach their fullest potential. Unfortunately, however, understanding, services, and research lag behind the needs of our Nation's families.

With further research, scientists hope to establish biomedical markers and environmental links that will allow for earlier diagnosis and treatment. Additionally, researchers intend to look into the possibility of a vaccine and attempt to find the treatment programs that are most successful. As research opens up new treatment possibilities, we must also provide education in order to change public perception of autism and those individuals living with the disease.

Again, I would like to commend the work of the Waters family. I urge all citizens to become educated about autism and join in the effort to increase awareness and support for those living with this condition.

Mr. Speaker, today I will vote for the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. I agree with the 70 percent of Americans who want our troops out of Iraq. And I agree with the comprehensive report called ``Strategic Reset'' from the Center for American Progress, written by three authors, one of whom is Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense.

They write, ``The current Iraq strategy is exactly what al Qaeda wants, the United States distracted and pinned down by Iraq's internal conflicts, trapped in a quagmire that has become the perfect rallying cry and recruitment tool for al Qaeda. The United States has no good options, given the strategic and tactical mistakes made in Iraq since 2002, but simply staying the course with an indefinite military presence is not advancing U.S. interests.''

Today we will vote to change the course to bring our troops home by April of 2008. I will proudly vote in favor of that bill.

Madam Chairman, today's passage of H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Act (SERVA) will improve greatly the housing voucher system--which is already successful and has been described by the Administration as one of the federal government's most effective programs.

Safe and affordable housing is one of my priorities and should be a national priority. Section 8 vouchers are a great tool for getting families into decent homes. Studies have shown that Section 8 vouchers reduce homelessness, overcrowding, and frequent moves from apartment to apartment. Affordable housing is critical to strong families and communities, and vouchers have allowed families to move to lower- poverty neighborhoods with better schools and less exposure to crime.

H.R. 1851 will only increase the success of Section 8 vouchers, which currently provides housing assistance to more than 2 million families, by making the program more efficient and more effective. From 2004 to 2006, voucher funds were allocated using a series of

ineffectual formulas that gave some agencies less funding than they needed to cover the costs of their vouchers--forcing them to cut back for needy families--while other agencies were given more funds than they could use. This resulted in $1.4 billion of unused funds and, more importantly, 150,000 more low-income families without vouchers. SERVA would base funding on the actual cost of each agency's vouchers in the previous year. This will allow housing agencies, apartment owners, and families with vouchers to be confident that the program will be funded on a regular basis. Moreover, SERVA will establish incentives encouraging agencies to serve as many families as their funding permits, rather than accumulating large balances of unspent funds.

In addition to establishing such a stable, efficient and equitable voucher funding policy, SERVA will additionally remove barriers to voucher ``portability'', as well as streamline the rules for determining tenants' rent payment. It will authorize 100,000 new vouchers over five years' time, and include provisions to encourage economic self-sufficiency. It will also allow families to use housing vouchers as a down payment on a first-time home purchase, gives a limited number of Public Housing Agencies some flexibility to experiment with development and rent policies, and makes it easier for housing agencies to attach vouchers to housing units. These reforms will provide vital rental assistance for seniors and the disabled as well as low-income families, as well as provide a welcome opportunity for low-income families to achieve the American Dream of home ownership.

By reforming an already highly successful program, we can improve the quality of life for many American families, elderly, and disabled citizen all over the country by offering them more and better choices of communities to live in.

Madam Speaker, It is my honor to recognize and pay tribute to Anne Theresa Hawk, who celebrated her 100th birthday on June 29, 2007.

Anne was born on June 29, 1907 in Cloverdale, OH. She spent her childhood on a farm in Gainesville, TX, where she attended school in a one-room schoolhouse. The eighth of nine children, Anne is the last surviving member of her family.

Chicago has been Anne's home since she was 22 years old and it is also the place where she met her husband and where they raised their beautiful family. A loving caregiver, she has selflessly dedicated her love and energy to her three children, six grandchildren, and three great grandchildren. Over time, Anne has become quite a formidable scrabble player. She is also a writer, and she penned a memoir of her childhood in Texas called Hills Are for Climbing.

On behalf of the people of the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, it is my privilege to congratulate Anne Theresa Hawk on this momentous occasion. You are a true inspiration, an asset to the community, and a wonderful woman. I wish you continued good health and happiness.

Mr. Speaker, this is such an exciting day. Today, we say to the nearly 200,000 students every year who do not attend college for financial reasons, you deserve better. You deserve better than outdated financial aid packages, crippling debt, and empty promises of support once you graduate. Today we are delivering on that promise.

Higher education has become increasingly important in this country and around the world, yet it has been rapidly slipping from the grasp of thousands and thousands of students every year. Over the past several years, states have cut higher education funding and in many cases, passed that cost on to students.

Student loans, which for two-thirds of our students average $20,000, not only affect student's financial viability down the road, they effect the range of opportunities that are available to new graduates as they seek out professions that will enable them to repay their loans. Education is supposed to be the gateway to opportunity, not the path to financial ruin.

One of the most important provisions of H.R. 2669 is an expansion of eligibility and an increase in the Pell grant scholarship to $5,200 over the next 5 years. This bill will also encourage and enable graduates to go into the public service fields they're interested in-- and which our country so desperately needs--by providing loan forgiveness for first responders, early childhood educators, librarians, nurses, public defenders, and public prosecutors. These professions are some of the most important to our communities, yet they are chronically undersupported.

This bill will also provide tuition assistance to students who commit to teaching in public schools, high-poverty communities, and high-need subject areas. It also makes a landmark investment in Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Tribally Controlled, Native or Predominately Black Institutions.

By redirecting excessive Federal subsidies for lenders in the student loan industry, these new commitments will come at no additional cost to taxpayers. It's time that taxpayer dollars go towards our student's future--and the future of our competitiveness as a nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this remarkable legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Emanuel's amendment to allocate only the budget of the Senate president to Mr. Cheney. We have known for the Vice President to go to undisclosed locations, but never to an undisclosed branch of government. I turned to my Constitution for some help. It looks to me like article II does include the Vice President in the executive.

The Senate itself seems confused, having subpoenaed Vice President Cheney yesterday for records on the administration's spying program. The other body doesn't seem to appear to embrace Vice President Cheney as one of its own. The Vice President can't have it both ways. This amendment helps him sort it out. We will defund his executive office, leaving him with a vastly reduced budget but giving him what he wants, at least on some undisclosed days.

Madam Speaker, June 23, 2007 marked a significant event in American history; the 35th anniversary of the passage of Title IX of the Higher Education Act. In celebrating the 35th anniversary of the Title IX law, I am pleased to honor the principle of equal opportunity before the law and applaud the amazing contributions made by women.

Title IX's impact on college sports has been well documented. However, its influence on women extends well beyond the playing field and into the classroom. When the law was passed in 1972, 46 percent of female high school students enrolled in college immediately after graduating. In 2005, that figure had risen to 70 percent and the share of bachelor's degrees earned by women had increased from 44 to 57 percent.

Title IX has also affected my life in a very personal way. I have seen how Title IX has changed the experiences of the women in my own family. When I was in school, there was no Title IX and opportunities were limited. When my daughter, Mary, was in school, Title IX was in its infancy, but it opened the door to her and her classmates to a number of options in not only sports, but careers as well. I am so excited that now that my granddaughters, Isabel, Lucy, and Eve are growing up in a time when a whole new world is available to them.

As a member of Congress I am dedicated to ensuring that Title IX remains in tact. We have made great progress as a Nation in the last 35 years; however, we must make certain that Title IX remains a bedrock principle in America. The progress we have seen in the country is just the beginning.