Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Alpha brother for yielding.

It was with great sadness that I learned of the passing of our Alpha Phi Alpha brother, the Honorable William Herbert Gray III, on July 1, 2013. My thoughts and prayers are with Reverend Gray's family during this difficult time.

Reverend Gray was a public servant in the truest sense of the word. He found many ways to effect change in the lives of the citizens of Philadelphia and, later, citizens across the country and the world. After his father stepped down as senior pastor of Bright Hope Baptist Church, he succeeded him and served as senior pastor for more than 35 years.

Well-known as a consensus-builder in the Philadelphia community, Reverend Gray leveraged those relationships into an opportunity to represent the Second Congressional District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. House of Representatives. During his tenure, he rose to the influential positions of chairman of the Budget Committee and majority whip of the House of Representatives. He was the first African American ever to assume the position of majority whip. He wielded these positions of power to advance an agenda of social justice for all Americans and social justice for those who suffered under the apartheid in South Africa.

After his departure from Congress, he found opportunities to further advocate for social equality through his service as president and CEO of the United Negro College Fund. During his tenure, he helped raise over $2.3 billion so students could continue their dream of affording and achieving a college education.

He will be missed by his former colleagues in the House of Representatives and the many people who were positively affected by his life's work. He will also be missed by his congregation at Bright Hope Baptist Church. His dedication to his congregation was always apparent, as evidenced by his continued preaching throughout his tenure in Congress and his tenure with the United Negro College Fund.

Reverend Gray was a shining example of what it means to be a public servant, and his strong, influential voice will be sorely missed.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the Making College More Expensive Act. In 2007, Congress cut the interest rate on student loans in half, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, for 5 years. Last year, we extended that benefit for 1 more year. In a few weeks, on July 1, if Congress chooses not to act, the interest rate is scheduled to double back to the rate of 6.8 percent.

Incredibly, this bill is so bad that, according to the Congressional Research Service, students will actually be better off if Congress were to let the rate double to 6.8 percent than to adopt this legislation. This bill is also bad because it makes rates variable for the life of the loan, therefore forcing students to sign for an interest rate that will fluctuate over time so they don't even know what it's going to be from one time to the next. This proposal essentially asks students to sign up for loans without knowing what they're signing up for.

This is different from the Democratic proposals on variable interest rates, because the President's proposal and the Democratic alternative that was offered in committee have a variable rate; but once you sign the loan, that rate is fixed for the duration, so you know what you've signed up for. With the historic low rates now, you can sign up for a loan rate that's probably much lower than any of the numbers that are being considered. But this rate is so bad that the Congressional Research Service estimates that if we return to normal rates, the students will actually be worse off than if we just let the rates double to 6.8 percent.

So I ask my colleagues to work diligently to improve access to quality education by making higher education more affordable and ensuring that the interest loan rates are reasonable, and that starts with defeating this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 258, the Stolen Valor Act of 2013. H.R. 258 is an important bill because it upholds the integrity of military medals and decorations as well as corrects a constitutional flaw in a statute intended to protect the integrity of these honors.

Without question, all of those who serve our Nation deserve to be honored, and those who have gone beyond their peers in serving our Nation deserve special recognition. It is especially appropriate that we consider this bill just before Memorial Day, a special day when we remember and honor the sacrifice of those who died serving our country in the military.

One way in which our Nation recognizes the outstanding bravery and sacrifice of servicemembers is to award these dedicated men and women special medals and decorations.

Recipients of these distinctions often have received serious injuries or made supreme sacrifices defending our Nation. To ensure that these honors bestowed on these recipients are not diminished, Congress must do all within its power to prevent anyone from falsely claiming that they have received these medals or decorations.

While that was the goal of the original Stolen Valor Act enacted in 2006, the Supreme Court, in 2012, found that the breadth and scope of that legislation ran afoul of the First Amendment's free speech protections. In that case, Justice Kennedy wrote that while ``few may find the respondent's statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.''

But Justice Kennedy, in writing that opinion, also set out certain parameters he suggested that would pass constitutional muster should Congress seek to rewrite the legislation. He advised:

Where false claims are made to effect a fraud or secure

moneys or other valuable considerations, say offers of

employment, it is well-established that the government may

restrict speech without affronting the First Amendment.

The text of H.R. 258 was crafted to carefully comply with that guidance. As drafted, the bill prohibits individuals from fraudulently representing themselves as recipients of a narrow group of special military honors in order to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefits. H.R. 258 ensures that anyone who falsely represents that they have been awarded these honors in order to benefit in some material way will be subject to criminal sanction.

I support the bill because it protects the honor of our military medals and decorations, while also respecting the First Amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back important piece of legislation. I appreciate the gentleman from Nevada bringing this forward and moving it forward as we go ahead. I would, at this point, urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1073, the Nuclear Terrorism Conventions Implementation and Safety of Maritime Navigation Act. This bipartisan legislation, which was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee in March, is nearly identical to legislation that the House passed by voice vote in the last Congress.

H.R. 1073 amends the Federal Criminal Code to conform our laws to our Nation's obligations under four international treaties that are part of an important effort to update international law for the post-September 11th era. Two of the treaties, the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the Convention for the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, require party nations to better protect nuclear materials and to punish acts of nuclear terrorism.

Two other treaties, amendments to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the Protocol for Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms, address the use of ships and fixed platforms in terrorist attacks, as well as the transport of weapons, weapons delivery systems, and the transport of terrorist fugitives by sea.

The United States signed these treaties in 2005, and the Senate passed resolutions of advice and consent on all four in 2008. We cannot ratify these agreements, however, until Congress amends the Federal Criminal Code to bring it in line with our new obligations. H.R. 1073 does just that--and nothing more. It amends title 18 of the United States Code to explicitly prohibit acts of terrorism involving radioactive material, provide new security requirements for the use and storage of nuclear materials, and address the use of ships and offshore platforms in terrorist attacks.

With the cooperation of the Justice Department, this bill does not include previously proposed language that was outside the scope of the underlying treaties. For example, the original version proposed by the administration included an expansion of the scope of conduct subject to the death penalty, new wiretap predicates, and authorization for the President to conduct similar agreements in the future without congressional approval. There is no need to argue about these controversial provisions in order to implement the underlying treaties, and those unrelated initiatives have been removed in this version of the bill. So I'm grateful for the spirit of cooperation in which the bill before us has been drafted.

The resulting bipartisan proposal has the full support of the Obama administration. I'm pleased to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Mr. Sensenbrenner, along with Ranking Member Conyers and Chairman Goodlatte.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1073. I have one additional speaker, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I thank him for holding this important Special Order as we talk about college education and making it affordable.

We know that a college education is extremely important to young people. It can transform their entire lives and open opportunities that are not available to those without a college education.

We know that the good jobs require education. Ninety percent of the good-paying jobs in the future will require education past the high school level--and not necessarily a 4-year college, but some education and training past the high school level. Of course, that would include college. There's an old adage that the more you learn, the more you earn; the more education you get, the more likely you are to have a much higher income.

Now, we know that the benefits of a decent education not only accrue to the individual, but also to the community; because those communities that have a well-educated constituency are much less likely to have to suffer as much crime or pay as much for social services as those communities that do not invest in education.

And our national economic competitiveness depends on an educated workforce. We're not going to be able to compete, for example, on low wages if people around the world will work for much lower wages. You don't have to be near your customers or even near your coworkers anymore. We've got delivery. You can deliver things all over the world. And if you can work across the hall from your coworkers, you can work across the globe from your coworkers with a computer and a modem and the Internet and everything else.

The reason that businesses want to locate in the United States is because they know they can get a well-educated, well-trained workforce. And if we allow people to fail to reach their full potential, we will not be achieving our full economic competitiveness.

So we know the benefits of education, particularly a college education. And we know that some young people are looking at the high interest rates and the cost of education and are calculating that it's not worth it. There can be nothing worse for our Nation than to have young people fail to achieve their full potential because they cannot afford a college education.

Several years ago, in 2007, Congress passed a cut in the interest rate on student loans to make college more affordable, cutting the interest rate in half, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, for 5 years. At the end of 5 years, last year, we extended it for another year; but on July 1, in just a few weeks, that interest rate will double back to 6.8 percent if we don't do anything.

Last week, the Education and Workforce Committee considered legislation to deal with the interest rate. Unfortunately, the bill recommended by the Republican side of the aisle was actually so bad that, according to the Congressional Research Service, students would actually be better off if we just did nothing and let the interest rate double to 6.8 percent rather than take that variable interest rate that they had, with the extra fees and everything else along with it. We would be better off if we just let the interest rate double.

You're asking young people to sign up for a variable interest rate. When they sign up, they have no idea what the interest rate will be later on; but the Congressional Research Service said, based on projections, that they would be better off with the 6.8 percent rate than what they're going to end up with under the Republican bill.

What we should do is protect the present 3.4 percent interest rate for students. It's reasonable, and it makes college much more affordable. Or, if you're going to have a variable interest rate, have it at a low rate similar to what we're charging businesses and what they're able to borrow money at, with the protection against increases so you're no worse off with the legislation than you are today.

We can help students afford college, but not with the bill that the Education and Workforce Committee considered because that's actually worse than just letting the interest rate double.

We owe it to our young people, we owe it to our next generation, and we owe it to our Nation to make sure that our students get the best education that they can, and making college affordable is part of that challenge. We need to make college affordable, and we need to make sure we defeat the bill that was reported by the Education and Workforce Committee because that's actually worse than doing nothing.

Again, I thank you for holding the Special Order and doing what we can to make college affordable.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act.

Today, if people want to talk about repealing health care reform, it's important that they talk about exactly what repeal means.

Repeal means that young people under 26 will have to get off their parents' policies.

Repeal means that seniors will have to suffer through the doughnut hole that we're in the process of closing.

Repeal means an end to tax cuts to small businesses who are providing health coverage for their employees.

Repeal means that next year all Americans who expect to be able to afford health insurance will not be able to afford it, and all Americans with preexisting conditions who expected to be able to buy health insurance at the standard rate will not be able to buy it.

Repeal means that those who think they will need health security if they switch jobs, they will lose that security when they switch jobs.

Repeal means an end to the laws against insurance abuses, like unreasonable rate increases and cancellation of policies when you most need them. There will be an end to that if we repeal.

If people want to talk about repealing the Affordable Care Act, they should talk about what's going to happen to young people, to those with preexisting conditions, to seniors in the doughnut hole, and the future affordability of health care.

Madam Speaker, we should not repeal the Affordable Care Act, we should oppose the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 180, the National Blue Alert Act. H.R. 180 will establish a coordinator within the Department of Justice to facilitate the issuance of Blue Alerts to help apprehend individuals suspected of killing or seriously injuring police officers. I support the bill because it provides critical support for a system that protects police officers and the public.

It's particularly timely that we consider this measure during National Police Week. National Police Week is a special occasion during which we recognize law enforcement officers and honor those who have lost their lives in the line of duty.

Since the first known line-of-duty death in 1791, more than 1,900 U.S. law enforcement officers have made the ultimate sacrifice. Today, there are more than 900,000 sworn law enforcement officers serving in the United States and, regrettably, on average one is killed in the line of duty every 57 hours.

Currently, 15 States, including my home State of Virginia, have Blue Alert systems that use media broadcasts and roadside message signs to disseminate, within their respective borders, time-sensitive information about those suspected of killing or seriously injuring Federal, State, or local law enforcement officers. In addition to those States, two more States are establishing Blue Alert systems this year.

The information disseminated by these systems--which can include descriptions of the suspect, the vehicle, and the license plate number--enables the public to assist the police in locating these perpetrators. H.R. 180 will enable more States to institute these valuable programs and require the Department of Justice to facilitate the dissemination of Blue Alerts across State lines and throughout specific geographic areas.

The Blue Alert program is similar to the Amber Alert program that helps us find missing children, and it makes sense that we would encourage similar expansion for the Blue Alert programs.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this important public safety measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Does my colleague from Virginia have further speakers?

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

I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), my colleague from Virginia, Chairman Goodlatte, and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Conyers, for their cooperation in bringing this bill to the floor during National Police Week.

As we join together on this bill, it is my hope that we can continue to work in a bipartisan fashion on other measures that will assist law enforcement officers and find sensible solutions to the problems of crime that face our communities.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember the Honorable James Edward Sheffield--husband, father, trailblazer, airman, judge, lawyer, law professor, community leader, humanitarian and friend. Judge Sheffield left this world on March 28, 2013, at age 80. He is survived by his wife of 56 years, Patricia Allen Sheffield, two daughters, Joi Elisa Sheffield and Shari Leta Sheffield, both lawyers, and a host of family members and friends.

Born during the Great Depression in Hot Springs, Ark., he was one of nine children of a railroad Pullman porter's family. He worked his way through junior college and three other college-level schools, including the University of Illinois, where he earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1955. He served 3\1/2\ years in the Air Force and was honorably discharged in 1959.

He was a district executive with the Frederick Douglass District of the Robert E. Lee Council, Boy Scouts of America, in Richmond from 1959 to 1963, responsible for providing the Scouting program to the African- American community. While also an honor law student at Howard University, he clerked for the chief counsel of the U.S. Commission. on Civil Rights in Washington, D.C. He also clerked for Spottswood Robinson, the first African American judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C., and Dean of the Howard Law School.

In 1963, Judge Sheffield earned a law degree from the Howard University Law School. From 1963 to 1965, he worked in U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's Honor Program at the U.S. Department of Justice, Court of Claims Section, in Washington, D.D. representing the federal government in litigation brought against it. Following his tenure there, he returned to Richmond and set up a law practice. And from September 1964 to late 1966, he was a full-time law professor at the Howard University Law School. Thereafter, he returned to Richmond to resume the practice of law.

In 1974, he became the first African-American Judge in Virginia. He was appointed by then Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr., to the Richmond Circuit Court to fill an un-expired term created by an appointment from that court to the Virginia Supreme Court. He was subsequently elected by the Virginia General Assembly to a full-term on the Circuit Court and was later elected Chief Judge of the Court by his 7 peers.

Judge Sheffield was a member of the Virginia State Bar and the District of Columbia Bar, and served as President of the Old Dominion Bar Association. He also served as an assistant professor of law at the University of Richmond's T.C. Williams School of Law and as lecturer at the University of Virginia School of Law.

In 1980, President jimmy Carter nominated him for a federal judgeship for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. However, due to the strength of racism still affecting our Senate representatives at that time, he was not confirmed.

In 1984, judge Sheffield resigned from the Circuit Court to return to the practice of law. Shortly thereafter, he became a partner in the law firm of Little, Parsley & Myelitis, PC, in Richmond, and in later years returned to solo practice in the Jackson Ward section of Richmond.

Judge Sheffield was very active in civic affairs in the Richmond community and beyond. A member of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, he was chairman of the church's Board of Trustees and Chairman of its Building Council. He was also on the Board of Directors of Chippenham Hospital and Children's Hospital in Richmond, was a 32nd degree Mason, a member of the Downtown Club of Richmond, the Focus Club, The Guardsmen, Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, the N.A.A.C.P., the Richmond First Club, the Richmond Urban League, the Richmond Urban Forum and was the 1982-83 Regional Sire Archon of the Southeast Region of Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity (Alpha Beta Boule). He was also a member of the Board of Visitors of Virginia Commonwealth University and a member of the Board of Trustees for St. Paul's College.

Judge Sheffield was the recipient of numerous honors and awards, some of which include: the Citizenship Award, Astoria Beneficial Club, 1974; Citizenship and Service Award, King Solomon Lodge No. 27, Free and Accepted Masons, 1974; Citizen of the Year Award, Phi Phi Chapter, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, 1975; Model Judiciary Program Participation Award, YMCA, 1977; Citizenship Award, Lynchburg Chapter of the N.A.A.C.P., 1979; John Mercer Langston Outstanding Alumnus Award for 1980, Howard University School of Law Student Bar Association; and the Kenneth David Kaunda Award for Humanism, at the United Nations, from Zambia, 1981. At the request of the Nigerian government, Judge Sheffield delivered a paper to Nigerian judges comparing that nation's constitution to that of the U.S., and was a member of a delegation of constitutional experts and jurists invited to help Nigeria transition from military rule to the rule of law under a constitution.

Judge Sheffield will be missed, not only by family and friends, but also by the many people who benefitted from his legal expertise on the bench, in the private practice of law, as a law professor, and by his good works in the Richmond community and beyond. In accomplishments as well as contributions, he was a giant among us.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership on this issue and many other issues that he's been working on while we've been serving on the Judiciary Committee together.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue that is important to our

society, and that is access to higher education. Our Nation's economic competitiveness depends on our ability to educate our next generation. We compete with nations all over the world for business, and our competitive advantage is in our education.

We're not going to compete on low wages. There are people who'll work for much lower wages than we'll work for in the United States, and so we're not going to win the battle of a race to the bottom on wages.

We're not going to win the battle by requiring workers to work near their coworkers. If you can work across the hall from your coworkers, if you have a computer, a modem, a fax machine, a cell phone, if you can work across the hall, you can work across the globe. So there's no urgency to have people located here in the United States.

And if you can manufacture goods anywhere in the world, you can have them delivered anywhere else in the world, so you don't have to be there to be close to your customers. There used to be a time where if you wanted to build a manufacturing plant, to get financing it had to be here in the United States. Now we have worldwide banking. You can build that plant anywhere in the world.

The reason businesses want to locate in the United States is because they know they can get a well trained and well-educated workforce, and we need to make sure that we don't fall behind because that is our economic competitive advantage.

We know that neighborhoods rely on education because those neighborhoods that have high investment in education are much less likely to suffer from crime and pay for social services.

We know that individuals benefit from education. There's an old adage that the more you learn, the more you earn. The kind of job that you can get in America today in our high-tech, information-based economy depends on the education that you get. In fact, according to the Department of Labor, 90 percent of the fastest growing, best-paying jobs in the United States will require at least some education past the high school level. Not necessarily a 4-year college, maybe community college or career education, but some education past the high school level.

And while the benefits of getting an education are important and well known, how to get that education is becoming a challenge. People have to pay for that education. Many people apply for financial aid. That includes scholarships, loans, grants, and also the well known Pell Grant. The Pell Grant provides up to $5,500 a year for an education. Unfortunately for many students, although the Pell Grant used to cover the cost of tuition, rarely does it provide tuition today. In fact, the College Board suggested the average cost of tuition is over $10,000. Many public colleges charge as much as $22,000, so a student has to come up with as much as $15,000 over the Pell Grant to be able to afford tuition and room and board.

In most circumstances, students can obtain student loans to cover the difference. It is also critical that students know what they're getting into when they take on student loans because these are not grants. These are loans that have to be paid back with interest.

We've been helping students with these loans. In fact, when we passed the Affordable Care Act a couple of years ago, we included $1.5 billion to strengthen the income-based repayment program that currently allows students to cap their monthly student loan payments to 15 percent of their discretionary income. We need to do more.

The College Cost Reduction and Access Act, which was signed in 2007, included a reduction in interest on student loans from 6.8 percent down to 3.4 percent. That expired last year but we extended it, and we need to extend it again and even make it permanent so that the loan interest rate doesn't go up again.

There is other legislation spending. Congresswoman Karen Bass has a 10/10 program that will allow payments to be made of 10 percent of your discretionary income for 10 years, and the rest can be written off. There are other things that are pending.

But Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that every student that studies and is prepared for college has that opportunity. We need to make sure that no student is discouraged from enhancing their education because they don't believe they can afford it. We need to do what we can for student loans, increasing Pell Grants, and making those opportunities real. Our Nation depends on it. Our neighborhoods depend on it, and our next generation depends on it. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and career of a local community leader, businessman, and humanitarian from Newport News, Virginia--Walter Segaloff.

I have known Walter throughout my career in public service representing the citizens of Newport News. He has dedicated his life to improving the lives of his fellow citizens. When he owned Virginia Specialty Stores, he would often interview young people seeking jobs but noticed many lacked the needed skills, despite having graduated from high school. Walter knew these young people had great potential that was going to waste and he wanted to do everything he could to make sure they had access to the right opportunities.

Walter took matters into his own hands. He joined forces with other local business leaders, citizens, Newport News Public Schools, and the City of Newport News to help improve the lives and educational outcomes of our City's most at-risk young children. Out of this effort, An Achievable Dream was born in the summer of 1992 as a summer education and tennis program.

Due in large part to Walter's dedication and tenacity, An Achievable Dream quickly expanded since that first summer. In 1994, it became a full-time, extended day school serving 400 children in grades three through five. A year later, An Achievable Dream expanded the extended day program to students at Dunbar-Erwin Middle School. By 2000, An Achievable Dream Academy was founded as a year-round full time elementary school and by 2007 a separate full time middle and high school opened under the An Achievable Dream name.

An Achievable Dream provides a social, academic, and moral educational framework for its students and every day starts with a motivation rally where each student shakes the hand of an adult. The Achievable Dream program is structured to give young people the skills needed to succeed in life. Those skills are taught at An Achievable Dream on the tennis court, in the classroom, on field trips, and in sharing experiences with successful and caring adults in our community. Today, An Achievable Dream is educating more than 1,200 at-risk students in Newport News and is putting these students on the path to success.

Often, young people don't think too much about the future, and don't realize that choices made today may limit those in the future. Walter has worked to ensure that the students at An Achievable Dream have every opportunity to be successful in life.

As a public-private partnership with Newport News Public Schools, the City of Newport News, the Newport News Police Department, the Newport News Sheriff's Department, the U.S. Army, the Rotary Club, Riverside Health System and the College of William and Mary, An Achievable Dream has received national recognition as one of the most effective urban school programs in the country and has provided a model for integrating support from the business community to support quality educational opportunities for at-risk students.

On April 19th, the Virginia Press Association will honor Walter as its Virginian of the Year for 2013. Walter was nominated by our hometown newspaper, The Daily Press, in recognition of his decades of dedication to improving the educational opportunities of thousands of at-risk young people living in Newport News and the Association was unanimous in selecting Walter as this year's recipient.

Walter recently stepped down as CEO of An Achievable Dream, but he leaves behind a strong legacy. His vision is expected to expand to other localities in Hampton Roads, helping improve the lives of thousands of more at-risk young people in our community.

I commend Walter for being recognized as this year's Virginian of the Year and I thank him for his years of dedicated service to improving the lives of so many young people in Newport News.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a legacy of community service in the Commonwealth of Virginia and throughout the nation. This year, the Old Dominion Dental Society is celebrating its 100th anniversary, and I would like to take a moment to reflect on the history of this esteemed organization and its contributions to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In 1913, black dentists sought to organize into a professional society and these efforts resulted in the Tri-State Dental Association of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, formed under the leadership of Dr. D. A. Ferguson of Richmond, Virginia. Five years later the name was changed to the Interstate Dental Association to accommodate growing interest from dentists around the region. Ultimately, in 1932, the organization's name was changed to the National Dental Association, and so it remains today. Since that time, the National Dental Association has provided over 6000 African-American dentists in the United States and abroad the platform and the support to help them succeed.

From this history also arose the Old Dominion Dental Society. The Old Dominion Dental Society served as a forum for minority dentists in Virginia who were denied membership to the American Dental Association and the Virginia Dental Association. For 100 years, the Old Dominion Dental Society has grown and fostered professional development for the dental profession and brought needed services to the most vulnerable communities in Virginia.

The Old Dominion Dental Society has also invested in the next generation of dentists through annual scholarships for underrepresented minorities. Through these scholarships, the Society has insured that a diverse group of young students will have the opportunity to excel in the field of dentistry. Members of the organization have been generous donors of their time and expertise to various state and community service organizations, strengthening communities and making our neighborhoods healthier. Motivated by the philosophy that health care is a born right for all people, the Old Dominion Dental Society has been a relentless leader in the quest for equality and equity in health care and today I celebrate all of the members, past and present, that have set an example for all of us over the past 100 years.

There are many Old Dominion Dental Society members that have worked tirelessly to make the Society as successful and respected as it is today. I want to congratulate the members for all their achievements, and especially acknowledge a few: Dr. McKinley Price, Mayor of Newport News; the late Dr. James Holley, former Mayor of Portsmouth; the late Dr. Hugo Owens, former Vice Mayor of Chesapeake; Dr. Elizabeth Daniels, Vice Chair of Portsmouth School Board; Dr. Walter Claytor, the first African-American dentist to serve on the Virginia Board of Dentistry; and Dr. James Watkins, presently serving his fourth term as a member of the Virginia Board of Dentistry and the first African-American dentist to be president of the Virginia State Dental Board. Under their leadership, the Old Dominion Dental Society has and will continue to flourish.

As the Old Dominion Dental Society gathers to celebrate this historic milestone, this organization can truly remember its past, celebrate its present, and focus on its future. As we continue to work to invest in our future, protect access to health care, and promote education, I praise the drive and vision of the members who make our community a better place to live. I would like to congratulate all of the members of the Old Dominion Dental Society on the occasion of its 100th Anniversary, and I wish them many more years of dedicated service to the community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Jones, to introduce the ``Youth Prison Reduction through Mentoring, Intervention, Support and Education Act'', or ``Youth PROMISE Act'' (YPA), a bill we believe will greatly reduce crime and its associated costs and losses. Senator Landrieu of Louisiana and Senator Casey of Pennsylvania have indicated their intent to file companion YPA legislation in the Senate.

The Youth PROMISE Act implements the best policy recommendations from crime policy makers, researchers, practitioners, analysts, and law enforcement officials from across the political spectrum concerning evidence- and research-based strategies to reduce gang violence and crime. Under the Youth PROMISE Act, communities facing the greatest youth gang and crime challenges will be able to enact a comprehensive, coordinated response and intervention that includes the active involvement of representatives from law enforcement, court services, schools, social service organizations, health and mental health care providers, the business community, and other public and private community-based service organizations, including faith-based organizations. These key players will form a council to develop a comprehensive plan for implementing evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies for young people who are involved, or at risk of becoming involved, in gangs, delinquency, or the juvenile or criminal justice system to redirect them toward productive and law- abiding alternatives.

Title I: Federal Coordination of Local and Tribal Juvenile Justice Information and Efforts. Sec. 101 creates a PROMISE Advisory Panel. This Panel will assist the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in selecting PROMISE community grantees. The Panel will also develop standards for the evaluation of juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention approaches carried out under the PROMISE Act. Sec. 102 provides for specific data collection in each designated geographic area to assess the needs and existing resources for juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention. This data will then facilitate the strategic geographic allocation of resources provided under the Act to areas of greatest need for assistance.

Title II: PROMISE Grants. Sec. 202 establishes grants to enable local and tribal communities, via PROMISE Coordinating Councils (PCCs) (Sec. 203), to conduct an objective assessment (Sec. 204) regarding juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity and resource needs and strengths in the community. The assessment will include an estimate of the total amount spent in the previous year by the community and other entities for the incarceration of offenders who committed offenses in the community. Based upon the assessment, the PCCs will then develop plans that include a broad array of evidence-based prevention and intervention programs. These programs will be responsive to the needs and strengths of the community, account for the community's cultural and linguistic needs, and utilize approaches that have been proven to be effective in reducing involvement in or continuing involvement in delinquent conduct or criminal street gang activity. The PCCs can then apply for federal funds, on the basis of greatest need, to implement their PROMISE plans (Sec. 211-213). In addition, each PCC will be required to identify cost savings sustained from investing in prevention and intervention practices and explain how those savings will be reinvested in the continuing implementation of the PROMISE Plan (Sec. 212). Title II also provides for national evaluation of PROMISE programs and activities (Sec. 223) based on performance standards developed by the PROMISE Advisory Panel.

Title III: PROMISE Research Center. Sec. 301 establishes a National Research Center for Proven Juvenile Justice Practices. This Center will collect and disseminate information to PROMISE Coordinating Councils and the public on current research and other information about evidence-based and promising practices related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity and intervention. Sec. 302 provides for regional academic research partners to assist PCCs in developing their assessments and plans.

During my more than 30 years of public service, I have learned that when it comes to crime policy, we have a choice--we can reduce crime, or we can play politics. For far too long, Congress has chosen to play politics by enacting so-called ``tough on crime'' slogans such as ``three strikes and you're out'', ``mandatory minimum sentencing'', ``life without parole'', ``abolish parole'' or ``you do the adult crime, you do the adult time''. My personal favorite is ``no cable TV in prisons.'' You can imagine the cable guy disconnecting the cable and then waiting for the crime rate to drop. As appealing as these policies may sound, their impacts range from a negligible reduction in crime to an increase in crime.

In spite of the counterproductive nature of these ``tough on crime'' laws, over the past two decades, Congress has continued to enact slogan-based sentencing policies. As a result, the United States now has the highest average incarceration rate of any nation in the world. At over 700 persons incarcerated for every 100,000 in the population, the U.S. far exceeds the world average incarceration rate of about 100 per 100,000. Russia is the next closest in rate of incarceration with about 600 per 100,000 citizens. No other nation is even close. Among countries most comparable to the U.S., Great Britain is 153 per 100,000, Australia is 129, Canada is 116, Germany is 95, France is 89, and Japan is 63. India, the world's largest Democracy, is 33 per 100,000 and China, the world's largest country by population, is 119 per 100,000. Since 1970, the number of individuals incarcerated in the U.S. has risen from approximately 300,000 to over 2 million.

This increase in incarceration does not come for free. Since 1980, the cost of corrections in this country has risen from about $7 billion annually to over $68 billion a year.

And the U.S. has some of the world's most severe punishments for crime, including for juveniles. Of the more than 2400 juveniles now serving sentences of life without parole, ALL are in the U.S. Some were given their sentence as first-time offenders under circumstances such as being a passenger in a car from which there was a drive-by shooting.

The impact of all this focus on tough law enforcement approaches falls disproportionately on minorities, particularly Blacks and Hispanics. While the incarceration rate in the United States is approximately 700 per 100,000, for Blacks the average rate is over 2200 per 100,000, and the rate in some jurisdictions exceeds 4,000 per 100,000 Blacks, a rate 40 times the international average. For Black boys being born today, the Sentencing

Project estimates that one in every three will end up incarcerated in their lifetime without an appropriate intervention. These children are on what the Children's Defense Fund has described as a ``cradle-to- prison pipeline.''

Despite all of our concentration on being tough on crime, the problem persists, and reports suggest that it is growing in some jurisdictions. While nothing in the Youth PROMISE Act eliminates any of the current tough on crime laws, and while it is understood that law enforcement will still continue to enforce those laws, research and analysis, as well as common sense, tells us that no matter how tough we are on the people we prosecute today, unless we are addressing the underlying reasons for why they develop into serious criminals, nothing will change. The next wave of offenders will simply replace the ones we incarcerate, and the crimes continue. So, just continuing to be ``tough'' will have little long term impact on crime.

There is now overwhelming evidence to show that it is entirely feasible to move children from a cradle to prison pipeline to a cradle to college and career pipeline. All the credible research and evidence shows that a continuum of evidenced-based prevention and intervention programs for youth identified as being at risk of involvement in delinquent behavior, and those already involved, will greatly reduce crime and save much more than they cost when compared to the avoided law enforcement and social welfare expenditures. There are programs for teen pregnancy prevention, prenatal care, new parent training, nurse home visits, Head Start, quality education, after-school programs, summer recreation and jobs, guaranteed college scholarships, and job- training that have been scientifically proven to cost-effectively reduce crime. And the research reveals that these programs are most effective when provided in the context of a coordinated, collaborative local strategy involving law enforcement, social services and other local public and private entities working with children identified as at risk of involvement in the criminal justice system. This is what the Youth PROMISE Act supports.

Aside from reducing crime and providing better results in the lives of our youth, many of these programs funded under the Youth PROMISE Act will save more money than they cost. We know this because it has already been done at the state level. For example, the state of Pennsylvania implemented similar type programs in 100 communities across the state using a process very similar to the one provided for in the Youth PROMISE Act. The state invested $60 million over a ten year period, and as a result of the programs implemented, the state yielded a savings of $300 million. In other words, the state found that it saved, on average, $5 for every $1 spent during the study period.

The bill is supported by 53 original co-sponsors and a coalition of over 250 national, state and local government, professional, civil rights, education and religious organizations listed below, a list that continues to grow. We know how to reduce crime, and we know that we can do it in a way that saves much more money than it costs. Our children, victims of crime, taxpayers and our economy can no longer afford for us to delay adoption of the Youth PROMISE Act. So, I ask my colleagues to join me in passing this bill and seeing to it that it is quickly enacted into law.

Organizations Supporting the Youth PROMISE Act

National Organizations

African American Ministers in Action; Afterschool Alliance;

Alliance for Children and Families; American Academy of Child

and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP); American Bar Association;

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); American Correctional

Association; American Council of Chief Defenders; American

Federation of School Administrators, AFL-CIO; American

Federation of Teachers (AFT); American Friends Service

Committee (AFSC); American Jewish Congress; American

Probation and Parole Association; American Psychological

Association; Asian American Justice Center; ASPIRA, Inc.;

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Boy Scouts of America;

Boys and Girls Clubs of America; Campaign for Youth Justice.

Catholic Charities USA; Center for Children's Law and

Policy; Child Welfare League of America; Children's Defense

Fund; Coalition for Juvenile Justice; Coalition on Human

Needs; Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional

Learning (CASEL); Correctional Education Association; Council

for Educators of At-Risk and Delinquent Youth; Council for

Opportunity in Education; Council of Juvenile Correctional

Administrators (CJCA); Democrats for Education Reform; Family

Justice; Federal CURE; Fight Crime: Invest in Kids; First

Five Years Fund; First Focus Campaign for Children; Girls

Inc.; Immigrant Justice Network; Institute for Community

Peace.

Justice Policy Institute; Juvenile Justice Trainers

Association; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; League of

Young Voters; Legal Action Center; Lutheran Immigration and

Refugee Service; Mennonite Central Committee Washington

Office; Mental Health America; Mexican American Legal Defense

& Educational Fund (MALDEF); National Advocacy Center of the

Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National African-American Drug

Policy Coalition, Inc.; National Alliance of Black School

Educators; National Alliance to End Homelessness; National

Alliance for Faith and Justice; National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); National Association

of Blacks in Criminal Justice; National Association of

Counties (NACo); National Association of Criminal Defense

Lawyers.

National Association of Juvenile Correctional Agencies;

National Association of Secondary School Principals; National

Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials (NBC-LEO); National

Black Police Association; National Center for Youth Law;

National Consortium of TASC (Treatment Accountability for

Safer Communities) Programs; National Council for Community

Behavioral Health National Council of La Raza; National

Council on Crime and Delinquency; National Council on

Educating Black Children; National Council of Juvenile and

Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ); National Council for Urban

(Formations) Peace, Justice and Empowerment; National

Education Association; National Federation of Families for

Children's Mental Health; National Head Start Association;

National Hire Network; National Immigration Project of the

National Lawyers Guild.

National Juvenile Defender Center; National Juvenile

Detention Association; National Juvenile Justice Network;

National Network for Youth; National Organization of Black

Law Enforcement (NOBLE); National Organization of Concerned

Black Men, Inc.; National Partnership for Juvenile Services;

National Parent Teacher Association (PTA); National Trust for

the Development of African-American Men; National Urban

League; National Women's Law Center; Open Society Policy

Center; The Peace Alliance; Penal Reform International;

pre[k]now; Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office;

Prison Legal News; Prisons Foundation; Restorative Community

Foundation.

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center; Southern Poverty Law

Center; Students for Sensible Drug Policy; The Academy of

Criminal Justice Sciences, Law and Policy Section; The

Rebecca Project for Human Rights; The School Social Work

Association of America; The Sentencing Project; The Student

Peace Alliance; Therapeutic Communities of America (TCA);

Time Dollar Youth Court; TimeBanks USA; Unitarian

Universalist Association of Congregations; United Church of

Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; United Methodist

Church, General Board of Church and Society; United

Neighborhood Centers of America; U.S. Conference of

Mayors; U.S. Dream Academy; U.S. Psychiatric

Rehabilitation Association (USPRA); VOICES for America's

Children; W. Haywood Burns Institute; Washington Office on

Latin America; Youth Law Center; Youth Matter America.

State and Local Organizations

Alabama: Alabama Youth Justice Coalition; Equal Justice

Initiative; Southern Juvenile Defender Center; Southern

Poverty Law Center; VOICES for Alabama's Children; Parents,

Youth, Children and Family Training Institute. Arizona:

Children's Action Alliance. California: Alturas Mas Altas;

Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Office of Restorative Justice;

Asian Law Caucus; Barrios Unidos--Santa Cruz Chapter;

California Public Defenders Association City and County of

San Francisco; City of Los Angeles; City of Pasadena; Contra

Costa County Public Defender's Office; Everychild Foundation;

Faith Communities for Families and Children; Homies Unidos;

Juvenile Court Judges of California; Juvenile Probation

Commission of San Francisco, L.A. Unified School District;

L.A. Youth Justice Coalition; Leaders in Community

Alternatives, Inc.; Pacific Juvenile Defender Center; San

Francisco Youth Commission. Colorado: The Pendulum

Foundation. Connecticut: Connecticut Juvenile Justice

Alliance; Families Moving Forward; The Poor People's

Alliance, Connecticut Chapter. Delaware: Delaware Center

for Justice (DE). District of Columbia: Young America

Works Public Charter School; Columbia Heights Shaw Family

Collaborative; DC Alliance of Youth Advocates; DC NAACP

Youth Council; Facilitating Leadership in Youth (FLY);

Justice for DC Youth; Latin American Youth Center; Life

Pieces to Masterpieces, Inc. Florida: Children's Campaign,

Inc.; Florida Public Defender Association, Inc.; Florida

Public Defender, Fourth Judicial Circuit; Florida Families

for Fair Sentences; Miami-Dade Public Defender's Office.

Illinois: ACLU of Illinois; Chicago Area Project; John

Howard Association of Illinois, Juvenile Justice

Initiative of Illinois, Midwest Juvenile Defender Center,

PTA of Illinois, United in Peace, Inc. Kansas: H.O.P.E.,

Inc. Kansas CURE. Louisiana: Families & Friends of La.'s

Incarcerated Children; Juvenile Justice Project of

Louisiana. Maryland: Advocates for Children and Youth;

CASA of Maryland, Inc.; Fusion Partnerships, Inc.;

Identity, Inc.; Law Office of Anthony J. Keber; Maryland

CURE; Maryland Department of Juvenile Services; Maryland

Juvenile Justice Coalition; Maryland Office of the Public

Defender; Public Justice Center. Massachusetts: Charles

Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice; Citizens

for Juvenile Justice; Youth Advocacy Project of the

Committee for Public Counsel Services. Michigan: Michigan

After-School Partnership; Michigan Council on Crime and

Delinquency.

Minnesota: Minnesota Juvenile Justice Coalition.

Mississippi: Mississippi CURE; Mississippi Youth Justice

Project. Nebraska: VOICES for Children in Nebraska. New

Hampshire: New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense

Lawyers. New Jersey: New Jersey Association on Correction.

New Mexico: County of Santa Fe; New Mexico Council on

Crime and Delinquency; New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers

Association. New York: Center for Community Alternatives;

Central American Legal Assistance; City of New York; City

of New York Department of Juvenile Justice; Correctional

Association of New York; The Fortune Society; Juvenile

Justice Center of Suffolk University Law School; Quad A

For KIDS / A Rochester Area Community Foundation

Initiative. North Carolina: ACLU of North Carolina; Action

for Children North Carolina; Council for Children's

Rights; UNC Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law. Ohio: ACLU of Ohio;

Franklin County Public Defender; Hispanic Urban Minority

Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Outreach Program; Juvenile

Justice Coalition; Peace in the Hood; United Church of

Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; VOICES for Ohio's

Children. Oregon: Partnership for Safety and Justice.

Pennsylvania: Mental Health Association in Pennsylvania;

Youth Advocate Programs, Inc. Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico

Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Rhode Island: The

Institute for the Study and Practice of Nonviolence. South

Carolina: Alston Wilkes Society; The Children's Trust of

South Carolina. South Dakota: Parents Who Care Coalition.

Tennessee: Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth.

Texas: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition. Utah: Utah

Commission on Criminal Justice and Juvenile Justice.

Virginia: Barrios Unidos--Virginia Chapter; Families &

Allies of Virginia's Youth; JustChildren; Keeping Our Kids

Safe: The Newport News Violence Prevention Network; Mid-

Atlantic Juvenile Defender Center, Juvenile Law and Policy

Clinic, University of Richmond School of Law; Richmond

Peace Education Center; The Center for Community

Development, Inc.; The Southeastern Tidewater Opportunity

Project (S.T.O.P.); The S.T.O.P. Family Investment Center

at Oakmont North; Virginia Coalition for Juvenile Justice;

Virginia Commonwealth University School of Education;

Virginia Commonwealth University Center for School-

Community Collaboration; Virginia CURE (VA); Virginia

Department of Juvenile Justice. Washington: Washington

Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Washington

Defender Association; Washington Defender Association's

Immigration Project. Wisconsin: ATTIC Correctional

Services, Inc.; Wisconsin Council on Children and

Families.

Local Jurisdictions

City of East Cleveland (OH); City of Hampton (VA); City of

Los Angeles (CA); City of New York (NY); City of Newport News

(VA); City of Norfolk (VA); City of Pasadena (CA); City of

Philadelphia (PA); City of Pittsburgh (PA); City of

Portsmouth (VA); City of Richmond (VA); City of San Francisco

(CA); City and County of San Francisco (CA); County of Santa

Fe (NM);

Elected Officials and Academics

Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff, County of Los Angeles (CA); Donna

M. Bishop, Northeastern University (MA); Susan J. Carstens,

Psy.D., L.P. Juvenile Specialist, Crystal Police Dept. (MN);

The Honorable Toni Harp, Connecticut State Senator; The

Honorable Alice L. Bordsen, North Carolina State

Representatives; Jolanta Juszkiewicz, Ph.D., American

University (D.C.); The Honorable Kelvin Roldan, Connecticut

State Representative; Tony Roshan Samara, George Mason

University (VA); Earle Williams, Psy.D. Hampton University,

(VA); Aaron Kupchik, Ph.D., University of Delaware.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the Congressional Black Caucus to offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The underlying Republican budget dismantles the Medicare guarantee. It cuts Medicaid in the last year by 25 percent and includes unspecified cuts in a category called ``other mandatory spending.'' That category, of course, is Social Security and pensions for veterans and Federal employees. And then it cuts other essential Federal programs. It also repeals ObamaCare, but keeps in place the savings and tax increases that pay for it. The Republican budget also includes a $5.7 trillion tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthiest Americans and then somehow claims it will be revenue neutral by raising somebody else's taxes by $5.7 trillion, an average of about $2,000 for every man, woman, and child in America every year.

Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget on the other hand is based on reality and uses real numbers. Our budget makes tough choices, but not at the expense of the most vulnerable Americans. The CBC budget calls for revenue enhancements of $2.7 trillion over the next 10 years. The budget shows that this is a real and achievable goal by highlighting approximately $4.2 trillion in revenue options that the Congress could use to achieve the $2.7 trillion in new revenues, such as limiting the deductibility of corporate interest payments, limiting the special tax breaks and corporate loopholes that are baked into our Tax Code, treating capital gains and dividends like regular income. And, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, this amount is less than half of the $5.7 trillion in tax increases assumed in the Republican budget.

The revenue enhancements called for in our budget will be used to totally cancel the sequester, to pay for a $500 billion jobs bill that will put more than 5 million Americans back to work, and to provide for an additional $300 billion in long-term investments in our economy through education, job training, health care, science, and research.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Even with these additional investments, our budget is projected to put our Nation back on a sustainable path because the deficit reduction is more than the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission 10-year goal.

Mr. Chairman, the CBC budget shows that we can create jobs, invest in education, transportation, and research, and avoid devastating health care cuts and achieve the 10-year Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction goal. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the Congressional Black Caucus budget.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a member of the Budget Committee.

(Ms. MOORE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget claims to be in balance, but it's only in balance if you assume they can raise $5.7 trillion in new taxes and they cut $2.5 trillion in health care and a trillion dollars more in a category that includes Social Security and pensions.

I'd also note that a great deal has been made about the capital gains and dividend benefits in 401(k)s. I would point out to the gentleman that in a 401(k) the people do not get the benefit of that deduction. They don't pay any tax at all as it grows. When they draw it out, they draw it out as ordinary income.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just before I yield to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.

First of all, the gentleman just complained about the ObamaCare taxes. What he didn't say is that the Republican budget keeps all the taxes; they just repeal the benefits.

The Republican budget also does not cancel the sequester. The sequester is estimated to cost 700,000 to 2 million jobs. They do not cancel the sequester. In fact, they have additional cuts that will even add to those job losses.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

I think we have two more speakers, including myself.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters).

Is the gentleman ready to close?

We are prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget reacts to this chart which shows the recovery over past recessions.

This recession has been deeper and longer than any others. We still haven't gotten the jobs back. At the rate we're going, we're not going to get the jobs we lost in the 2008 recession for another 2 years. That's why it's important that the Congressional Black Caucus has a budget that has $500 billion in jobs. That will create about 5 million jobs as soon as we can get the money out the door, 5 million jobs, which will significantly reduce the impact of that recession. That's in stark contrast to the Republican budget, which maintains the sequester. The suggestion there is that 700,000 to 2 million jobs would be lost.

So we have a choice: 5 million jobs or lose jobs. We have a choice in terms of investments in education, transportation, scientific research, investments in our future, or cuts in those investments.

We have a credible path to achieve the Simpson-Bowles 10-year goal rather

than a budget that depends on $5.7 trillion in unspecified tax increases to offset their $5.7 trillion tax cut that they say is revenue neutral. Also, it is a budget that requires massive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs, pensions, and everything else that will adversely affect those most in need.

The one-third cut, 25 to 30 percent cut in Medicaid, we have to remember that two-thirds of the Medicaid expense goes to the elderly and disabled. What is their plans for them if you're cutting Medicaid by 25 to 30 percent?

We can do better. We can have a progressive, pro-people, pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda; or we can have the devastating cuts in the Republican budget, which has $5.7 trillion unspecified tax cuts in it if you believe they will come up with that kind of money.

I think we should make the right choice. That right choice is the Congressional Black Caucus budget.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you. And I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was on the Budget Committee--I'm not this year--but I have done a lot of work on the Budget Committee.

Thank you. And I want to thank you for your leadership. I want to thank the gentleman from Nevada for his leadership on this matter, and the chair of the Black Caucus, Marcia Fudge.

Mr. Speaker, the Simpson-Bowles Commission several years ago set a $4 trillion, 10-year deficit reduction goal as the amount of deficit reduction we needed to get our budget under control. The CBC does not endorse the specific recommendations of that goal, but our budget does accept the overall spending limitations of the deficit reduction goals.

Based on most analyses, we have already passed, and the President has signed into law, approximately $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction through 2022, not including the sequester. So to reach the goal, we need an additional $1.6 trillion in deficit reduction. So working off the CBO's baseline, we first instruct the Ways and Means Committee to enhance revenues by $2.7 trillion over the next 10 years. That is not an extraordinary figure. Just a few weeks ago, we passed a $3.9 trillion extension in tax cuts. So going back over that and coming up with $2.7 trillion is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Now, we don't just make the number up. We show $4.2 trillion in possible options in coming up with the $2.7 trillion. That would include limiting the deductibility of corporate interest payments, ending a lot of numerous special interest tax breaks that corporations enjoy; money can be raised by capital gains and dividends being taxed as ordinary income without a special benefit; a surcharge of 5.4 percent on that portion of your income over a million dollars--a speculator's tax--reducing the extension of tax cuts down to the first $250,000 rather than $450,000 of income; and several other specific recommendations to choose from to show that the $2.7 trillion is a reasonable figure.

Now, I know those are unpopular; but they're not nearly as unpopular as the sequester and cuts in health care, particularly Medicare and Medicaid. The revenue enhancements called for will be used to first cancel the sequester. Everybody's talking about how bad it is. Our budget cancels the sequester altogether. Then we pay for a $500 billion jobs plan that will put at least 45 million Americans back at work. And then we provide an additional $280 billion in long-term investments in our economy through education, job training, health care, and advanced science and research.

Even with these investments, our budget is projected to reduce the deficit by approximately $2.8 trillion over the decade, compared to the CBO's baseline, which, incidentally, does not include the savings that we will achieve through the winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That will put us on a sustainable goal. It more than meets the Simpson-Bowles goal. So we feel that is a responsible goal. This number is actually pessimistic because with the jobs bill, we think we're going to do a lot better because of the stimulative effect it has on the economy.

Now, this is in stark contrast to the committee report, which has vague numbers--numbers that don't add up or don't give you a clue as to how they're going to get the money. The budget has a reduction in tax rates, does not say how you're going to make that revenue-neutral or by where you're going to find the $4 trillion to $5 trillion in taxes that would be needed to make it revenue-neutral. They block-grant Medicaid. By the time you get to the end of 10 years, it's about one-third of what it needs to be to maintain present benefits. Two-thirds of Medicaid are the elderly and disabled. So if you're cutting them, what exactly are your plans for them?

If you look at their budget, they claim $4.5 trillion in deficit reduction. A trillion is repealing ObamaCare, but keeping all of the taxes and pay-fors that paid for ObamaCare, and $1.5 billion is cutting Medicaid and Medicare. So that's almost a trillion in unspecified mandatory spending. Most mandatory spending is Social Security. They don't specify where that's coming from. Three-fourths of the rest is interest on what is not going to happen.

On the other hand, the CBC budget specifically outlines where we're going to get the money. Then, it creates 5 million jobs, invests in education, transportation, health care, and research. And in the end, it has more than the Simpson-Bowles goal of deficit reduction. It is a plan that's specific. It can be done. And if we adopt the Congressional Black Caucus budget, we will more than achieve the Simpson-Bowles goals of deficit reduction and create 5 million jobs.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership,

I thank you for yielding, and most of all I thank you for your leadership in the firearms task force, the prevention of gun violence.

You've done a tremendous job in bringing diverse views into focus to respond appropriately to the children who were murdered senselessly in Newtown, Connecticut. They were young people, babies, whose bodies were riddled with bullets. I think finally we have concluded that we have to do something in response to the murders.

One of the things we have to do is reduce violence generally--and violence prevention. This week I'll be introducing the Youth PROMISE Act, which has a proactive approach to make sure that young people get on the right track and stay on the right track.

We have to deal, as you have indicated, with the mental health challenges. Those with mental health challenges have to get services, because if they're allowed to roam the streets with untreated mental health problems, you have a lot of difficulties.

There have to be some firearm-specific situations, such as an assault weapons ban, limiting the size of magazines, background checks, but also straw purchases, people who buy firearms for others knowing they could not buy them for themselves. Violating the law and circumventing the good background check processes we have has to be dealt with.

So I thank you for your leadership. I thank you for all that you have done. We have a lot that we can do in response to Newtown, and we expect to do it.