Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 354) recognizing the 100th birthday of Lyndon Baines Johnson, 36th President, designer of the Great Society, politician, educator, and civil rights enforcer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 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, August 27 will mark the 100th anniversary of the birthday of Lyndon Baines Johnson, the 36th President of the United States. President Johnson served his home State of Texas and this Nation during some of the most tumultuous and extraordinary years of our history. From the Great Depression, to the New Deal, to World War II, to the Civil Rights Era, President Lyndon Johnson shaped the events and left this Nation more prosperous, more just, and more free.

Joining the House in 1937, his life embodied the values of the New Deal, progressive values that sought to secure for all Americans President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms: Freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom of want, and freedom from fear. In his own Presidency, the programs of the Great Society were the most ambitious of any administration before or since the New Deal.

In his 1964 State of the Union Address, President Johnson launched an unconditional war on poverty. As a former teacher, he understood the central importance of education. And so he said, ``It is our primary weapon in the war on poverty, and the principal tool for building a Great Society.''

Among his key accomplishments in the field of education were Project Head Start, still one of the most successful education programs; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and the Higher Education Act of 1965. As a son of Texas' Hill Country, he also understood the importance of economic security. He told the Nation, ``The second prong on the attack on poverty is to protect individuals and their families from poverty when their own earnings are insufficient because of age, disability, unemployment, or other family circumstances.''

The programs he launched included the Social Security Amendments of 1965 and 1967; the Revenue Act of 1964, which lowered the withholding tax on middle-income workers from 18 percent to 14 percent; the Minimum Wage Bill of 1966, which broadened the Federal minimum wage and overtime pay protection and lifted the minimum wage from $1.25 to $1.60 per hour; the School Breakfast Program; the Special Milk Program; and the Food Stamp Program of 1964, which this House recently voted to expand by a bipartisan veto-proof margin.

The third weapon in the War on Poverty was job creation. President Johnson once said, ``Our American answer to poverty is not to make the poor more secure in their poverty but to reach down and to help them lift themselves out of the ruts of poverty and move with the large majority along the high road of hope and prosperity.'' The programs included the Job Corps; the College Work Study Program; the Neighborhood Youth Corps; the Work Experience Program; and the Manpower Act.

Some of the greatest accomplishments were, of course, the Civil Rights Era. More than any other President, he was a guiding force behind the enactment of civil rights legislation that changed our Nation forever. Following bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, President Johnson addressed a joint session of Congress to urge the passage of the Voting Rights Act. He told the Nation then that, ``What happens in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and State of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause, too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.'' He closed with the rallying refrain of the civil rights movement by saying, ``And we shall overcome.''

Among his historic accomplishments were the Civil Rights Act of 1957, where, as leader of the Senate, he ushered through the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction; the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which this Congress recently extended for another 25 years; and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. These landmark measures guaranteed the right to vote for millions of Americans who had been disenfranchised for generations, and outlawed discrimination in public accommodations and in housing, and outlawed discrimination in employment.

President Johnson also made history when, in 1967, he appointed his Solicitor General, Thurgood Marshall, who, as the NAACP legal director from 1939 to 1961 had already argued many cases before the Supreme Court, including Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, to be the first African American Supreme Court Justice.

Mr. Speaker, the life and accomplishments of President Johnson should inspire all of us to rededicate ourselves to the mission to which he devoted so much of his energies, to free all Americans from want, from fear, and from discrimination. This resolution is a fitting recognition of his accomplishments and his lasting inspiration.

I want to thank the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for bringing this to the floor today, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee), the author of the resolution.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As many of our student veterans have come to realize, the current Montgomery GI Bill falls far short in meeting the needs of today's college students. The current program is designed as a benefit for peacetime service and was never intended as a wartime benefit.

The 21st Century GI Bill in this bill will give our men and women in uniform who have served multiple tours of duty and extended tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan the educational benefits similar to the ones earned in World War II. Our veterans today have served multiple tours of duty. They are getting pulled away from school, their jobs, and their families. The current GI Bill does not honor their service sufficiently. This bill will.

I commend our bipartisan cosponsors, especially my Virginia colleague, Jim Webb, for writing this bill. This bill will honor the service of our veterans. We need to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in honor of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. As a member of the Congressional Asian American Pacific American Caucus, and as the only Member of Congress with any Filipino ancestry, I'm pleased to speak on the floor today in honor of this great month.

Since the early 1800s, the AAPI community has played a vital role in the development and growth of this country. I'd like to take just a moment to highlight one of the many contributions that the AAPI community has played in American history, and that is, the accomplishments of the Filipino American veterans during World War II.

Members of the Commonwealth of the Philippines' military fought tirelessly for the United States during World War II. The invaluable service that the members of the military helped provide us the necessary support to defeat the Japanese empire in the Pacific.

Last year, Congressman Filner introduced, and I cosponsored, the Filipino Veterans Equity Act, which will ensure that the Filipino veterans who served in World War II will receive the veterans benefits promised to them over 60 years ago. We need to pass this bill as soon as possible.

I object.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of National Public Health Week and the health bills that the House will debate today. It is important that we recognize and build on quality public health programs that affect every aspect of our lives--from effective childhood vaccination programs, to early screening programs for diseases, to ensuring that Americans have access to critical treatment programs.

Access to quality, affordable health care is critical to the well- being of our country, today and in the future. With 46 million uninsured--9 million of whom are children--we need to focus on strengthening the Medicare system, providing increased access to quality health care programs and ensuring that our low-income children and families have health insurance.

During my tenure in the Virginia General Assembly, I introduced a number of bills that focused on child and maternal health, preventive screenings for hearing and immunizations for children against certain diseases. The need for these services was vital to the health of the citizens not only of the Commonwealth of Virginia, but also to our Nation as a whole and continues to help our most vulnerable today.

Madam Speaker, there continues to be an urgent need for expanded health care coverage and increased access to health care for children, seniors and low-income individuals. Because of this need, I introduced H.R. 1688, The All Healthy Children Act. The All Healthy Children Act, endorsed by the Children's Defense Fund, is a logical, smart and achievable incremental next step to close the child coverage gap and guarantees all children have access to the health coverage that they need to survive, thrive and learn. This proposal would ensure that all children are covered by expanding the coverage of both the Medicaid and SCHIP programs while eliminating procedural red tape that currently prevents many children from being covered under either program. This comprehensive program would include all basic health care and preventive testing as well as coverage for mental health and prenatal care.

The bills that we will vote on today will also help to provide our medical community the tools necessary to improve lives through prevention, research and treatment of disease. For example:

The Early Hearing Detection and Intervention program is a critical CDC program intended to identify and help infants with hearing loss. This bill reauthorizes funding and expands the program to provide screening and intervention services for young children. We know that the earlier hearing problems are identified, the more effective the medical services can be.

The Wakefield Act is designed to improve emergency medical services for children needing trauma or critical care.

The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act educates parents and health care providers about newborn health screening, improves follow-up care for infants with an illness detected through newborn screening, and helps States expand and improve their newborn screening programs. Many diseases and conditions which can be cured when detected early can lead to permanent disabilities if not detected in time.

The Cytology Proficiency Improvement Act is designed to improve the analysis of tests for cervical cancer by ensuring that health care professionals who read tests for cervical cancer are skilled in today's medical technology. It modernizes the cervical cancer testing program by requiring continuing medical education for pathologists to assess their diagnostic skills and ensure they keep up with the latest practices.

The Keeping Seniors Safe from Falls Act launches a comprehensive preventative care program to reduce the number and severity of falls by the elderly. It directs HHS to implement directives to reduce falls, including improving the identification of seniors who have a high risk of falling; supporting education campaigns focused on reducing and preventing falls and on educating health professionals about fall risk, assessment and prevention; and conducting research to reduce falls.

The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act will help schools deal with food allergies among their student population by requiring the Department of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Department of Education, to develop a policy for schools on appropriate management and emergency plans for children with food allergies and anaphylaxis. The policy would be provided to schools within 1 year after enactment, and schools could voluntarily implement the policy. The bill also authorizes HHS to award grants to local school districts to help them in implementing the policy.

The House amendment to the Traumatic Brain Injury Act authorizes the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, to provide State grants for patients with traumatic brain injury to enter treatment and rehabilitation programs. The thousands of brain injury survivors who are returning home from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan are joining the 5.3 million similarly afflicted Americans here at home. Indeed, TBI is the leading cause of death and disability among young Americans. The legislation would require the CDC to monitor brain injury incidents and create a reporting system to track the condition. It also directs CDC to study treatment techniques and NIH to conduct basic research to improve treatment.

Madam Speaker, action on these critical issues is imperative to meet the pressing health care concerns of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support these bills.

I would like to thank the chairs of the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee for their hard work in addressing the issue of warrantless surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and for introducing legislation that addresses national security challenges presented by global terrorism.

This bill provides that any wiretap which would be legal under the President's proposal will be legal under this legislation. It merely requires that under some circumstances that a warrant be obtained prior to the wiretap or if there is an emergency after the wiretap begins. The warrant procedure is a modest protection of our civil liberties.

This bill does not balance civil liberties with national security, because all of the wiretaps would be permitted; but this bill just provides a little oversight. The idea of wiretaps without oversight has to be considered in the context of some recent documents of the Department of Justice.

Republican-appointed officials have accused this administration of firing U.S. Attorneys because they did not indict Democrats in time to affect an upcoming election. We have been unable to ascertain the truth of the allegations for several reasons.

First, high-ranging administration officials question the credibility of Attorney General Gonzales' original response to the allegations. One high-ranking Justice Department official quit; another pleaded the fifth. White House officials have refused to respond to our subpoenas. It is this Justice Department that seeks unprecedented authority to wiretap citizens without traditional oversight or even articulating the primary purpose of the wiretaps.

Furthermore, the bill does not offer retroactive immunity for illegal activities. The fact is that the telecom companies which may benefit from retroactive immunity already have immunity for any reasonable actions they may have taken. This bill provides a procedural change which ensures that these claims of immunity can properly be considered.

In summary, this bill provides for all of the security protections sought by the President, but it also provides modest protection for our civil liberties. Therefore, we should support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I move that the appeal be laid on the table.

I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership in the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin the discussion on the budget with where we are. And I'd like to use charts because a lot of rhetoric goes back and forth.

This is a statement of where we are right now. You will see the budget deficit year by year was improved in the 8 years of Democratic leadership on the budget and in the last few years has totally collapsed. It has collapsed to the point where we had a surplus projected, a 5- or 10-year surplus of $5.5 trillion, a surplus projected for those 10 years starting in 2001. Those 10 years look like they're going to come in at a $3 trillion deficit. That's an $8.8 trillion deterioration. That's an average of over $800 billion a year deterioration in the budget.

We didn't create any jobs during this time. This job performance under this administration is the worst since Herbert Hoover. You can say what you want, but that's just the arithmetic fact.

The Congressional Black Caucus is dealing with this budget responsibly. We, first of all, repeal the tax cuts that put us into the ditch to begin with. You can call that process whatever you want. You can rant and rave, but the fact is we are repealing all of those tax cuts that got us in the ditch, except those tax cuts that primarily affect that portion of your income under $200,000. Under $200,000 those tax cuts are protected. Those tax cuts that primarily affect your income over $200,000, those are the ones that we are repealing. We are able to, with that money, balance the budget and to go into surplus.

The red is the President's budget, which is significantly worse than the Congressional Black Caucus every year. The Congressional Black Caucus has a lower deficit in the first 3 years and a higher surplus in the next 3 years than either the President's budget or the Democratic budget. We are so responsible, in fact, that we save interest on the national debt. Cumulative compared to the President we save $23 billion in the fifth year alone, $48 billion saved in interest over the 5 years compared to the President's budget.

We are also able to spend on our priorities. Education, compared to the President's budget, $160 billion more on education, particularly No Child Left Behind; $119 billion more in health care, particularly children's health that the President vetoed. Veterans benefits, $60 billion over the President's budget. We're not charging our veterans fees for the services that they desperately need. And justice programs, prevention programs, afterschool programs, and Second Chance Programs to make our communities safer, almost $35 billion extra.

This budget is responsible. It invests in our priorities, and it is much more fiscally responsible than the President's budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

First of all, the gentleman indicated that we have nothing in there for waste, fraud and abuse. In fact, we spend $300 million in the Defense Department budget to make sure that they follow through on the GAO recommendations to reduce fraud, waste and abuse.

Furthermore, we protect all of those tax cuts for that portion of the taxpayers' income under $200,000. It is just the tax cuts over $200,000 that primarily got us in the ditch.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Maxine Waters.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind the public of where we are and how we got in the ditch, and these taxes they are talking about is just repealing what got us into the ditch.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds to remind the public that we are in the ditch. We are repealing what got us in the ditch; but we are protecting those tax cuts, many of which were just mentioned, those that affect that portion of your income under $200,000. But the alternative is to stay in the ditch.

We have a problem in that we have got Social Security we are going to end up having to pay in a few years. We have got more money coming in in Social Security than going out now. That is going to change in 2018, and we are not setting aside any money for that. We have a credible plan to get us out of the ditch by repealing what got us into the ditch.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Scott, for his leadership on the CBC budget.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget offered today. The CBC budget once again proposed to change a 7-year Republican policy that I have called Reverse Robin Hood, stealing from the poor to give tax breaks to the rich.

You might ask why the Democratic budget, which I support, needs improvement. The Democratic budget needs improvement because when America has a cold, the African American community has pneumonia. The CBC budget reversed the deep cuts that have been made to the programs that

serve the neediest Americans. This year's Congressional Black Caucus budget covers all eligible children with health care insurance through funding for CHIP, $84 billion more than the Democratic budget and $119 billion more than the President's; ensures no child is left behind by funding education and providing increased funding for Head Start, college access programs, college loans, and job training programs, $101 billion more than the Democratic budget and $162 billion more than the President's; honors our veterans by increasing funding for health care, benefits, and educational opportunities, $17 billion more than the Democratic budget and $60 billion over the President's budget; makes local community more secure by fully funding justice, gang prevention, and local law enforcement programs, as well as ensuring every voice counts by funding the Help America Vote Act.

We talk about a stimulus, and the only stimulus is the investment in our people, in education, in health care, in job training, so support economic and fiscal recovery. Vote ``yes'' on the budget. I encourage us to vote for the economic recovery by voting for the CBC budget.

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

I just want to make a couple of closing comments. First on defense, the number on defense, we keep the same number on the defense budget. However, we have different priorities. Those priorities will be debated in a different forum.

The $70 billion for the war we restrict to redeployment. We want those troops back as soon as practicable, consistent with our national security interests.

On waste, fraud, and abuse, we just don't talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. We spend $300 million to implement the GAO's studies and recommendations for how you can reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in the military. We make them spend the money to actually implement those recommendations.

Our budget eliminates the fees and copays that the President's budget has for our veterans. It is insulting to try to balance the budget on the backs of our courageous veterans. We do have entitlement reform, $150 billion in entitlement reform, by reducing the subsidies to private corporations who provide Medicare Advantage. Those that provide, those are the subsidies that you get nothing for. Medicare could do it cheaper, $150 billion cheaper, and that's the reform that we have.

A lot has been said about tax cuts. We repeal what got us in the ditch. We protect those tax cuts that primarily affect that portion of your income under $200,000.

In summary, this is where we are, back in the ditch. We repeal the tax cuts that got us into the ditch. One of those tax cuts that we want to repeal is a $20 billion tax cut referred to as PEP and Pease, affecting personal exemptions and standard deductions. The only people that get this essentially are millionaires. If you make over $1 million you get this much tax cut; $200,000 to $1 million, you get that much tax cut; $100,000 to $200,000 you don't need ink to draw the bar; and $100,000, out of this $20 billion, you get, on average, zero. All of those tax cuts, we have said, had the greatest expansion in recent history.

Let's talk about the arithmetic. Arithmetic fact, worst job growth since Herbert Hoover. Look at the job growth of all the Presidents down to President Hoover; worst, this administration, and they are bragging about it.

We have a responsible budget that reduces the deficit, goes into surplus. It's a responsible budget that also funds many of our priorities: education, health care, veterans, justice. It is a responsible budget, and I would ask for the House to adopt this budget.

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

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, we have to remind ourselves exactly where we are with the policies that took place in 2001 and 2003 and what has happened to our budget. You will see that we dug ourselves out of a ditch from 1993 to 2001, and it had a surplus. And overnight that surplus has absolutely collapsed. And we need a chart because there is a lot of partisanship on the floor. If you tried to describe this, people would think you're being partisan because they can't believe that you could do this to the budget.

In fact, in the 10 years after 2001, we had a projected surplus of $5.5 trillion. After the policies of 2001 and 2003, it looks like we are going to have a $3 trillion deficit, not a surplus, a swing of $8.8 trillion.

Now, a $5.5 trillion surplus. Everybody knows that the Social Security program is in trouble. In 2001 we had a shortfall of $4 trillion in the Social Security program. If we had $4 trillion in the bank in 2001, we could pay Social Security for 75 years without reducing benefits. We had a surplus of $5.6 trillion, not just the $4 trillion we needed to solve all of the problems in Social Security.

When we started in 2001, one of the questions that Chairman Greenspan had to answer was, what's going to happen when we pay off the national debt? Because by 2013 we would have paid off the national debt and put all the money back in the trust funds. Zero debt, zero interest on the national debt. Now it looks like in 2013 we're going to have to pay $300 billion a year in interest on the national debt because we messed up the budget. And $300 billion at $30,000 each is enough to hire everybody now drawing unemployment with money to spare with a $30,000- a-year job. That's $30,000 a year for everybody drawing unemployment. You've got money left over before you run out of people.

Now, we have heard that by cutting all these taxes, we increase revenues. Well, let me just show you this chart that shows the income tax revenues over the past years going back to 1960. The color code says that green is a year in which you had a record revenue. Red is a year in which you did not have a record revenue. You look back since 1960 through recessions, depressions, good times, bad times, high taxes, low taxes. We had record revenues every year but two, and the following year you had a record revenue. So we always get record revenues. Whoops, excuse me. Until 2001 and 2003, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 consecutive years without record revenues. So we didn't get record revenues.

And we hear that people are bragging about jobs that were created during this time. Let's look at the chart, get rid of the arithmetic. The worst job performance in this administration since Herbert Hoover. You've got to go back to Herbert Hoover to find job performance any worse that this.

So we've gotten into the ditch. We're trying to get out of the ditch. The Democratic budget makes the responsible decisions to try to get us out of the ditch. We've had tough decisions.

And other things like earmarks, we have heard this thing about earmarks: just cut out the earmarks and we will save some money. Let's have a word about how these earmarks work. If you have an appropriation of $200 million and I have got a little earmark for $1 million for a program in my district, that comes out of the $200 million. If I don't get an earmark, $200 million. If I get an earmark, $200 million. Get rid of the earmarks, and you're not saving the taxpayers any money. What this Republican budget does is it has a fantasy of about $800 billion in unspecified cuts. We don't know where these cuts are coming from. It might be health care. It might be student loans, school lunches, food safety, airline inspections, homeland security, port security grants, public safety. We've already tried to cut back on the COPS program.

This budget makes no sense unless you actually name the cuts, because the fact of matter is you're probably not going to cut student loans. You're probably not going to cut the school nutrition program. You say you're going to cut, and you don't do it. And so you've had the tax cuts. You got us in the ditch. And then when the spending cuts come around, nothing happens. So until they start naming what will be cut, this entire budget proposal substitute makes no sense.

I would hope that we would adopt the Democratic budget. I would have hoped that we had had the Congressional Black Caucus budget, but the Democratic budget makes a responsible attempt to reduce the deficit, go into surplus, and make the expenditures on the priorities that we desperately need.

We should reject this substitute and adopt the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard about this average tax cut. I just want to show a chart of what they mean when they talk about ``average.''

This is a $20 billion tax cut that's in the Republican package. It's involving personal exemption phaseout and the elimination of ceilings on itemized deductions. This is $20 billion, which is an average $100 for every man, woman, and child. And here's how you distribute the average for this tax cut: if you make over $1 million, you get $17,500. If you make $200,000 to $1 million, you get about $650. If you make $100,000 to $200,000, you get $11 out of this tax cut. And if you make under $100,000, you get on average zero. This is what they call an ``average'' $100-a-person tax cut.

When they talk about the biggest tax cut and all this kind of stuff, let's be clear. What is repealed or what we allow to expire are the kinds of policies that got us into the ditch to begin with. We need to let them expire, get back on the right track, balance the budget, and address our priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule because it makes in order the Congressional Black Caucus alternative. The Congressional Black Caucus budget offers this Congress and the American people the choice between fiscal and moral responsibility and tax cuts for the wealthy. Under the stewardship of the Congressional Black Caucus alternative, the Federal budget returns to balance, as this chart show, in the fourth year and the fifth year. The President's budget is in red, in deficit, all the way through. It even returns to deficit in the fifth year.

If compared to the President's budget, we save $564 billion better on the bottom line. In fact, we save so much that we save $48 billion in interest compared to the President's budget. At the same time, we provide significant funding for essential priorities, for example, education, health care, veterans, justice programs, all much better funded under the Congressional Black Caucus budget than the President's budget.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard that we do this by canceling the tax cuts that got us in the fiscal mess that we are in today, except for those tax cuts that primarily affect that portion of your income under $200,000. Now, canceling those tax cuts has been called the greatest tax increase or whatever they want to call it. Mr. Speaker, all we are doing is canceling the tax cuts that got us in the ditch. When these tax cuts first passed, we had a projected surplus of $5.5 trillion for a 10-year budget. Those 10 years look like they are going to come in at a $3 trillion deficit.

We haven't created jobs at the same time. We have a choice. We can have fiscal responsibility and address our important needs, or we can fund those tax cuts for the wealthy. The Congressional Black Caucus chooses fiscal responsibility and a morally supportable budget addressing our priorities. And therefore, I support the rule that makes the Congressional Black Caucus budget in order.

Mr. Speaker, it is the unfortunate reality that the House of Representatives has seen its share of unethical behavior on the part of public officials elected to represent and serve their constituents. Moreover, this problem is not one confined to Democrats or Republicans. Rather, it is a problem that we all need to recognize and take steps to address.

For these reasons, and with the interest of the American people in mind, we need a fair and just manner to investigate any allegations of unethical behavior by a Member of the House. With this goal in mind, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) introduced H. Res. 895, and I support his efforts.

H. Res. 895 takes every possible step to ensure equality, fairness, and nonpartisanship in addressing questions of ethics. It establishes a new independent Office of Congressional Ethics within the House of Representatives to be governed by a board that will be comprised of six members jointly appointed by the Speaker of the House and the minority leader.

To further ensure fairness and prevent preferential treatment, current Members of the House of Representatives and lobbyists are not eligible to serve as board members. Moreover, removal of a board member may only occur with the approval of both the Speaker and the House minority leader.

The Office of Congressional Ethics could include former Members of the House, but all of the members of the board would be qualified by virtue of their exceptional public standing. This office has the potential to clean up politics and, in turn, restore the public's faith in politics in the political process.

This has the support of Common Cause, U.S. PIRG, and two very well- respected scholars in government and politics, Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.

I support H. Res. 895 and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this reform.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act. I would like to thank Chairman George Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, Chairwoman McCarthy, and Ranking Member Platts for their work on this bill.

H.R. 2857 reauthorizes the national service programs for the first time in over 10 years and contains many positive changes and updates for these programs. During committee consideration of the bill, I added language to make many of these programs more accessible for court- involved youth and adults, including individuals who have previously been incarcerated. I believe that getting these individuals involved in service could be a positive first step to reintegrating these individuals into their communities and giving them an avenue to begin positively participating in society.

Although I support this bill, I remained concerned about one provision, which requires the recompetition of grants under the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, RSVP. During committee consideration of this bill, Congressman Hare and I submitted an amendment that would have given existing RSVP grantees in good standing priority consideration for future grants. Since that time, we have worked with the committee to improve the provision that is in the bill, including giving existing programs technical assistance and additional time to prepare for recompetition. I appreciate this work towards a more fair system.

However, I believe that existing programs in good standing should be given a stronger priority in the recompetition process, whether that is by only recompeting under-performing programs such as in the Head Start program or by utilizing a prior experience point system such as in the TRIO programs. Through serving their communities for many years and in some cases decades, these existing programs have established strong ties in their communities on which many seniors rely and from which many others benefit. I remain concerned that the language in the base bill will create a recompetition process that will essentially become a grant-writing competition without consideration for current RSVP programs' experience and effectiveness.

Although I remain concerned about the recompetition process for RSVP programs, I intend to support the bill and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today to congratulate the NAACP on its 99th Anniversary. As the Nation's oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP has for 99 years fought to ensure the educational, social, economic and political equality of all persons, so that all may participate and share in this country's great Democracy.

The NAACP was founded by a multi-racial group of activists who answered ``The Call'' to engage in a national conference to discuss the civil rights of African Americans in the summer of 1908. That year, the NAACP embarked on its mission to ensure equal rights for all citizens and to eliminate racial prejudice in the United States.

Since then, the NAACP has worked tirelessly to accomplish its mission by continually looking for ways to improve the democratic process and by seeking the enactment and enforcement of Federal, State, and local laws that secure civil rights. The NAACP furthers its mission by making the public aware of the adverse effects of racial discrimination and by seeking its elimination. The NAACP also seeks to educate the public about their constitutional rights and goes to court to enforce those rights when necessary.

Shortly after its founding in the early 1900s, the NAACP undertook an anti-lynching campaign and launched a public protest when segregation was introduced into the Federal Government. The NAACP was influential in President Harry Truman's decision to issue an Executive Order in 1948 ending discrimination by the Federal Government. In 1954, the NAACP helped bring an end to segregation in public schools in the case of Brown v. Board of Education. In 1964, it worked to raise support for the passage of the Civil Rights Act. In 1979, it helped expand voter participation through voter registration in high schools. And the list goes on.

Today, the NAACP continues to eliminate racial prejudice when it rears its ugly head, and informs the public of its intolerable presence when it does. It continues to act as a watchdog to protect the constitutional and civil rights of all people. And it educates the public about civil rights so that future generations will know tolerance and equality as the norm, rather than the exception.

I am proud to be a Diamond Life Member of the NAACP and to have once served as President of the Newport News, Virginia branch.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the NAACP on 99 years of service to our great country and its people, and I wish them another highly successful 99 years.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to sell or exchange National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration property to/ with the city of Norfolk, Virginia.

Over the last decade, the city of Norfolk has experienced tremendous economic growth. Downtown Norfolk has reemerged as the urban center of the Hampton Roads region through revitalization and new commercial and residential development. For several decades, NOAA has been an important Federal partner in downtown Norfolk's development. NOAA's Atlantic Marine Operations Center and NOAA's Chesapeake Bay office are both located in downtown Norfolk.

The bill that I am introducing today, along with my colleague Congresswoman Thelma Drake, would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to sell or exchange a small piece of underutilized NOAA property located at 538 Front Street in Norfolk, consisting of 3.78 acres, to the city of Norfolk. This land sale would allow Norfolk to continue its tremendous economic growth by developing the land for commercial and residential purposes. At the same time, the bill clearly states that NOAA may only sell or exchange the property if the Secretary of Commerce determines that the conveyance would be in the best interest of the Federal government. The bill does not delineate or support any particular agreement or contract; the details of any future agreement between NOAA and the city of Norfolk would have to be worked out. This legislation would simply permit that process to get started. In addition, any sale or exchange would have to have little to no impact on Federal revenue or the deficit. The bill requires that the property be sold at a value that is not less than the fair market value as determined by the Federal government. Furthermore, it authorizes NOAA to retain any proceeds from the sale or exchange.

Madam Speaker, I hope that this bill will be considered by the full House of Representatives soon. I believe this bipartisan, non- controversial legislation protects both the interests of the Federal government and the citizens of Norfolk. I urge my colleagues to support this measure when it comes before the full House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007. I would like to thank Chairman George Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, Chairman Hinojosa, and Ranking Member Keller for their work on this bill, which goes a long way toward making higher education attainable for all.

The College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 contains several helpful provisions for students. First, the bill increases the authorized maximum Pell Grant award from

$5,800 to $9,000. In addition, the bill further decreases student interest rates. The bill also includes a feasibility study on giving students more flexibility in refinancing their loans by making student loans more like home mortgages, in which borrowers can switch back and forth from variable rates to fixed rates as the market's conditions change.

H.R. 4137 increases support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions.

This bill also helps schools affected by a disaster. An Education Disaster and Emergency Relief Loan Program is created to provide emergency loan funds to schools after a Federal declared major disaster or emergency, including those schools affected by the 2005 Gulf Hurricanes. Additionally, the bill requires the Secretary to create a disaster relief plan for schools and LEAs adversely affected by disasters.

The College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 also addresses several additional critical issues. The bill provides loan forgiveness for areas of national need, including early childhood educators, child welfare workers, school counselors, and mental health professionals. In addition, the bill creates a grant program, to help nonprofit organizations, in collaboration with higher education institutions and their students, that seek to promote cultural diversity in the entertainment media industry. Finally, the bill creates a new competitive grant program to strengthen and develop college-level programs in the rapidly growing field of modeling and simulation.

I am pleased that the bill also includes a study to be performed by GAO on whether any race, ethnicity, or gender biases are present in the design of standardized tests used for admission to institutions of higher learning. This language should enable GAO to acquire data from the testing companies because of the link between the tests and the federal money that the schools receive who use these admissions tests.

H.R. 4137 also seeks to make campuses more safe by creating a National Center for Campus Public Safety to train campus public safety agencies, encourage research to strengthen college safety and security, and serve as a clearinghouse for the dissemination of relevant campus public safety information. The bill also requires the Department of Education to conform hate crime reporting requirements to FBI guidelines to more accurately report incidents of hate crimes on our campuses.

Finally, the bill includes several positive changes to the TRIO programs, which provide assistance to low-income and first generation college-going students. The bill eliminates unreasonable evaluation requirements imposed on Upward Bound programs by the Department of Education without requiring a recompetition. In addition, the bill creates an appeals process for TRIO programs to ensure that the grantmaking process is fair and equitable.

One item not addressed in H.R. 4137 is the provision under current law that prohibits students who are convicted of certain drug offenses from receiving federal student financial aid. This provision unfairly targets poor and minority students, increases long-term costs to society, creates double jeopardy for students who have already paid their debt to society, and lacks evidence of effectiveness. For these reasons and others, I hope that we can address this critical access issue as this bill moves through the legislative process.

For the foregoing reasons, I support the bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, this amendment is a significant step forward in prevention and intervention efforts to reduce juvenile and gang crime. For far too long, the Congress has focused its crime policy on waiting for crimes to occur before anything is done. This has contributed to what the experts at the Children's Defense Fund call the ``cradle to prison pipeline.''

Since 1970, the number of individuals incarcerated in the United States has risen from over 300,000 to over 2 million. Initiatives such as this, along with initiatives such as the Youth Promise Act, will create investments in strategies that deal with the root cause of crime, resulting in greater crime reduction and a cost savings to taxpayers. We must begin making meaningful investments in our Nation's youth, and this amendment is a strong step in that direction.

I thank Representatives Hastings and Sanchez for their leadership and encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.