Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I wanted to get to the floor to congratulate Congressman Bobby Scott for the hard work that he has done to bring the CBC's budget before this Congress and all of those who worked with him. I would like to thank my colleagues of the CBC, and especially our chairwoman, Barbara Lee, for continuing the tradition of having an alternative budget. It is so important because each year we show the world what is possible, what can be done, how we can invest in human potential. This budget does just that. What I really like about this budget is it truly is building upon the President's blueprint for success. This budget, in investing in human potential, invests $18 billion more on health care, $17 billion more on education, job training and social services, $8 billion more on transportation and infrastructure. And I am sure you have heard some of these numbers as CBC members have come before you today to support this budget. I won't go any further except to say that this a good budget. Please support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the End GREED Act, H.R. 1575. We worked on this bill in the Judiciary Committee, and with bipartisan support, I believe that we made significant improvements over the original bill.

This narrowly crafted measure gives the Attorney General the ability to recover the most egregious bonuses by entities that receive or have received more than $5 billion in direct capital investment by the U.S. under TARP or HERA by filing a civil action in federal court. Every state in the U.S. has some form of similar fraudulent transfer statute, including my home state of California.

The Attorney General could only do so where the entity was insolvent and paid excessive compensation to an officer, director, or employee who provided less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange. This applies to bonuses paid after September 1, 2008.

This legislation takes another critical step in executive compensation by reaching bonuses made at the end of 2008. For example, more than $3 billion in bonuses were paid by Merrill Lynch late last year.

This bill also provides a mechanism for recovering bonuses paid to non-citizens who would be unaffected by the tax provision Congress recently passed. New York Attorney General Cuomo reported that only 47 percent of AIG bonuses were paid to U.S. citizens. Therefore, this bill authorizes the Attorney General, after consultation with the Treasury Secretary, to subpoena witnesses and to obtain necessary information relevant to the bonuses.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I know some of the critics of this legislation have raised questions about the constitutionality of this bill. Please let me add to the Record the comments of several prominent constitutional scholars who have confirmed that the bill is constitutional. Here's what some of the constitutional scholars have said about this bill:

Prof. Laurence Tribe (Harvard)--``Having carefully reviewed

the text of the bill, I believe it stands on solid

constitutional ground.''

Prof. Doug Baird (Univ. of Chicago)--``Because H.R. 1575

largely replicates rights that

the United States already possesses under state laws, there

seems to be little doubt that Congress has the power to enact

it.''

Prof. Michael Gearhardt (UNC)--``I believe that The End

GREED Act is unquestionably constitutional. Each of the

powers deployed to enact this bill is plenary, and these

powers--individually and collectively provide an unusually

strong, unassailable constitutional foundation for The End

GREED Act.''

Prof. Ken Klee (UCLA)--``It is my view as a professor of

law that the fraudulent transfer provisions of the Manager's

amendment to H.R. 1575 are constitutional on their face and

as applied to avoid payments of excessive compensation made

under contracts entered into before the date of enactment.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1575, the End GREED Act.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to first thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus for organizing tonight's Special Order to recognize the contributions of Dr. John Hope Franklin. CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee appointed Congresswoman Marcia Fudge and Delegate Donna Christian-Christensen to lead our CBC message team and they have done an outstanding job of helping to inform our colleagues in Congress and our constituents at home about some of the important work being done by the Congressional Black Caucus.

Throughout his long life, John Hope Franklin wrote prolifically about history--more than 60 years after its publication, one of his books, From Slavery to Freedom, is considered a core text on the African- American experience. Dr. Franklin not only wrote about history, he lived it. Franklin worked on the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954, he joined protestors in a 1965 march led by Martin Luther King, Jr. in Montgomery, Alabama and he headed President Clinton's 1997 national advisory board on race. Franklin accumulated many honors during his long career, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. He shared the John W. Kluge Award for lifetime achievement in the humanities and a similar honor from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society, the nation's two oldest learned societies. He also was revered as a ``moral leader'' of the historical profession for his engagement in the pressing issues of the day, his unflagging advocacy of civil rights, and his gracious and courtly demeanor.

Dr. John Hope Franklin was described in the Washington Post recently as a man who ``lived what he taught.'' I don't think there are many higher accolades. For those of us who knew him and called him friend, it feels as though collectively we've lost a grandfather--a very wise and generous teacher and mentor. For those who don't know about the contributions of Dr. John Hope Franklin, I wanted to come to the floor tonight to add my voice of appreciation and to highlight some of his contributions that I believe are important.

John Hope Franklin, the grandson of a slave, was born on January 2, 1915, in Rentiesville, Oklahoma, a small black community. His parents, Buck Colbert Franklin and Mollie Parker Franklin named their son after John Hope, the President of Atlanta University. His mother was a school teacher and his father was a community leader and they recognized the importance of education.

The realities of racism hit Franklin at an early age. He said he vividly remembered the humiliating experience of being put off the train with his mother because she refused to move to a segregated compartment for a six-mile trip to the next town. He was six years old. With his parents, he lived through the Tulsa Race Riots in 1921, believed to be the single worst incident of racial violence in American history. Later, although an academic star at Booker T. Washington High School and valedictorian of his class, the state would not allow him to study at the University of Oklahoma because he was black. So instead, in 1931 Franklin enrolled at Fisk University, a historically black college in Nashville, Tennessee, intending to study law.

However, a history professor, Theodore Currier, persuaded him to change his mind and his major and he received his bachelor's degree in history in 1935. Currier, who was white, became a close friend and mentor, and when Franklin's money ran out, Currier loaned the young student $500 to attend graduate school at Harvard University, where he received his master's in 1936 and doctorate five years later. He began his career as an instructor at Fisk in 1936 and taught at St. Augustine's and North Carolina College for Negroes (now North Carolina Central University), both historically black colleges.

In 1945, Alfred A. Knopf approached him about writing a book on African-American history--originally titled From Slavery to Freedom: A History of American Negroes--and he spent 13 months writing it. Then in 1947, he took a post as professor at Howard University in Washington, DC, where, in the early 1950s, he traveled from campus to Thurgood Marshall's law office to help prepare the brief that led to the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision.

In 1956 he became chairman of the previously all-white history department at Brooklyn College. Despite his position, he had to visit 35 real estate agents before he was able to buy a house for his young family and no New York bank would lend him the money.

Later, while at the University of Chicago, he accompanied the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on the march from Selma to Montgomery, Ala. in 1965. He spent 16 years at the University of Chicago and then joined the faculty of Duke University in 1982. He retired from Duke's history department in 1985, then spent seven years as professor of legal history at the Duke Law School. Franklin will be honored with a newly endowed chair at Duke Law School.

Franklin was a prolific writer, with books including The Emancipation Proclamation, The Militant South, The Free Negro in North Carolina, George Washington Williams: A Biography and A Southern Odyssey: Travelers in the Antebellum North. He also edited many works, including a book about his father called My Life and an Era: The Autobiography of Buck Colbert Franklin, with his son, John Whittington Franklin. Franklin completed his autobiography in 2005, which was reviewed favorably in many media outlets across the country.

He received more than 130 honorary degrees and served as president of the Phi Beta Kappa Society, the American Studies Association, the Southern Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association.

Franklin's best-known accomplishment in his later years was in 1997, when he was appointed chairman of the advisory board for President Clinton's One America: The President's Initiative on Race. The seven- member panel was charged with directing a national conversation on race relations. When he was named to the post, Franklin remarked, ``I am not sure this is an honor. It may be a burden.'' The panel did provoke criticism, both from conservatives who pressured the panel to hear from opponents of racial preference and others who said it did not make enough progress. Franklin himself acknowledged in an interview with USA Today in 1997 that the group could not solve the nation's racial problems. But Franklin said the effort was still worth it.

And, in 2001, Duke University opened the John Hope Franklin Center for Interdisciplinary and International Studies, where scholars, artists and members of the community have the opportunity to engage in public discourse on a variety of issues, including race, social equity and globalization. At the heart of its mission is the Franklin Humanities Institute, which sponsors public events and hosts the Franklin Seminar, a residential fellowship program for Duke faculty and graduate students.

In a statement to the American Academy of Arts and Letters in 2002, Franklin summed up his own career:

``More than 60 years ago, I began the task of trying to write a new kind of Southern History. It would be broad in its reach, tolerant in its judgments of Southerners, and comprehensive in its inclusion of everyone who lived in the region . . . the long, tragic history of the continuing black-white conflict compelled me to focus on the struggle that has affected the lives of the vast majority of people in the United States. . . . Looking back, I can plead guilty of having provided only a sketch of the work I laid out for myself.''

In 2007, John Hope Franklin lent his formidable effort to the issue of reparations for African Americans. Franklin returned to Oklahoma to testify in a hearing urging Congress to pass legislation that would clear the way for survivors of the Tulsa Race Riots of 1921, one of the nation's worst race riots, to sue for reparations.

For Franklin, who continued his scholarly work and public appearances well into his 90s, the work he began in the 1940s still was not finished. He was interviewed earlier this year, when President Barack Obama was inaugurated, and he noted that he never thought he would live to see the first African American President of the United States, but he was so very glad that he did.

Mr. Speaker, I am so very glad that John Hope Franklin shared his life and his work so generously. He taught us about our lost history, and in the process, he set a sterling example of living what he tried to teach that will inspire many generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to briefly discuss a very important issue. Several Members of the House have been working with the Congressional Black Caucus, the Financial Services Committee and other committees to increase access for minority and women-owned business enterprises. Just this week, a new report was released by the Center for Community Economic Development on ``The Imperative of Closing the Racial Wealth Gap.''

I would like to include the summary of this report in the Record.

One of our primary focus areas over the last several months has been minority and women-owned business enterprises' access to the Troubled Asset Relief Program. That is the TARP.

Originally, TARP was designed for the purchase of toxic mortgage- related assets and presented several opportunities for women and minority-owned businesses to participate through asset management, legal, accounting, and other professional services.

Following the announcement of the TARP, Representative Gregory Meeks and I convened a meeting of over 60 minority asset managers and officials from the Treasury Department to ensure maximum participation by women and minority-owned businesses. We wanted to make sure that there were real opportunities for participation in the TARP.

As a result, legislative language was placed in the TARP bill describing specific steps Treasury was to take to ensure minority participation. In addition, members from the National Association of Securities Professionals met with Treasury several times and submitted written recommendations on how Treasury could work better with minority and women-owned businesses in the asset management space.

Unfortunately, shortly after enactment of the TARP, Secretary Paulson shifted the focus from toxic assets to direct infusions of cash to ailing financial institutions. This shift became known as the Capital Purchase Program. This shift both cut off major opportunities for minority and women-owned businesses via asset-related services, and opened an opportunity for participation in the way of debt underwriting and other banking professional services.

Unfortunately, these opportunities were never realized as banks that received TARP funds began a cycle of self-patronage, which led to little or no access to TARP contracting opportunities for women and minority-owned businesses. The most egregious of this type of patronage was highlighted through the banks paying themselves to underwrite their own debt.

Yesterday, the Secretary of the Treasury announced a new program aimed at purchasing toxic assets from financial institutions. With this announcement, we have come full circle and a significant opportunity for minority and women-owned businesses to participate has presented itself again. The Public-Private Investment Program could purchase up to $1 trillion in assets.

Members of the CBC's Economic Security Taskforce plan to convene a TARP/TALF Access Summit. The summit will be designed to ensure meaningful participation in TARP through the Public-Private Investment Program. Specifically, we hope to provide opportunities for minority and women-owned businesses and administration stakeholders to learn more about the new program and the capabilities of minority and women- owned businesses, develop short-, mid- and long-term strategies to better facilitate access to TARP resources, and identify specific contacts within the relevant agencies.

Moving forward, I believe this is an important initiative to ensure that we bring diverse talent to tackle the daunting economic problems facing us now.

Mr. Speaker and Members, this is very important. We have billions of dollars that are being injected into our society by way of the TARP program, the TALF program, and even the stimulus program. We have to make sure that these opportunities are open and available to all members of our society who are equipped, prepared, and ready to participate.

If our communities are to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, if our communities are to open up opportunities and create jobs, we cannot be shut out of these opportunities simply because only the ``big boys'' are allowed to play. We must make sure that these opportunities are available to all of the women and minority-owned businesses in our society also.

Laying the Foundation for National Prosperity--The Imperative of

Closing the Racial Wealth Gap--Executive Summary--March 2009

about the insight center

The Insight Center for Community Economic Development,

formerly the National Economic Development and Law Center

(NEDLC), is a national research, consulting and legal

organization dedicated to building economic health in

vulnerable communities. The Insight Center's

multidisciplinary approach utilizes a wide array of community

economic development strategies including promoting industry-

focused workforce development, building individual and

community assets, establishing the link between early care

and education and economic development, and advocating for

the adoption of the Self-Sufficiency Standard as a

measurement of wage adequacy and as an alternative to the

Federal Poverty Line.

This work is part of a national effort to close the racial

wealth gap in the United States for the next generation. For

more information on this initiative, visit http:// www.insightcced.org/communities/ClosingRWG.html. For more

information on the Insight Center, visit. http:// www.insightcced.org/.

acknowledgements

The primary author of this paper is Meizhu Lui, Director,

Closing the Racial Wealth Gap Initiative. Other Insight

Center staff who contributed include Roger Clay, Lori Warren,

Ludovic Blain, Victor Corral, and Esther Polk. We also thank

Betsy Leondar-Wright for her editing skills, and Rick

Williams for his expert advice.

The work of the leaders of the Initiative's issue working

groups is much appreciated. They include Thomas Mitchell,

Rudy Arredondo, John Powell, Jose Garcia, Barbara Robles,

Karen Edwards, Maya Rockeymoore, Tse Ming Tam, and Don

Baylor. Additional experts can be found at

www.insightexpertsofcolororg. The Insight Center gratefully acknowledges the generous

support of the Ford Foundation, and the ongoing commitment of

Program Officer Kilolo Kijakazi to building the field.

executive summary

For every dollar owned by the median white family in the

United States, the typical Latino family has twelve cents,

and the typical African American family has a dime.\1\ Wealth

is what you own minus what you owe: assets minus debts.

This racial wealth gap has roots in the past, and reaches

forward as well: it drains a family's capacity to give the

next generation a solid start. Without addressing the wealth

gap, racial inequality will be with us for generations to

come.

Anti-poverty programs have relied primarily on providing

subsistence income for today's necessities, not building

assets that lead to economic mobility and security, and in

fact have sometimes penalized low-income people for owning

assets. Wealth-building policies can help even the lowest-

income families gain stability and plan for the future.

Asset poverty is a new definition of poverty that reveals

how many families lack even minimal amounts of wealth. It can

be defined as not having enough savings to survive for three

months without income. People of color are far more likely

than whites to be asset-poor. The median family of color has

enough assets to last only five weeks at the poverty level,

compared with seven months for the median white family.\2\

the roots of the racial wealth divide in u.s. history \3\

Throughout U.S. history, federal and state governments have

provided ``wealth starter kits'' for some to turn their work

into worth. For example, governments have given gifts of

land, education, government-backed mortgages and farm loans,

a social safety net, and business subsidies to white

families, sometimes exclusively and usually

disproportionately.

The same governments that boosted white wealth took land

from people of color, denied them education, and erected

barriers to home and business ownership.

Native Americans lost assets not just during the first

centuries of U.S. history, through displacement and treaty

violations, but also more recently through tribal termination

and Bureau of Indian Affairs mismanagement.

African Americans were not just denied property; they were

property during slavery. Legal segregation and Jim Crow laws

pushed Black citizens to the margins of the economy, where

many remain stuck today. Wealth-building programs such as

Social Security and the post-WWII GI Bill at first excluded

African Americans, with multigenerational effects.

Latinos have been negatively affected by U.S. foreign

policy and immigration policy. Mexicans and Puerto Ricans

lost land to conquest. Temporary guest-worker programs and

exploitation of undocumented immigrants have blocked many

Latinos from getting a toehold in the U.S. economy.

Most Asian Americans were excluded from entry, and those

who were here were largely denied citizenship until after

World War II.\4\ Japanese Americans lost their assets when

they were interned during World War II. While some Asian

groups are now prospering, Southeast Asians continue to have

a very high poverty rate.\5\

Our country knows how to invest in wealth building for its

people. We now need to do so for everyone. We cannot afford

to squander America's greatest asset: its people.

comprehensive asset building for all

A comprehensive approach to asset accumulation must

recognize that wealth building should unfold over the course

of a person's life: learning to save as a child; earning more

than just a living wage; borrowing on fair terms to invest in

the future: buying a home; starting a business; and retiring

with security.

To make that possible for Americans of all races, these

interconnected policy areas must be improved to support

wealth building:

Land: Land loss led to the impoverishment of Native

Americans, Mexican Americans, and African Americans, and land

ownership will be essential to ending the racial wealth

divide. Suits over land claims brought by blacks, Mexican-

Americans, and American Indians must move quickly to

settlements. Native peoples, including Native Hawaiians,

still do not control their own land, which is held in trust

by the federal government and the state of Hawaii; they must

regain full ownership rights. Land loss due to fractionation

must be stopped. Fair access to subsidized loans must be

enforced.

Income and employment: Good jobs with good benefits are

important wealth-building tools. In 2007 the median household

income for African Americans was $34,001, and for Latinos

$40,766, compared with $53,714 for whites; about one-quarter

of Black and Latino families were below the poverty line.\6\

Since then, as the recession set in, unemployment has been

steadily rising. Immigrants and other people of color tend to

fill jobs with inadequate pay and benefits. Anti-

discrimination laws need to be enforced. Unionization should

be promoted. Public investment, including jobs in new green

industries, should be affirmatively targeted to communities

of color.

Savings and investments: The racial disparity in financial

assets (cash, investment accounts, stocks, bonds, etc.) is

wide: the median family of color had only $9,000 in financial

wealth in 2007, compared with $44,300 for whites.\7\ Access

to banks has been a problem on Native American reservations,

in inner-city neighborhoods and in rural areas. Public

programs that match savings or provide subsidies for college

tuition will allow more low-income people to build assets.

Matched savings programs should be tailored to fit the

cultures of people of color, such as building on existing

saving practices in immigrant and Native American

communities.

Debt and credit: Poor credit scores and unscrupulous

lenders keep many people of color stuck with only high-

interest credit options, unable to access fair credit for

college, homeownership or auto loans. African Americans paid

an average of 7% for new car loans in 2004, compared with 5%

for white borrowers.\8\ African and Latino students are far

more likely to have unmanageable student loans, defined as

monthly payments over 8% of income.\9\ A new federal

Financial Product Safety Commission watching for

discriminatory practices while protecting all consumers is

sorely needed.

Homeownership: The sub-prime mortgage crisis is devastating

communities of color. Discriminatory and unregulated

practices have led to foreclosures and an estimated loss of

at least $165 billion in wealth in communities of color.\10\

Black and Latino homeowners are now facing twice the rate of

subprime-related foreclosures as white homeowners.\11\ In the

short run, a foreclosure moratorium and a federal program to

renegotiate mortgages on fair terms are needed. In the long

run, affordable housing must become a national priority.

Business ownership: Fourteen percent of white families but

only 7% of families of color owned equity in a business in

2007.\12\ The majority of minority-owned businesses have no

paid employees.\13\ Minority business start-ups use personal

savings and credit cards more often, and receive prime bank

loans less often, than white business owners. Ensuring

greater access to public and private investment capital is

essential to close the gap. Government procurement programs

can be used to boost businesses owned by people of color.

Social insurance: Laid-off workers of color are less likely

to get unemployment insurance than white workers; and workers

of color tend to put more into Social Security than they take

out in retirement benefits.\14\ Fairer rules in both programs

would broaden their reach. But the disability and survivor

programs are very important to African Americans; these

programs must be protected against cutbacks.

The Tax Code: Currently tax policy prioritizes further

asset-building for wealthy asset owners instead of helping

wage earners acquire assets. The mortgage interest deduction

reduces taxes mostly for owners of high-priced homes who are

disproportionately white; low-income taxpayers who do not

itemize get no benefit. Making the deduction refundable to

low-income homeowners would help close the race gap. A

parallel rent deduction would benefit many people of color.

Taxes on the very wealthy, such as the estate tax, need to be

protected and expanded in order to broaden asset ownership to

more people.

seven principles for closing the racial wealth gap

From the recommendations made above, a number of principles

can be distilled. They represent a framework that our leaders

must pursue to lay the foundation for the full participation

of all members of our society in our economy.

1. Craft public policies to support wealth creation and

provide opportunities to move up the economic ladder for all

those stuck on the lower rungs.

2. Ensure full participation in programs intended to be

universal through program design and implementation measures,

targeting those often overlooked.

3. Draw upon the perspectives of experts of color to

develop public policy.

4. Expand and enforce policies that eliminate

discriminatory practices in the private and public sectors.

5. Promote the collection of racial and ethnic data

essential to evaluating policy effectiveness.

6. Support community-wide prosperity through community-

based economic development.

7. Recognize that a comprehensive human-capital agenda is

needed.

In his inaugural address, President Obama said, ``The state

of the economy calls for action . . . not only to create new

jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth.'' By giving

populations that have endured years of disinvestment a boost

onto the economic ladder, we can lay a foundation for renewed

national prosperity.

end notes

\1\ Federal Reserve Board, 2007 Survey of Consumer

Finances, ``Full Public Data Set'' (Washington: The Federal

Reserve Board, 2009), http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/ oss2/2007/scf2007data.html.

\2\ Authors' calculations of Federal Reserve data.

\3\ This section is based on The Color of Wealth, by Meizhu

Lui, Barbara Robles, Betsy Leondar-Wright, Rose Brewer and

Rebecca Adamson, The New Press, 2006.

\4\ Ibid, pp. 198-100

\5\ Ibid., p. 213

\6\ U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Earnings, and Poverty Data

from the 2007 American Community Survey.

\7\ Federal Reserve Board, Changes in U.S. Family Finances

from 2004 to 2007: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer

Finances, February 2009.

\8\ Consumer Federation of America. African Americans Pay

Higher Auto Loan Rates but Can Take Steps to Reduce this

Expense. Washington, DC, 2007.

\9\ King, Tracy and Ellynne Bannon, The Burden of

Borrowing: A Report on the Rising Rates of Student Loan Debt,

State PIRGs' Higher Education Project, March 2002.

\10\ Schloemer, E., Li, W., Ernst, K., & Keest, K. (2006).

``Losing Ground: Foreclosures in the Subprime Market and

Their Cost to Homeowners,'' Durham, NC: Center for

Responsible Lending; Center for Responsible Lending. (2007).

``Subprime Lending is a Net Drain on Homeownership.'' (CRL

Issue Paper No. 14), Washington: DC: Center for Responsible

Lending.

\11\ Oliver, Melvin L. and Thomas M. Shapiro, ``Sub-prime

as a Black Catastrophe,'' The American Prospect, October

2008, 11.

\12\ Federal Reserve Board, Changes in U.S. Family Finances

from 2004 to 2007: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer

Finances, February 2009.

\13\ Robles, Barbara, ``Latino Entrepreneurship and

Microbusinesses: A National and Border Economy Snapshot,''

AAPSS Blog, October 5, 2007 Survey of Business Owners, 2002

Economic Census, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census.

\14\ Social Security Administration, Hispanics, Social

Security, and Supplemental Security Income, Table 7,

``Characteristics of Hispanic beneficiaries of Social

Security and all beneficiaries,'' 2005.

Mr. Speaker, on March 4th, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

That very same day, following the ICC's decision, the Government of Sudan expelled 13 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from

Darfur, accusing them of cooperating with the ICC investigation. These non-governmental organizations include many of the most respected humanitarian organizations in the world. Among them are Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders, International Rescue Committee, and Mercy Corps.

The withdrawal of these organizations will leave millions of civilians without access to food, clean water, and medical assistance. This outrageous action is just another example of the cruelty of the Government of Sudan towards its own people. And it proves that the ICC's decision to issue an arrest warrant for Bashir was entirely justified.

The Government of Sudan has been carrying out a campaign of genocide against the people of Darfur since 2003. The Sudanese government is supporting militia groups that are engaged in genocidal practices in communities of African farmers in the Western province of Darfur. These militias are razing villages, systematically raping women and girls, specifically targeting and destroying food and water supplies, and massacring communities. In the last five years the conflict has taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians. On October 1, 2008, the United Nations reported that there were almost 2.7 million internally displaced persons in Darfur, almost 300,000 of whom were newly displaced in 2008, and an additional 2 million people continue to be directly affected by the conflict.

In July of 2007, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1769, which authorized the deployment of a joint United Nations/African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur, known as UNAMID. The force was to consist of a total of 26,000 troops. However, UNAMID was deployed at only 63 percent of its full strength as of December 31, 2008, and does not have the capacity to fulfill its mandate to protect civilians in Darfur. UNAMID must immediately deploy its forces at their full strength, and take all necessary and appropriate action to protect the people of Darfur.

Early in 2006, I visited the Darfur region with my good friend from California, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and I was deeply disturbed by what I saw. As far as the eyes could see, there were crowds of displaced people who had been driven from their homes, living literally on the ground with nothing but little tarps to cover them. That was three years ago, and yet this genocide has been allowed to continue.

If we are serious about opposing genocide, we must take decisive action to stop it.

We must demand that all nations respect and enforce the decision of the ICC.

We must demand that humanitarian organizations be allowed to return to Sudan.

We must enact and enforce comprehensive sanctions against Sudan without exceptions.

We must demand that China stop bankrolling the genocide.

And we must demand that the United Nations immediately deploy its peacekeeping forces and do everything necessary to protect civilians and save the people of Darfur.

It's long past time to get serious about genocide.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1429) to provide for an effective HIV/AIDS program in Federal prisons.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friends, John Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lamar Smith, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Mr. Bobby Scott, chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. Their staffs worked closely with my staff in a bipartisan manner when we drafted this bill 2 years ago, introduced it as H.R. 1943, reported it favorably and passed it on suspension. And they have been strong supporters of it ever since.

More than a quarter century has passed since AIDS was first discovered, yet the AIDS virus continues to infect and kill thousands of Americans every year. Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, released new estimates of HIV infection which proves that the HIV/AIDS epidemic is even worse than we thought. The new estimates indicate that approximately 56,300 new infections occurred in the United States in 2006. This figure is approximately 40 percent higher than CDC's previous estimates of 40,000 new infections every year.

Here in our Nation's capital, health officials just announced that the HIV infection rate has reached 3 percent. That is 2,984 residents per every 100,000 over the age of 15, or 15,120 right here in our capital. This is a rate that exceeds the 1 percent threshold for a severe epidemic, and compares to severely impacted nations in West Africa. This announcement made the headlines in Sunday's Washington Post.

We need to take the threat of HIV/AIDS seriously, and we need to confront it in every institution in our society. That includes our Nation's prison system.

In 2005, the Department of Justice reported that the rate of confirmed AIDS cases in prisons is three times higher than in the general population. The Department of Justice also reported that 2 percent of State prison inmates and 1.1 percent of Federal prison inmates were known to be living with HIV/AIDS in 2003. However, the actual rate of HIV infection in our Nation's prisons is still unknown because prison officials do not consistently test prisoners.

In January of this year, the Journal of the National Medical Association published an article by Dr. Nina Harawa and Dr. Adaora Adimora on ``Incarceration, African Americans and HIV: Advancing a Research Agenda.'' The article confirmed that individuals at high risk for incarceration also tend to be at high risk for HIV infections. Incarcerated populations have a high prevalence of characteristics associated with HIV infection. These characteristics include low socioeconomic status, drug use, multiple sex partners, and histories of sexual abuse and assault.

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

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Harawa's and Dr. Adimora's article also pointed out that incarceration could provide a window of opportunity for reaching at-risk individuals and providing them testing, treatment, and prevention services for HIV and AIDS. Unfortunately, these services are not consistently available in the correctional system.

HIV testing is not required upon entry and prior to release from Federal prisons, nor is testing required in most State prisons.

Treatment for HIV/AIDS in the correctional system is often limited by lack of expertise among prison health providers and inadequate access to HIV pharmaceuticals.

Finally, HIV prevention programs are not available in a consistent or complete fashion throughout the entire correctional system. That is why we need to pass the Stop AIDS in Prison Act today. The Stop AIDS in Prison Act requires the Federal Bureau of Prisons to develop a comprehensive policy to provide HIV testing, treatment, and prevention for inmates in Federal prisons.

This bill requires the Bureau of Prisons to test all prison inmates for HIV upon entering prison and again prior to release from prison unless the inmate absolutely opts out of taking the test. Inmates who test positive will be given comprehensive treatment during their incarceration and referrals to services in the community prior to release. All inmates, regardless of their test results, will be given HIV prevention education.

We are honored to have the support of many of the prominent HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations for the Stop AIDS in Prison Act. These include; AIDS Action, The AIDS Institute, the National Minority AIDS Council, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the HIV Medicine Association, the Latino Commission on AIDS, AIDS Project Los Angeles, Bienestar, a Latino community service and advocacy organization, and the AmASSI National Health and Cultural Centers, another community service and advocacy organization. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, which has been severely impacted by HIV/AIDS, has also expressed support for this bill.

In conclusion, the Stop AIDS in Prison Act will help stop the spread of HIV/AIDS among prison inmates, encourage them to take personal responsibility for their health, and reduce the risk that they will transmit HIV/AIDS to other persons in the community following their release from prison.

I would like to thank my colleagues who have been involved, especially my colleague from California who is on the floor today in support of this legislation.

I would urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California, the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Barbara Lee.

I yield to the gentlelady as much time as she may need to continue this wonderful talk she's giving.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee for rushing to the floor to participate in the presentation of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Major Drug Trafficking Prosecution Act of 2009. This legislation will refocus federal prosecutorial resources on major drug traffickers and eliminate racial disparities created by the mandatory minimum sentences for powder and crack cocaine.

In the 1980s, Congress passed two Anti-Drug Abuse Acts with the goal that federal prosecutors would go after major drug traffickers at the top of the food chain, instead of low-level drug offenders at the bottom. Lengthy mandatory minimum prison sentences were passed for most drug crimes. These mandatory terms are triggered based solely on the type and weight of the drug involved, and, with very few exceptions, the courts cannot sentence below them.

Twenty years later, mandatory drug sentences have utterly failed to achieve Congress's goals.

First, these sentences are not stopping major drug traffickers. Huge quantities of drugs enter our country each year, but in 2005 the majority of crack and powder cocaine offenses, for example, were street-level dealers, mules and lookouts and users, 61.5 percent and 53.1 percent, respectively. Mandatory minimums lock up thousands of small-time sellers and addicts for decades.

Second, mandatory minimums have lengthened drug sentences, creating the need for more prisons and more taxpayer money to pay for them. Before the advent of mandatory sentences, drug offenders served an average of 22 months in prison; by 2004, that average sentence had nearly tripled, to 62 months in prison. Because of mandatory minimums, the federal prison budget has ballooned from $220 million in 1986 to $5.4 billion in 2008.

Longer sentences and more people in prison haven't translated into safer streets. At some point, the effectiveness per dollar in promoting increased public safety will decrease. For example, when crime dropped dramatically between 1992 and 1997, imprisonment was responsible for just 25 percent of that reduction. Seventy five percent was attributed to factors other than incarceration.

Finally, mandatory minimums have a disproportionate impact on African Americans, who comprise 12 percent of the U.S. population and 14 percent of drug users, but 30 percent of all federal drug convictions. African American drug defendants are 20 percent more likely to be sentenced to prison than

white drug defendants. African Americans, on average, serve almost as much time in federal prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months). Much of this disparity is due to the severe penalties for crack cocaine.

The Major Drug Trafficking Prosecution Act of 2009 will help refocus important federal prosecutorial resources to the major drug traffickers instead of low-level offenders and it will provide more discretion to judges by making some long overdue changes to current law: eliminating all mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses; curbing federal prosecutions of low-level drug offenders; and allowing courts to place drug users on probation or suspend the sentence.

Mandatory minimums have been repealed before. A 2008 report issued by Families Against Mandatory Minimums describes how Congress first enacted mandatory drug sentences in the 1950s, then voted to repeal them in 1970 because they failed to reduce drug trafficking. I would like to refer Members to the report at the following site: http:// www.famm.org/Repository/Files/8189_FAMM_BoggsAct_final.pdf. In a recent poll, 8 in 10 Americans agreed that courts--not Congress--should determine prison sentences, and 6 in 10 opposed mandatory sentences for nonviolent offenders. Today's Congress should heed the American people and repeal mandatory minimums again.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support The Major Drug Trafficking Prosecution Act of 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 210, Recognizing the importance of the National School Lunch Program and commend my colleague, Rep. Gwen Moore for bringing this measure before the House.

This important program provides breakfast to over 8 million children through either free or reduced-price meals in approximately 16,000 schools. With the current economic crisis, working families are facing challenges they never expected. Last week, the Department of Labor announced the U.S. economy lost 651,000 jobs in February, and the unemployment rate hit 8.1 percent, its highest point in since 1983. These job losses make it even harder for some families to feed their children--so they turn to schools for help. We know that children who live in families that experience hunger have been shown to be more likely to have lower math scores, face an increased likelihood of repeating a grade, and receive more special education services.

We've learned over the years that making breakfast widely available through different venues, such as in the classroom, or as students exit their school bus, or outside the classroom, has been shown to diminish the stigma of receiving free or reduced-price breakfast, which often prevents eligible students from getting a traditional breakfast in school cafeterias.

Providing breakfast in the classroom can improve attentiveness and academic performance, while reducing tardiness and disciplinary referrals. Students who eat a complete breakfast have been shown to make fewer mistakes and work faster in math exercises than those who eat a partial breakfast. Students who skip breakfast are more likely to have difficulty distinguishing among similar images, show increased errors, and have slower memory recall. Studies have shown that access to nutritious programs such as the National School Lunch Program and National School Breakfast Program helps to create a strong learning environment for children and helps to improve children's concentration in the classroom.

Mr. Speaker, this is an incredibly important program with a well- documented track record of success. I'm pleased to add my voice of support for the National School Breakfast Program and I will be working with my colleagues to make sure that we provide the resources necessary to provide the benefits of this program to every hungry child who needs breakfast at school.

Mr. Chairman and Members, I am so pleased to stand here today in support of H.R. 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009.

I work on both of these committees, the Financial Services Committee, the Judiciary Committee. I want to thank Mr. Frank, I want to thank Mr. Conyers, and all those Members who have been working so hard to try to assist our homeowners with loan modifications. We knew that we'd never be able to get this done without judicial modifications of home mortgages during bankruptcy for borrowers who have run out of options. That's in the bill.

The other thing in this bill, the safe harbor for servicers that would allow them to move forward now and do these modifications, the strengthening of HOPE for Homeowners, which Mr. Frank has worked so hard on, and a piece that I wrote in on FHA approval that would ensure that predatory lending entities are not allowed to participate in the program because they have been ripping off our homeowners.

I want to thank Jackie Speier and Mr. Driehaus for working with me on this part of the legislation. Now I think we are finally putting all the pieces together that can truly do loan modification for so many deserving citizens. I believe that we don't have to deal with this one- by-one effort where homeowners are trying to call banks and servicers, not being able to get in touch with anybody, not being able to be serviced, but, rather, they can now depend on the law that we are putting out here today.

I would urge everyone to vote for this bill.

I would like to thank the chairman and subcommittee chairman on the Appropriations Committee for doing such a great job crafting this legislation.

Last night, President Obama said that a budget should be more than just a list of programs and dollar amounts, it's a document that should reflect our values as a Congress.

I'm proud to support this rule and this omnibus bill as a reflection of my values. Allow me to briefly mention some of the programs that I'm proud to have worked with my colleagues to fund.

I'm very pleased that we have additional money in here for public housing capital funds. We have many of our large public housing projects that are in great disrepair, and to have just a decent quality of life we needed to expand support for these public housing projects. There is money for section 8 tenant-based vouchers, money for section 8 project-based vouchers, and then of course education and training.

We have my beloved Head Start program. That is going to ensure that 900,000 low-income children have access to high-quality preschool services, title I grants for low-income children, and money for dislocated workers.

In health, we're going to give additional support to community health centers, health professions training, and Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program; and of course some assistance in international aid for HIV and AIDS; and a little money for Haiti--that's the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.

So I am very, very proud of this legislation, particularly in this time of economic crisis. It's vital that we continue to invest in our economy to keep our country strong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 83, Recognizing the Significance of Black History Month and am proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure.

Some have asked if our country still needs to formally recognize Black History Month? My answer is absolutely, yes! Just as students are taught about American and World History throughout their school years, the contributions of African American to this great nation and to the world still need to be taught and re-taught. In fact, the recent and historic inauguration of President Barack Obama as our country's first African American President of the United States of America underscores the continued need to celebrate Black History Month.

While most Americans now know President Barack Obama's story, too many Americans still do not know or understand that he stands on the shoulders of many brave African American men and women. In fact, just a few years ago, most of my colleagues here in the House had never beard of a young leader named Barack Obama. Black History Month gives us a wonderful opportunity to share a better understanding of their stories of hardship and inspiration with new generations of Americans.

While many people may have held about Malcom X or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Rosa Parks, far too many young people don't know about Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman to serve in this House of Representatives and to run for President of the United States. Too many young people still have no idea about the work of Fannie Lou Hammer to ensure that African Americans in Mississippi could actually exercise the right to vote and not just point to the words printed on paper.

We have come an incredibly long way from the struggles that Dr. Carter G. Woodson faced in 1926 to set aside one week in February to recognize the contributions of African Americans to this country. It seems so fitting that we are now able to devote the entire month of February for this important recognition, in the month that we also celebrate the lives of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. For all the problems faced by America during the lifetimes of Lincoln and Douglass, including the barbaric but legal institution of slavery, and a civil war that almost destroyed the union, by studying the contributions of these great leaders, the country made itself better.

That is why we must continue our celebrations of Black History Month--so we can learn more about the contributions of unsung leaders as well as those whose name we already know. In recognizing Black History Month, we continue the work necessary to make a more perfect union. Black History Month is not simply a time for ceremony, it is a time to live up to our promise by making equality, freedom and justice our national reality.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me and for his very warm compliments. Thank you.

Approximately 5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, and the majority of them live at home under the care of family and friends. It is estimated that 60 percent of Alzheimer's patients are likely to wander away from their homes. Wanderers are vulnerable to dehydration, weather conditions, traffic hazards, and individuals who prey on those who are defenseless. Up to 50 percent of wandering Alzheimer's patients will become seriously injured or die if they are not found within 24 hours of their departure from home.

The Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program is a Department of Justice program that helps local communities and law enforcement officials quickly identify persons with Alzheimer's disease who wander or who are missing and reunite them with their families.

Since its inception more than 10 years ago, this program has funded a national registry of more than 172,000 individuals at risk of wandering and has reunited over 12,000 wanderers with their families. It is a highly successful program whereby 88 percent of registrants who wander are found within the first 4 hours of being reported missing. A total of 1,288 wandering incidents were reported to the program in 2007. The program has a 98 percent success rate in recovering enrollees who are reported missing.

There are also technology-based options to address wandering that should be considered for funding under the Missing Alzheimer's Patient Program. For example, personalized wristbands that emit a tracking signal can be used to locate wanderers. These wristbands, when combined with specially trained search-and-rescue teams, can reduce search times from hours and days to minutes.

Congress originally authorized $900,000 in appropriations for the Missing Alzheimer's Patient Program for 3 years, that is, 1996 through 1998, but never reauthorized or updated the program. Since then, the program has continued to receive funding on a year-to-year basis, but funding has remained virtually flat since its inception.

H.R. 908 reauthorizes, updates and expands the Missing Alzheimer's Patient Program.

The bill authorizes up to $5 million per year in appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2016, a modest increase over the $1 million appropriation in fiscal year 2008.

The bill expands the program so as to allow the Department of Justice to award multiple competitive grants to nonprofit organizations. Preference will be given to national nonprofit organizations that have a direct link to patients, and families of patients, with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

And finally, the bill specifies that the program will be operated under the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance. Currently, the program is operated under the Office of Juvenile Justice, which is obviously not the most appropriate agency for a program serving the mostly elderly.

H.R. 908 has 21 bipartisan cosponsors, including the co-chairs of the Congressional Alzheimer's Task Force, Congressman Edward Markey and Congressman Christopher Smith. The bill has been endorsed by more than 85 national, State, and local organizations, including the Alzheimer's Association and the Alzheimer's Foundation of America.

The Missing Alzheimer's Patient Program is a critical resource for first responders. It saves local law enforcement officials valuable time and allows them to focus on other national and local security concerns. It is critical that we reauthorize and expand this small, but very effective, program.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 908.

Madam Speaker and Members, can you imagine February 18, when millions of households will have their TVs go dark, and not understand why? Yes, it would be great if everyone had received their coupons, if everybody understood the transition to digital. But they don't.

I cannot understand why the Members of Congress would not be generous enough to have an appreciation for the fact that people are going to be terribly inconvenienced. Seniors who depend on their friend, the TV, let alone all of those televisions that will go dark without people understanding why. We could have a national emergency and our first responders would not have the opportunity to have an interoperative system where they could talk to each other.

I don't care about whether or not amendments have not been heard by either side. This bill has been debated ad nauseam in committee over a long period of time. And so, Members of Congress, if you want your telephones ringing off the hook, if you want 911 tied up, if you want people knocking on the door of their neighbors and others, trying to find out what is wrong, you act irresponsibly and not support this legislation, and let all hell break loose, because we will have a crisis on our hands.

I would ask the Members: be responsible. Don't nickel and dime this legislation. Don't create an unnecessary bureaucracy. Just vote the bill out so that we can support the average American in having their television not go on dark on February 18.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman and Members, this is not a complicated amendment. It simply clarifies that funds provided for job training in division A of this bill can be used for programs in division B, in particular, for broadband communications deployment. What are we talking about? We are talking about broadband infrastructure. The broadband package authorizes the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a part of the Commerce Department, to distribute $2.825 billion for wireless and wireline broadband through a grant program.

This is extremely important. Here we are in 2009. There are many communities throughout this country that are simply underserved. They do not have broadband. We are going to take this opportunity to repair or to build out the broadband infrastructure. We're going to take this opportunity to bring these communities up to date so that there can be more jobs, so that businesses can be supported, and so that families can have access to the kind of technology that will help them pursue jobs and careers and for students to have access to the kind of technology that will help them to communicate with other students and with their teachers, et cetera, et cetera. This is very important.

Now, the job training in this bill is in one section, and of course, broadband infrastructure is described in another section. I simply allow the job training resources to be used on broadband infrastructure. Someone has asked, does this mean that you're taking all of the money in job training for broadband? No. This simply means that we make the opportunity available for this money to be used for broadband infrastructure. Where did I get this idea? I was fortunate enough to witness what could be done in the expansion of broadband opportunities. In part of my district, we ended up with a training class at one of our schools for the laying of fiberoptic. And the young people who took advantage of this opportunity ended up getting trained. They got good jobs. Many of them moved into other communities. They bought homes. These are not simply dead-end jobs. These are careers that can be developed with this kind of training. We know that there is job training and there is job training. There is some of this job training that is kind of classroom oriented. There are some jobs that are so-called trained for that don't really exist.

But this is real. We know that the telecommunications industry must keep up with the expansion. We know that they do some training. We know that they did more training in the past. But to the degree that we can help get this training done, we can create jobs, expand broadband opportunities and truly create these careers.

So, I'm very pleased that approximately $1 billion would go to deployment of wireless service, 25 percent to wireless voice service in underserved areas and 75 percent to advance wireless broadband in underserved areas. Approximately $1.825 billion would go to the deployment of broadband via fiber or other wires, 25 percent to basic broadband in unserved areas, and 75 percent to advance broadband in underserved areas. This is a one-time opportunity to get a lot of young people trained. It is not enough to say that we're going to do job training that may lead to simply some jobs for a short period of time. Some of those jobs may be in construction. But they will only last for as long as the project will last. Some of those jobs that we hope to come on line are not going to come on as quickly as we would like them to. But these opportunities are waiting. These opportunities are waiting, and the telecommunications companies and the contractors who work with them can get this job training up and going immediately. And it's not a long time. In the training that I witnessed for fiber optics, we had people on the job within 3 to 4 months.

I would ask support for this amendment.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and Members.

I had to come to the floor in defense of the Hope for Homeowners Program, simply because I think that the

gentlelady from Minnesota does not understand this program, just as she has demonstrated that she did not understand the subprime meltdown and the problems that caused us to be in this economic crisis based on statements that she made earlier.

I am here to not only give support to the Hope For Homeowners Program and oppose her amendment, but I would like to remind our Members that one in six American homeowners is currently under water on their mortgages, owe more on their home than it's worth, and Hope For Homeowners is a critical program for struggling homeowners who are under water on their mortgages. The principal write down in home for homeowners is key to helping families get into more affordable homes.

If this program is not changed in this bill, foreclosures would continue to rise. In 2008, foreclosures were up a record 81 percent with 861,664 families losing their home to foreclosure. Credit Suisse estimates that 8 million American homes will enter foreclosure in the next 4 years.

It's one thing to object to programs even when the chairman was trying to work with everybody and getting their input and taking their suggestions, which led to the original bill.

But to have objection now to improving the program, based on information we have gotten from the Federal Reserve, who suggested precisely the amendments that are being done, is just not understandable.

I would ask my colleagues to disregard the attack on the Hope For Homeowners Program by the gentlelady from Minnesota and support homeowners and one more effort to keep homeowners in their homes, recognizing that many of them are under water now, precisely meaning that they are not worth what they contracted for in the mortgage that they have.

I think that we should be understanding of that. I think we should be supportive of homeowners being able to work with their lenders to get a writedown and to have these mortgages modified or refinanced through FHA so that they, again, can keep their homes.