Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think it's important to put up a chart so we will know who's saying what about fiscal responsibility, because this chart shows what happened in the nineties when, with President Clinton's veto vetoing Republican bills after the Democrats set the budget off in the right direction, we were able to create a surplus that when this administration came in in 2001, we had a projected $5.5 trillion surplus. As a result of Republican initiatives, that surplus looks like it's going to come in, a 10-year surplus, at about a $3 trillion deficit, a swing of $8.5 trillion. And to put that in perspective, we've spent about $500 billion in Iraq; $8.5 trillion deterioration of the budget, $500 billion in Iraq, that is $0.5 trillion; $8.5 trillion deterioration, $0.5 trillion attributable to the war. And the Democratic budget, again, responsibly digs us out of this mess.

The important thing to note is, we talk about 9/11. We were broke. We spent the surplus, other than Social Security and Medicare, before 9/ 11. So you can't blame 9/11 for the fiscal decline that has happened here.

This budget is responsible. It shows how we can dig ourselves out. Unfortunately, we have, first of all, no leadership from the White House. Even the Republican budget pretty much ignores the President's budget. The President's budget had us in a ditch, never coming into surplus. At least the Republican budget has us coming out of the deficit and into surplus in 2012, but it does it in such a way that is not responsible and not predictable.

The Republicans' budget assumes that we're going to whack about $250 billion out of Medicare and Medicaid, about $250 billion cut out of health care. This is at a time when doctors are telling us now that they can't absorb the cuts. We are having situations now when States are not paying dentists enough for dentists to even take Medicaid. $250 billion cut. It's not going to happen. We're not going to go into surplus under the Republican budget.

The main factor that we have to look at is, who's talking? The Democrats dug us out of the ditch; Republicans put us back in the ditch; and the Democrats are digging us out again with a responsible budget. The Republicans have a budget that is so draconian on health care that 40 Republicans even voted against the Republican budget.

And so we have a responsible plan. Let's stick with the responsible plan, dig us out of the mess again, and have fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, PAYGO is a very simple concept. If you are going to increase spending, you pay for it. If you are going to cut taxes, you pay for it. You don't go into the ditch. If you have a tax cut, you have to pay for it either with increases of other taxes or spending cuts to pay for it. If you have spending increases, you have to pay for it with cutting spending somewhere else or increasing taxes to pay for it. It is a very simple concept.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

That is correct.

That is the concept, and that is how we got out of the ditch that we got into. If you build up a surplus, then you have something to spend. That is consistent with PAYGO.

But the point is that we got out of the ditch with fiscal responsibility, and as soon as 2001 came along, you let PAYGO expire, passed tax cuts that we couldn't afford and put us right back into the ditch. The fact is that the only way the Republican budget makes any sense is if you have $250 billion in cuts, mostly in Medicare and Medicaid, at a time when we can't even afford the cuts that are already in effect.

To put that $250 billion in context, there are plans out there, including the All Healthy Children Act, which can cover all children with healthcare for $15 billion a year. You are talking about cutting healthcare $250 billion. Obviously, you are not going to do it and so obviously the budget is not realistic.

But what are your priorities? Tax cuts that we can't afford at a time when we need to cover children? We can't even afford the Medicaid program we have got now. In most States, you can't find a dentist because the reimbursement rates aren't high enough, and here we are cutting Medicare and Medicaid $250 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would adopt the Democratic budget and reject the motion to recommit, because it requires us to assume $250 billion in cuts that we are not going to make. We have a responsible budget. It digs us out of the ditch that the Republicans put us in starting in 2001.

I would hope again we would reject the motion and adopt the Democratic budget as we passed it in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that when you talk about average tax cuts, this is an average $250 a family tax cut, average $250 for a family of four. But you notice who gets it? This is involving personal exemptions and standard deductions.

If you make a $1 million, $17,000; $650 if you make $200,000 to $1 million; $11 if you make $100,000 to $200,000; if you make less than $100,000, you get on average of zero.

This is what you call an average $250 a family tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1294, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act.

I want to thank my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for introducing the bill, and the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman from Alaska for their leadership and cooperation in bringing the bill to the floor.

This year marks the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, Virginia, the first permanent English settlement in North America. Jamestown is the cornerstone of our great republic, and its success relied heavily on the help of the indigenous people of Virginia. Virginia's Native Americans played a critical role in helping the first settlers of Jamestown survive the harsh conditions of the new world.

After the Jamestown colony weathered the first couple of years in the new world, the colony expanded, and the English pushed further inland. The same Native Americans that helped those first settlers were coerced and pushed from their land without compensation. Treaties, many of which precede our own Constitution, were often made in an effort to compensate the Virginia Native Americans. But, unfortunately, as history has shown, those treaties were rarely honored or upheld.

Like many other Native Americans, Virginia Indian tribes were marginalized from society. They were deprived of their land, prevented from getting an education and denied a role in our society. Virginia's Native Americans were denied their very fundamental human rights and the very freedoms and liberties enshrined in our own Constitution.

This bill on the House floor today will finally grant Federal recognition to the Chickahominy Tribe, the Eastern Chickahominy Tribe, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Tribe. The bill will ensure the rightful status of Virginia's tribes in our Nation's history.

Federal recognition will also promote tribal economic development that will allow Virginia's tribes to become self-sufficient. Those same opportunities will allow Virginia's tribes to flourish culturally and economically, and will lead to a brighter future for a whole new generation.

We have waited too long to recognize Virginia's tribes. The time has come for Congress to act. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 117, a resolution commemorating the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, Virginia, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Virginia's, and America's, First Congressional District (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

This is truly an exciting time for the Commonwealth of Virginia and our Nation as we commemorate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in North America and the cornerstone of our Republic. I have been honored to be one of the representatives of the most historic region in America, and all of the members of the Virginia delegation have worked hard to ensure that Federal funds and services have been readily available to prepare for this historic occasion beginning back in 2000 with the establishment of the Federal Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission. And I would like to specifically acknowledge the hard work of Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis and her staff for their tireless efforts on behalf of Jamestown's 400th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, the spotlight of the world is now shining on the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Queen of England visited our State capital in Richmond and the Jamestown settlement just last week to commemorate this historic event.

Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people from all over our Nation and from all over the world will descend on Virginia this year to celebrate our 400th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to visit Jamestown this year and encourage them to support this concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 264) supporting the goals and ideals of ``National Correctional Officers and Employees Week'' and honoring the service of correctional officers and employees.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which 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.

H. Res. 264 is a bipartisan resolution designed to honor correctional officers and employees by acknowledging and supporting the goals and ideals of National Correctional Officers and Employees Week. This was introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth).

The resolution directly honors correctional workers at all levels, local, State and Federal, including psychologists, chaplains, teachers and even kitchen staff.

Correctional officers and employees play a vital role in protecting and promoting public safety. They work in our county jails, our State prisons and our Federal penitentiaries. They have a tough job in a tough environment and at a time that Congress and State legislatures are actually making the job more difficult because we have been eliminating programs for inmates, such as parole, good conduct credits and Pell Grants for college courses, programs that give incentives to prisoners to behave. Now, with the additional reduction in prison inmate jobs on the Federal level, even more pressure will be put on correctional officers to maintain a safe and productive environment for prisoners.

So it is fitting, Mr. Speaker, that we pause at this time to recognize and commend our correctional officers and employees for the very important job that they do for us every day under these very difficult circumstances, and to them we say, ``Thank you.''

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to indicate that I have received a note from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), the lead sponsor of the resolution and chair of the Congressional Correctional Officers Caucus. First, he asked that I share his regrets that he was not able to be with us today to speak on this resolution due to a prior commitment in his home district. He also asked that I convey his strong support for the men and women who work in our prisons and correctional facilities on a daily basis. And he also asked me to personally welcome on his behalf the correctional community to Washington, D.C., for their annual day on Capitol Hill, which is scheduled to occur this coming Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to an original cosponsor of this resolution, the former sheriff in Indiana, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to a strong supporter of programs to give prisoners incentives to better themselves and a strong supporter of correctional officers, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, bias-based crimes are an unfortunate reality in this country. This legislation is necessary because existing law, 18 U.S.C. section 245(b)(2) does not protect individuals from violent acts based on race, color, national origin or religion, unless the defendant intended to interfere with the victims' participation in certain enumerated Federal activities.

Additionally, Federal law does not presently provide for hate crime protection at all for a tax based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also addresses many of the express concerns about the first amendment rights to free speech and association. H.R. 1592 addresses these concerns by providing an evidentiary exclusion, which prohibits the government from introducing evidence of expression or association as substantive evidence at trial, unless it is directly relevant to the elements of the crime.

This provision will ensure that defendants will only be prosecuted and

convicted based on their criminal acts, not on what they say or what they believe, or because of the people with whom they are associated. There are some of us who criticize the bill as an improper exercise of Federal jurisdiction. But based on testimony and the issues of the witnesses at our hearings, this legislation has been carefully drafted to address the Supreme Court's decisions in Lopez and Morrison, which limited Congress' jurisdiction to pass legislation.

Furthermore, H.R. 1592, in response to the gentleman's complaint, Federal prosecutors must confer with State authorities to decide whether Federal jurisdiction is appropriate, and no prosecution can proceed without the express approval of the United States attorney general or his designee. Additionally at trial they must prove a valid Federal interest as a specific element of the crime.

In addition to creating new hate crime offenses and expanding the application of existing ones, this bill also establishes an important grant program to provide financial assistance to States, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to provide much-needed assistance in investigating high-profile crimes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has broad support. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bells for Peace, Inc., a non-profit, charitable organization founded within my district in Richmond, Virginia. Bells for Peace is dedicated to enriching the history of Virginia Union University by restoring the University's prominent cornerstone, the Belgian Friendship Building and its Vann Memorial Tower.

Bells for Peace was founded on December 8, 2004 in Richmond, Virginia by Mrs. Diane Watkins, its current President. The organization was created in memory of the late Dr. John Malcus Ellison, Sr., the first African American President of Virginia Union University, and his wife, Mrs. Elizabeth Balfour Ellison. Dr. Ellison was dedicated to bringing peace and unity to the cultural divide within

this country, and he believed a multi-cultural education could be used to achieve this. Bells for Peace is an effort to carry on Dr. Ellison's life's work.

As part of this effort, Bells for Peace hopes to install a 35 bell carillon in the University's empty Vann Memorial Tower, which sits atop its Belgian Friendship Building. In 1939, the Belgian Government presented the Friendship Building and Tower to Virginia Union in a gesture of international goodwill. The Friendship Building had been the centerpiece of the Belgian Pavilion at the 1939 World's Fair in New York. However, prior to presenting the structure to Virginia Union, the Belgians removed the bell carillon and awarded it to President Herbert Hoover. President Hoover gave the carillon to his alma mater, Stanford University, where the bells now ring at the Hoover Institution of War and Peace.

The Belgian Government selected Virginia Union for the gift from 27 colleges that desired the Friendship Building and Tower. Virginia Union was selected because of its location, history, and mission. Where better to place a symbol of peace, hope, and unity than in Richmond, Virginia, the former capital of the Confederate states that nearly burned to the ground when the Southern troops fled the city. Where better than on a campus that was first located in a rented structure known as Lumpkin's Jail, a former slave holding pen. And where better than at a University that was born of several small colleges dedicated to the dignified education of African Americans, while struggling against post-Civil War prejudice. In 1899, these colleges joined together in a ``union'' that opened its doors as Virginia Union. The Belgian Government recognized this significant history and felt that its ``Friendship Building'' would be best served on the shores of the James River in Richmond.

Following the Belgian Government's decision to give the structure to Virginia Union, Dr. John Malcus Ellison single-handedly raised $500,000 in donations to transport and re-construct the Friendship Building on the Richmond campus. Shortly thereafter, the Friendship Building was used by the U.S. Armed Forces as the Eastern Virginia induction site for soldiers going off to fight in WWII. It was within this building that thousands of African American soldiers were processed into the military. It was also through this building that the late Vice Admiral Samuel L. Gravely frequently passed. Vice Admiral Gravely, a Virginia Union graduate, was the first African American to achieve the rank of Admiral and command a Naval fleet.

Because of its remarkable history, the Belgian Friendship Building has been designated a United States National Treasure and Virginia Historical Landmark, but its majestic tower, which can be seen from many vantage points in the Richmond community, remains empty and silent. Bells for Peace, in its quest to obtain a new carillon for the Vann Memorial Tower, hopes to change that. Bells for Peace is also working to restore the aged and worn Friendship Building, so that it may become a top-quality facility for students pursuing a multi- cultural education.

Through its restoration efforts, the organization has brought much deserved attention to this historical landmark and highly respected Virginia Union University. Bells for Peace calls on people to recognize the importance of an international ``Friendship'' building and symbol of peace, hope, and unity erected at a historically black college; a college known for its multi-cultural studies and graduates who have made contributions to communities around the world. Bells for Peace calls on people to remember the legacy of Dr. John Malcus Ellison, who not only helped bring the Friendship Building to Virginia Union, but also helped established the University's reputation for excellence in education.

Madam Speaker, today it is my privilege to recognize Bells for Peace and commend it for its admirable mission. I also wish the organization great success in restoring the Belgian Friendship Building and filling the belfry tower with a carillon of bells that can be enjoyed on the Virginia Union campus and in the Richmond community, and symbolically heard in communities around the world.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th birthday of Oliver White Hill, who dedicated his life and legal talents to making the City of Richmond, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and this entire country a place of promise and opportunity for all. Mr. Hill used his legal talents to bravely confront and help eradicate decades of racial inequality and injustice.

Oliver White Hill was born Oliver White in Richmond, Virginia. After his mother remarried, the Hill family moved to Washington, DC, where Oliver White Hill graduated from the legendary Dunbar High School. Mr. Hill went on to earn his undergraduate degree from Howard University, and then attended Howard University's Law School, where, as destiny would have it, he was a classmate, rival in academic achievement, and close friend of Thurgood Marshall. Upon graduating in 1933, second in his class only to the future Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Hill spent his early years as a civil rights attorney in Richmond, Virginia.

It was there that Mr. Hill grudgingly worked within the confines of the separate-but-equal framework of Plessy v. Ferguson, but he fought hard for better pay, full access to transportation, and better educational facilities for African American teachers and students. In fact, in 1940, working with civil rights legal stalwarts Thurgood Marshall, William H. Hastie, and Leon A. Ranson, Mr. Hill won his first of many landmark cases in Alston v. School Board of Norfolk, Va. In Alston, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered equal pay for black and white teachers within Norfolk's school system. Despite the decision, Mr. Hill was not completely satisfied as race barriers remained, and, as he once said, ``I went to law school so I could go out and fight segregation.''

That fight would have to wait. Oliver White Hill joined the Army in 1943 and admirably served his country in the European Theatre in World War II. After a distinguished military career, Mr. Hill immediately began to fight for democracy on a different front--back in the courts against racial discrimination.

Soon after his return, Oliver White Hill won the right for equal transportation for Black school children in the Virginia Supreme Court. But once again, he was not satisfied with this ``separate-but-equal'' victory. The course of history was about to change, however, as Mr. Hill partnered with another civil rights legal legend, Spottswood Robinson III, in 1948.

Together, Mr. Hill and Mr. Robinson brought dozens of civil rights lawsuits against school districts throughout the State of Virginia, with as many as seventy-five (75) cases pending at one time. By some estimates, Mr. Hill and Mr. Robinson brought more lawsuits than the total filed in all the other Southern States during this era.

Despite the burning of a cross in his front yard and despite almost daily threatening telephone calls to his home, Mr. Hill persevered. In 1951, undeterred and emboldened, Oliver White Hill and Spottswood Robinson decided to move beyond ``separate-but-equal'' and attack segregation head-on.

That year, Mr. Hill and Mr. Robinson shouldered the cause of the African American students at the all-black R.R. Morton High School in Farmville, VA, who had walked out of their leaking, poorly heated classroom building. The resulting desegregation lawsuit, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, was one of several cases decided collectively as Brown v. Board of Education by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954.

While Oliver White Hill is best known as the fierce, tireless civil rights litigator who helped bring to a close America's segregation-era, his involvement in the community went beyond the courtroom. In 1949, he became the first African American elected to the Richmond City Council since Reconstruction. In the early 1960s, Mr. Hill served as Federal Housing Commissioner in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In addition to his local and Federal government posts, Mr. Hill served as an officer or member on the boards of many organizations, including the National Legal Committee of the NAACP, the National Bar Association, the Southern Conference for Human Welfare, the Virginia State Bar Bench/Bar Relations Committee, and the Old Dominion Bar Association, which he co-founded.

For his decades of dedication to the law and accomplishments in the field of civil rights, Oliver White Hill has earned many accolades, including the ``Lawyer of the Year Award'' from the National Bar Association in 1959, the ``Simple Justice Award'' from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in 1986, and the ``Justice Thurgood Marshall Award'' from the American Bar Association in 1993. In 1999, President Clinton awarded Mr. Hill the highest honor the nation can bestow, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. A year later Mr. Hill received the American Bar Association Medal, the National Bar Association ``Hero of Law Award,'' and the ``Harvard Medal of Freedom'' for his role in the landmark Brown decision. Most recently, in 2005, Mr. Hill was awarded the NAACP's highest honor, the Springarn Medal.

In 2000, several legal admirers founded the Oliver White Hill Foundation. The Foundation encourages young lawyers to become advocates in the field of individual rights and liberties and to carry on Mr. Hill's civil rights work. Lawyers inspired by the Foundation work with the hope that discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, sexual preference, and religion will ultimately be abolished, just as Mr. Hill has spent his life hoping for and working towards.

Madam, Speaker, I offer my congratulations to Oliver White Hill and pay tribute to him for being one of history's most important civil rights legal pioneers.

Mr. Chairman, we have just heard the suggestion that some programs might be better if only the program sponsors could discriminate in employment. We hadn't heard those arguments for over 40 years before this administration came in.

Let's talk about when you say ``protect civil liberties,'' what liberties you are protecting? If you are protecting somebody's right to tell somebody they can't get a job because of their religion, if you can discriminate against someone because of their religion, racial discrimination laws essentially cannot be enforced. So who are you protecting? You are protecting the one trying to discriminate; the victim of discrimination loses all protection.

The children of families of unpopular religions will ask their parents why they couldn't get a job in the Head Start program, and they will have to be told they are not hiring people of our religion. Just what kind of Head Start is that?

Proponents are saying we lose opportunities. We have plenty of opportunities in Head Start. All we have to do is fund it more, and there will be plenty of opportunities for Head Start programs.

There has also been a suggestion you may have to take icons off the wall. If icons have to be taken down, it is because of a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. Let me tell you, passing a motion to recommit will not solve a violation of the establishment clause.

Forty years ago race and religious discrimination was found to be so reprehensible that we made it illegal even with your private funds. Now we have a plea to protect the people trying to discriminate and not the victims of discrimination. We need to leave the law the way it has been for the last 40 years. We can keep the antidiscrimination laws and those programs. Any program that can get funded with this faith-based initiative amendment could be funded anyway if you just comply with the antidiscrimination laws that have been in effect for the last 40 years.

We ought not to have to tell our children why certain parents can't get a job in a program because we are failing to protect the civil rights of the victim of discrimination because all of a sudden we are interested in the civil rights of the person trying to discriminate.

Mr. Chairman, as we discuss this faith-based amendment, I think we need to seriously consider the long-term societal implications of that amendment, allowing discrimination in the Head Start program.

Our Nation just went through quite a conversation when Don Imus made his remarks, and I would hope that that was just talking. We are actually going to do something in considering whether or not a program can deny an employment opportunity solely because of religion, and if you happen to go to an all-black or all-white church, the decision made on religion will deny you based on race as well.

We should have this conversation here on the floor, considering what we are doing long-term, similar to the conversation we had when Don Imus embarrassed himself. We should not embarrass ourselves here on the floor of the House of Representatives. We need to maintain the civil rights protections for prospective employees that we have had for the last 40 years.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, Don Imus provoked a national discussion about race, but that was just talk. If we pass this motion, we will take action and turn the clock back before 1965.

This amendment doesn't allow faith-based programs to get funded. The Shuler amendment that we passed reminds us that faith-based organizations can and do sponsor Head Start programs.

The fact is that any program that can be funded under this amendment could be funded anyway if they would agree not to discriminate in employment. It has nothing to do with symbols. It is absurd to suggest that this has anything to do with symbols. Whatever problem there is with symbols is a constitutional problem that cannot be solved with a motion to recommit.

This is all about discrimination. And if you can discriminate based on religion, it has racial implications. So since the 1960s, for 40 years, when you talk about civil liberties, you are talking about the victims of discrimination. We decided 40 years ago that it was so reprehensible to discriminate in employment that we made it illegal, even with your own private money. And today, as we talk about discrimination, we ought to think about the victims, not the right of the person to discriminate against the victim.

The present law allows the church to use its own church money, as the gentleman from Missouri said, to hire whom they want. But with Federal money, just with the Federal money, you have not been able to discriminate. So for 40 years, all children in Head Start programs have learned that their parents are eligible to be hired by the Head Start program regardless of the race or religion of the program. They have known that for over 40 years. This amendment will determine what the next generation of Head Start students will learn.

We need to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 289) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to raising awareness and encouraging prevention of sexual assault in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

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

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 289 recognizes April as National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month. The purpose of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month is to increase the public's awareness and understanding about sexual violence in our society in order to encourage and support prevention of sexual assault.

The United States has the highest rate of any country publishing such statistics. A person is sexually assaulted in the United States every 2\1/2\ minutes. The National Institute of Justice estimates that over 300,000 women and 90,000 men are forcibly raped each

year in the United States; but according to the American Medical Association, these numbers are lower than national incidents of rape or attempted rape.

Approximately 17.7 million American women and 2.8 American men have been victims of rape or attempted rape at some point during their lives, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics. That equates to one in every six women and one in every 33 men. The National Center for Victims of Crime indicate that among women who have been raped, 39 percent have been raped more than once. Most victims are children or young adults. Some 44 percent of sexual assault victims are under the age of 18; 80 percent are under the age of 30.

There are no significant differences in the rate of sexual assault among racial and ethnic groups, as sexual assault affects all populations roughly equally, though its impact is felt disproportionately by those least able to protect themselves. For example, persons with disabilities are estimated to be one and a half to five times more at risk of sexual assault than the general population. Between one-third and two-thirds of known sexual assault victims are age 15 or younger, according to a 2000 study by Population Reports, and women age 16 to 25 are three times more likely to be raped than those of higher age groups, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics. Also, the studies indicate that those in extreme poverty are twice as likely to be victimized as other women.

Most sexual assaults are not committed by strangers. Studies show that 70 percent of victims know their attackers, and this contributes to the underreporting of sexual assault. At the same time, studies show that 90 percent of those who knew their attackers did not report the crime. The study also found that most sexual assaults occur in the victim's home or that of a friend, relative, or acquaintance.

The consequences of sexual assault for victims are enormous and go well beyond physical effects. One-third of victims suffer from post- traumatic stress disorder, according to the National Victims Center; one-third seriously consider suicide; 13 percent actually attempt suicide.

The roots of sexual assault violence are cultural. A 1991 study by the Jacqueline White and John Humphrey study found that 56 percent of high school girls and 76 percent of high school boys thought that forcible sex was acceptable under some circumstances. Some 51 percent of boys and 41 percent of girls thought that certain circumstances included when a boy ``spent a lot of money on the girl.'' Thirty-one percent of boys and 32 percent of girls thought that forced sex was acceptable when women had had past sexual experiences. Eighty-seven percent of boys and 79 percent of girls thought it was acceptable when a man and woman were married. Sixty-five percent of boys, 47 percent of girls thought it acceptable if a boy and a girl had been dating for more than 6 months.

So, Madam Speaker, it is easy to see where there is need to focus much of our awareness and prevention efforts.

Sexual assault is a threat to the public health and public safety. It demands a coordinated response in the form of awareness, prevention, aggressive prosecution and service provision. The National Sexual Violence Resource Center, a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape, estimates that there are 1,400 community crisis centers providing services to victims of sexual assault across the country. Such efforts have made a difference. Over the past decade, we have reduced the rate of rapes and attempted rapes by half. Yet at half, our highest level, we are still the highest rate of sexual assault in the world. So much more needs to be done to further address the scourge in our society.

So, Madam Speaker, as we observe National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, it is our hope that a month of intensified awareness efforts combined with a broad spectrum of sexual violence prevention work throughout the year will bring us closer to ending and eradicating sexual assault in our society. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the resolution, my distinguished colleague from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to thank my colleague from Virginia for introducing the resolution and to urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 119) supporting the mission and goals of National Crime Victims' Rights Week in order to increase public awareness of the rights, needs, and concerns of victims and survivors of crime in the United States during such week and throughout the year.

Madam 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.

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

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 119 recognizes this week as National Crime Victims' Rights Week in order to increase public awareness of the rights, needs, and concerns of victims and survivors of crime in the United States during this week and throughout the year. Obviously, we are very attuned to victims this week as we mourn the tragic deaths and injuries of the Virginia Tech shootings last week, though this resolution was scheduled for victims generally, without any reference to specific victims.

In 2003, the last year for which we have compiled figures, there were 24.2 million criminal victimizations of people over the age of 12 in the United States. Of those, 5.4 million were violent victimizations and 18.6 were property victimizations. Unfortunately, there were many more crimes than those figures suggest. It is estimated that only 48 percent of violent crimes and only 38 percent of property crimes are reported to police in each year.

We talked about the large group of victims in the resolution preceding this one involving sexual assault victims. Clearly we want to be aware of the need of victims of all crimes and do whatever we can, not only to address victimizations that occur but also to prevent the crimes occurring in the first place. Supporting the mission and goals of the National Crime Victims' Rights Week will increase the public awareness of the rights, needs, and concerns of victims and survivors of crime, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), the author of this resolution.

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

I thank the gentleman from California for introducing this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I wish to offer my sincerest condolences to the family of Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald. My thoughts and prayers go out to them in their time of mourning.

Congresswoman Millender-McDonald amassed many firsts and accomplishments during her life as a public servant by breaking racial and gender barriers. She was the first African-American woman to serve as Ranking Member and Chairman of the powerful House Committee on Administration. She was also the first woman to serve on the Carson City Council; the first to chair two powerful California State Assembly committees--the Insurance Committee; and the Revenue & Taxation Committee in her first term as a state legislator. She was also the first African-American Democratic Chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues and in that capacity she led the women on two groundbreaking meetings: One with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to talk about the plight of women globally and another with the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange to develop strategies for increasing women's investments and net worth.

In recognition of women who served in our military, Congresswoman Millender-McDonald initiated the first annual Memorial Day Tribute to Women in the Military at the Women's Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery and she led the fight to secure $15 million for the maintenance of the memorial. Most recently secured $50 million for counseling services for our returning men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During her 6 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, her ability to reach across the aisle and effectively move bipartisan legislation was evident during her work on a range of issues, including ensuring equal rights for women and minorities, improving our education system, combating poverty, protecting voting rights, and stopping the genocide in Darfur.

Congresswoman Millender-McDonald devoted her life to her family and to service on behalf of her constituents in the 37th District of California and to the Nation. Congresswoman Juanita Millender McDonald was truly a phenomenal woman. She is a friend and colleague who will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 306) offering heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families regarding the horrific violence at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, and to the students, faculty, administration and staff and their families who have been deeply affected by the tragic events that occurred there.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to H. Res. 306 into the Record.

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

(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to offer my deepest sympathies to the victims and their families who suffered the horrific shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech on Monday morning. My thoughts and prayers go out to them, the students, faculty and staff of the university.

Virginia Tech is one of the largest schools in Virginia, providing higher education to more than 28,000 students. The effects of this tragedy can be felt all across the Commonwealth of Virginia, in the Halls of Congress and in every corner of this Nation. I represent hundreds of Virginia Tech families, perhaps thousands of alumni, and members of my staff have friends and family who currently attend Virginia Tech.

Schools are meant to be sanctuaries of learning and, most importantly, sanctuaries of safety. Parents who send their children off to college with all the potential that a college education represents should be content that their children will be safe.

As we mourn with the Virginia Tech community, this Congress must explore every possible avenue towards determining what can be done to prevent this kind of tragedy in the future, whether in high schools or college campuses or on business premises or other places where people may congregate. Yet we must be realistic. From what we are hearing regarding this tragic incident, it is not clear that any law would have been effective in deterring the kind of senseless acts that occurred. Anyone willing to indiscriminately shoot down innocent people and then kill themselves afterwards would not likely be deterred by any law. Nonetheless, we must work with our colleges and universities in developing ways to anticipate, identify and prevent any such threats that we can. Some evidence is emerging that indicates that there may have been signs of mental disturbances in the alleged shooter, and this may suggest information which could lead to things to look at to avoid these tragedies in the future.

But, Mr. Speaker, today we stand together to wish a speedy recovery for the injured and to mourn with the families of the victims who died in this horrific tragedy. Virginia Tech is and will remain one of the Commonwealth of Virginia's finest institutions of higher learning, and its proud traditions will carry on beyond this darkest hour. This event will be with the students, faculty and staff of Virginia Tech for the rest of their lives, but we must not let tragedies like this stop people from living their dreams. I hope that some day all members of the Virginia Tech community will be able to celebrate life and learning on the campus again.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce into the Record the powerful statement presented at the service yesterday at Virginia Tech by Nikki Giovanni. That service was attended by nine of the eleven members of the Virginia delegation to Congress and both of our U.S. Senators. So I will insert that statement into the Record.

We are Virginia Tech.

We are sad today, and we will be sad for quite a while. We

are not moving on, we are embracing our mourning.

We are Virginia Tech.

We are strong enough to stand tall tearlessly, we are brave

enough to bend to cry, and we are sad enough to know that we

must laugh again.

We are Virginia Tech.

We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did nothing

to deserve it, but neither does a child in Africa dying of

AIDS, neither do the invisible children walking the night

away to avoid being captured by the rogue army, neither does

the baby elephant watching his community being devastated for

ivory, neither does the Mexican child looking for fresh

water, neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the

middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built

with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the

land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy.

We are Virginia Tech.

The Hokie Nation embraces our own and reaches out with open

heart and hands to those who offer their hearts and minds. We

are strong, and brave, and innocent, and unafraid. We are

better than we think and not quite what we want to be. We are

alive to the imaginations and the possibilities. We will

continue to invent the future through our blood and tears and

through all our sadness.

We are the Hokies.

We will prevail.

We will prevail.

We will prevail.

We are Virginia Tech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the representative of the Ninth Congressional District, the home of Virginia Tech.

(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader, 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would just like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey who points out that this is a national incident with students from all over the country. And I would like to thank him for recognizing me as one of the sponsors of the resolution. The Virginia delegation came together to present this resolution under the leadership of Mr. Boucher, so we appreciate his leadership today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my colleague from the Eighth Congressional District of Virginia (Mr. Moran) 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we would urge passage of the resolution. I want to thank my delegates from Virginia. The Virginia delegation came together on this. We were together yesterday, and we appreciate the support from across the country. We urge passage of the resolution.

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

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

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Michigan for her leadership in the Congressional Black Caucus.

We first need to start off with the Congressional Black Caucus of where we are. We were in a ditch in 1993 and Democratic policies dug us out of the ditch, and Republican policies put us right back into the ditch. This is where we are, and this is what we are trying to dig ourselves out of.

Now, we have gotten in this ditch. We just need to respond a little bit. We heard that we created all these jobs. Go back, this administration, count them up, add them, subtract them, add them up, tied for worst job performance since Herbert Hoover. This is what they are bragging about.

They talk about economic growth. The Dow Jones Industrial Average for the last 4-year increments, this administration's 6 years has not done what anybody since 1980 has been able to do in 4 years.

They talk about increased revenues: you cut taxes, you increase revenues. Since 1960, only 2 years did we not set a brand-new revenue record, and then we set a new record the following year until we get to this policy. We have gone 6 consecutive years without new record revenues, three consecutive years in decline. That has never happened since they started keeping records in 1934.

What we do is we repeal part of what got us in the mess. This is one of the tax cuts we repeal, and you want to look and see, we call it tax cuts for the wealthy. They get mad, but this is who gets $20 billion in tax cuts that we repeal: over $1 million, $200,000 to $1 million, $100,000 to $200,000, under that zero. This is what you get. This is one of those that we repeal. We are able, after we repeal that, we use part of it for fiscal responsibility.

The Congressional Black Caucus deficit is better than the President's deficit every year. We balance and go into surplus in the fifth year. In the fifth year, we save $14 billion in interest alone compared to the President.

Now, we use the rest of that money to address our priorities: health care that we hear about, education, veterans, justice, making our communities safer, diplomacy.

Madam Chairman, just to close, let's see what we would have to do to go from the Congressional Black Caucus' responsible budget to the President's budget. We would have to cut $150 billion out of education. We would have to cut $100 billion out of child care, eliminating the promised health care for all children, putting 9 million children out in the street without any health care. We would have to whack $42 million out of the veterans' budget and many other priorities that we are going to describe in a few minutes.

Then we would have to borrow $339 billion, mostly from foreign countries, in order to fund tax cuts that primarily benefit that portion of a family's income over $200,000, that portion of the income under $200,000 virtually unaffected. To fund the tax cuts that put us in the mess that we are in, we would have to cut education, health care, veterans, other things, and then borrow $339 billion from foreign countries. That is a bad choice.

Fiscally responsible and address our priorities, that is the Congressional Black Caucus budget. We are proud of it and would hope that you would support it.

Madam Chairman, we need to review, again, where we are, because we have heard lectures about fiscal responsibility, and this chart shows where we are in fiscal responsibility, way down in the ditch.

In fact, in 2001, we were on a trajectory to pay off the entire national debt by 2013.

The gentleman from Wisconsin had a chart that showed that by 2040 we would almost have enough money to pay interest on the national debt and a little bit of Social Security, and that was it. Well, the main change in that was interest on the national debt. There would be zero interest on the national debt if we hadn't gotten into this mess.

In fact, at this point, the gentleman talked about what he called entitlement reform. For those that aren't aware what entitlement reform means, that means cutting Social Security.

Well, in 2001, we had a 10-year surplus of $5.5 trillion. We needed $4 trillion at that point to make sure that we had enough money to pay Social Security for the next 75 years without cutting benefits. So we had entitlement reform covered.

The gentleman mentioned jobs that have been created: remind him, worst job performance since Herbert Hoover. The gentleman mentioned economic development: worst Dow performance in a quarter of a century. The gentleman mentioned all these revenues we have gotten: worst revenue performance in the history of recordkeeping back to 1934.

We repeal some of the policies, some of the policies that got us in the mess to begin with. This is one of the tax cuts that got us in the problem, and you can see who gets the benefits. But not only do we eliminate some of the tax cuts that put us in the mess, we are fiscally responsible. We use that to improve the deficit. Our deficit has improved, over the Democratic budget, $100 billion, over the President's budget, $300 billion.

And, finally, we saved so much that we saved interest on the national debt, $14 billion in the last year of the budget. And we are able to fund children's health care, enough money in our budget to fund health care for all children in America, enough in our budget to fund $158 billion more on education than the President's budget.

$158 billion. If you have a city, 300,000, $158 billion is enough for $158 million in additional funding for education over 5 years. Imagine what your city could do with $158 million.

We have enough for veterans, $42 billion more than the President's budget. We make sure that our cities and communities are secure with investments in gang prevention, juvenile justice, COPS and other programs in the justice area. We help our communities with community development grants, billions of dollars. Diplomacy.

That is a compassionate budget. It is compassionate, but it is also fiscally responsible.

Madam Chairman, we have a budget that gets us out of the mess that we got into. It compassionately invests in our priorities. It is a proud budget.

On behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, I ask for your support for the Congressional Black Caucus budget. I thank the gentlelady from Michigan for her leadership on this budget and particularly her leadership in the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen on the other side are right, we have charts. Because you can see what is going on with a chart.

We have been lectured by those who have created these red lines. The Democratic plan is the blue line, and this is what has happened in the last 6 years: the red line.

We are being lectured by people who have put us in the ditch. In fact, the Republican policies turned a $5.5 trillion surplus into approximately a $3 trillion deficit, deterioration of the budget of about $8.5 trillion.

Now, the $500 billion we have spent on the war is about 0.5; $8.5 trillion deterioration, 0.5 on the war.

Now, they say we have stimulated the economy. This is the change in the Dow Jones Industrial Average: Reagan's first term; Reagan's second term; Bush I's term; Clinton; Clinton, 4 years. In 6 years, the Dow has not increased as much as it had in each of the previous 4 years back through the Reagan administration. So there has been no economic growth.

They brag about job growth. Add them up: Tied for last place since Herbert Hoover.

Now, they keep talking about this 2003 tax cut. You ought to talk about the 2001 tax cut, add up all the jobs through the tax policy: worst since Herbert Hoover.

We can do better than that. We don't want to be lectured by those who put us in the ditch. We need to make sure that we have good economic growth, good tax policy, balance the budget, and go forward.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We have been lectured. And sometimes you just have to be reminded about what's been happening to the deficit. We have been lectured by the people who created this chart. You don't create charts like this by accident. Those that created this chart are the ones that are lecturing us on what to do. Just look at the chart.

Now, one way to improve this mess is to improve the economy. Some economic policies help the economy, some don't. We know that creating jobs is extremely important.

If you look all the way back to Herbert Hoover, the job growth under this administration is tied for last since Herbert Hoover. We know that the job growth during this administration in fact isn't even as good after two major budget-busting tax cuts, isn't even as large as the Congressional Budget Office suggested it would be if we had done nothing. They had a projected job growth if we do nothing. They cut the taxes, and we actually didn't even do as well as that. So, the worst job performance since Herbert Hoover.

And what has it done to the stock market? Every 4 years, since the first Reagan administration, the first 4 years of Reagan, the second 4 years, the first 4 years of the first Bush administration, Clinton, the aggregate 4 years change in the Dow, worst since before 1980. That is what is the result of the economic policy.

Now, we know that we can grow the economy if we reduce the deficit, reduce the vulnerability to foreign countries. Three-fourths of our net debt has been financed by foreign investments, China, Japan, Saudi Arabia being three of the largest. You can't negotiate trade deals if you are borrowing money from somebody. You can't negotiate oil prices if you are borrowing money.

We can also grow the economy with investments in education, job training, and science. The Democratic budget does it. You can help with health care, with help in productivity. You can invest in agricultural, rural communities, and transportation. Our budget does that. And we can grow the economy with fiscal responsibility, and the Democratic budget will help dig us out of the ditch that was formed by the Republican policy starting in 2001.

There will be a number of budgets introduced. I will be introducing the Congressional Black Caucus budget that I frankly think does even a better job and makes tougher decisions. But this budget will dig us out of the ditch because it will make those important investments in the economy.